WAR! What is it good for?

[Kinetic]

I am more afraid of the DPRK and their nukes than I am of Al Qaeda who can only use aircraft as WMD's for the moment. What was the original plan? 6 more planes at least? It still pales in comparison to one nuke strike on the West Coast of the US. It appears they have the missiles with the range, the miniaturized warheads, in short all they need is one very good provocation and it's on.

Granted there would be a nice new extension of Korea Bay in the Yellow Sea after we lobbed a couple of nukes back but we would still be rebuilding LA, SF, Portland, or Seattle after their first strike. Of course if Pyongyang was lost not many in the world would shed a tear, but I fear the DPRK more than the Chinese with their CSS-3's pointing at America right now. China can be reasonable. You don't hear of the DPRK and reasonable being used in the same sentence.

And so much for the vaunted missile defense system. If they launched, they couldn't get the laser equipped 747 up in time to take a shot at it and the AF is so slow it would take 30 minutes in an extreme push just to get a test interceptor fired from Vandenberg. In other words if the DPRK launched one, we're screwed.

[PJ]

I am more afraid of the DPRK...It appears they have the missiles with the range, the miniaturized warheads, in short all they need is one very good provocation and it's on.

I've not read that N. Korea has, as yet, built a missile with sufficient range and to hit anybody as far away as the west coast. But I don't read all that's available on the topic.

...we would still be rebuilding LA, SF, Portland, or Seattle after their first strike...

Not necessarily--they might have too much radioactive fallout for it to be economically-viable, so they'll be fenced-off and left as (radioactive) wildlife reserves.

[Kinetic]

Not necessarily--they might have too much radioactive fallout for it to be economically-viable, so they'll be fenced-off and left as (radioactive) wildlife reserves.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are viable cities, and if a major US city with a natural harbor like Seattle or SF was hit, it would be rebuilt.

[PJ]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are viable cities, and if a major US city with a natural harbor like Seattle or SF was hit, it would be rebuilt.

Uh-huh. And would YOU choose to live there? If not, would you expect other people to do so?

[Kinetic]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are viable cities, and if a major US city with a natural harbor like Seattle or SF was hit, it would be rebuilt.

Uh-huh. And would YOU choose to live there? If not, would you expect other people to do so?

Yeah, I would live there. Now some of the links below might be propaganda or spin control by authorities to reassure the public but I'll throw the links up anyway. The first two give some background info but the last link and Question 12 of the FAQ covers why I said yeah, I'd live there if I was in Japan.

http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q340.html
http://www.nature.com/nsu/030728/030728-8.html

And Question 12 of this FAQ covers it pretty well:
http://www.rerf.or.jp/top/introe.htm
Click on the FAQ button and go to Question 12. These are short enough I didn't use Tiny URL, sorry.

The second article covers some interesting tests that validated the A-bomb radiation estimates. It's good reading because if the original numbers would have been wrong, the impact would have been incredible for modem day society post WW2 in regards to Nuclear interests.

Sheesh, I get myself into some strange discussions around here.

[Chimp]

Nothing much to do with war but on the subject of the discovery of electricity and a few other useful things from blighty check below - Lurker, I didn't bring up the empire, testes did - I don't give two fucks about it I was merely using it in response + it is YOU that said the 'British Empire' invented this or that, I was just saying the Brits invented a lot of stuff - also 'Meander' read the other threads, it was Patience (an american I believe) who initially described the US public as lazy, apathetic and uninformed - I just agreed.

Disc Brakes - Frederick William Lanchester
Tin Can - Peter Durand
Electricity - Stephen Gray discovers conductivity of electricity 1729 - more on this below, see the later works of J.J Thompson
Plant Classification - John Ray
Ventilator / first measurement of blood pressure - Stephen Hales
Corkscrews - H.S. Heeley
Discovery of Evolution - Darwin 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.' Published in 1859
Pulse Rate - Sir John Floyer introduced counting of pulse beats
Crossword Puzzles - Arthur Wynne
Depth Charges Diving Equipment/Scuba Gear - John Smeaton, William James, Henry Fleuss
Electric Motor - Michael Faraday
Definition of gravity and its effect on tidal action, measurement of the lunar orbit, discovery of the spectrum, the differential calculus and binomial theorem and the Invention of the first reflecting telescope - Issac Newton
Gas Mask -John Tyndall
Computer -The first operational electro-mechanical computer was "Colossus," a code-cracking behemoth invented by the British mathematician Alan Turing in 1943 to help break secret Nazi codes.
Jet Engines - Sir Frank Whittle
Electromagnet - - William Sturgeon
Locomotive - Richard Trevithick
Penicillin - Alexander Fleming
Radar Locating of Aircraft - Sir Robert Alexander Watson-Watt
Ultrasound Ian Donald
Periscope - Sir Howard Grubb
Submarine - William Bourne
Seismometer - James Forbes
Television - John Logie Baird
Vacuum Cleaner - Hubert Cecil Booth
World Wide Web - Tim Berners-Lee -Although the Internet developed from a secret Pentagon project for a communications network that,would remain intact even if several of its strands were broken. The Net only gained a wide civilian use after a British computer wizard, Tim Berners-Lee, in 1989 thought up an easy-to-use method of links and addresses for sending data, unhampered by central authority and proprietary software.
Polyester - John Rex Whinfield and James Tennant Dickson
Lightbulbs - Humphry Davy
DNA - On February 28 1953, the British scientist Francis Crick announced to patrons of the Eagle pub in Cambridge: "We have discovered the secret of life." Crick had identified deoxyribose nucleic acid (DNA), the double-helix molecule in the cell nucleus that determines heredity.

Robert Hooke: invented the universal joint, the iris diaphragm, early prototype of the respirator; the anchor escapement and the balance spring, which made more accurate clocks possible; worked out the correct theory of combustion; invented or improved meteorological instruments such as the barometer, anemometer, and hygrometer; discovered plant cells, -- bacteria and protozoa. In fact, it was Hooke who coined the term "cells"

Ian Wilmut: 'Dolly' the first cloned animal Feb 23, 23.02.97 taking medical technology a step closer towards mass-producing herds of animals that can be farmed for human milk, blood and organs

Joseph John Thomson, Discoverer of the electron:

Thomson's early interest in atomic structure was reflected in his Treatise on the Motion of Vortex Rings which won him the Adams Prize in 1884. In 1892 he had his Notes on Recent Researches in Electricity and Magnetism published. In 1895 he produced 'Elements of the Mathematical Theory of Electricity and Magnetism', the 5th edition of which appeared in 1921.

In 1896, Thomson visited America to give a course of four lectures, which summarised his current researches, at Princeton. These lectures were published as Discharge of Electricity through Gases (1897). On his return from he achieved the most brilliant work of his life - an original study of cathode rays culminating in the discovery of the electron, which was announced during the course of his evening lecture to the Royal Institution on Friday, April 30, 1897. He also discovered a method for separating different kinds of atoms and molecules by the use of positive rays, an idea developed by Aston, Dempster and others towards the discovery of many isotopes. He wrote the books, The Structure of Light (1907), The Corpuscular Theory of Matter (1907), Rays of Positive Electricity (1913), The Electron in Chemistry (1923) among many other publications.

By the way my sense of humour is intact Stuart, I just don't think it is funny to refer to people as pakis. I think you guys all get terribly defensive. Oh and Lurker next time you want to point the finger at a classist society perhaps you should consider your high security fenced compounds for the upper white middle classes and your treatment of the homeless and people on welfare - your country is managing in its welfare 'work' schemes to effectively reintroduce slavery

Anyways till next time...

PS: Lurker said 'read a book' er, blow it out your ass tiger.

[Chimp]

Please all read my last post as well, wanted to share this with anyone who hadn't yet read it:

Tim Predmore is a US soldier on active duty with the 101st Airborne Division, based near Mosul in northern Iraq. A version of this article written by him appeared in the Peoria Journal Star, Illinois:

After the horrific events of September 11 2001, and throughout the battle in Afghanistan, the groundwork was being laid for the invasion of Iraq. "Shock and awe" were the words used to describe the display of power that the world was going to view upon the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. It was to be an up-close, dramatic display of military strength and advanced technology from within the arsenals of the American and British military.

But as a soldier preparing to take part in the invasion of Iraq, the words "shock and awe" rang deep within my psyche. Even as we prepared to depart, it seemed that these two great superpowers were about to break the very rules that they demanded others obey. Without the consent of the United Nations, and ignoring the pleas of their own citizens, the US and Britain invaded Iraq. "Shock and awe"? Yes, the words correctly described the emotional impact I felt as we embarked on an act not of justice, but of hypocrisy.

From the moment the first shot was fired in this so-called war of liberation and freedom, hypocrisy reigned. After the broadcasting of recorded images of captured and dead US soldiers on Arab television, American and British leaders vowed revenge while verbally assaulting the networks for displaying such vivid images. Yet within hours of the deaths of Saddam Hussein's sons, the US government released horrific photographs of the two dead brothers for the entire world to view. Again, a "do as we say and not as we do" scenario.

As soldiers serving in Iraq, we have been told that our purpose is to help the people of Iraq by providing them with the necessary assistance militarily, as well as in humanitarian efforts. Then tell me where the humanity is in the recent account in Stars and Stripes (the newspaper of the US military) of two young children brought to a US military camp by their mother in search of medical care.

The two children had, unknowingly, been playing with explosive ordnance they had found, and as a result they were severely burned. The account tells how, after an hour-long wait, they - two children - were denied care by two US military doctors. A soldier described the incident as one of many "atrocities" on the part of the US military he had witnessed.

Thankfully, I have not personally been a witness to atrocities - unless, of course, you consider, as I do, that this war in Iraq is the ultimate atrocity.

So what is our purpose here? Was this invasion because of weapons of mass destruction, as we have so often heard? If so, where are they? Did we invade to dispose of a leader and his regime because they were closely associated with Osama bin Laden? If so, where is the proof?

Or is it that our incursion is about our own economic advantage? Iraq's oil can be refined at the lowest cost of any in the world. This looks like a modern-day crusade not to free an oppressed people or to rid the world of a demonic dictator relentless in his pursuit of conquest and domination, but a crusade to control another nation's natural resource. Oil - at least to me - seems to be the reason for our presence.

There is only one truth, and it is that Americans are dying. There are an estimated 10 to 14 attacks every day on our servicemen and women in Iraq. As the body count continues to grow, it would appear that there is no immediate end in sight.

I once believed that I was serving for a cause - "to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States". Now I no longer believe that; I have lost my conviction, as well as my determination. I can no longer justify my service on the basis of what I believe to be half-truths and bold lies.

With age comes wisdom, and at 36 years old I am no longer so blindly led as to believe without question. From my arrival last November at Fort Campbell, in Kentucky, talk of deployment was heard, and as that talk turned to actual preparation, my heart sank and my doubts grew. My doubts have never faded; instead, it has been my resolve and my commitment that have.

My time here is almost done, as well as that of many others with whom I have served. We have all faced death in Iraq without reason and without justification. How many more must die? How many more tears must be shed before Americans awake and demand the return of the men and women whose job it is to protect them, rather than their leader's interest?

[stuart]

salsa
cuban baseball team
patrick viera

[lurker]

Actually, Chimpy, old sod, it was you who started pointing out accomplishments of the British Empire---

However it's not only tea you have to thank us for but electricity, telephones, cricket, the national health service (oh sorry you make poor people pay for healthcare still doncha), the theory of evolution, the discovery of gravity, the first successfully cloned animal - I think the list goes on hey?

and, thanks to your endless fascination with the 'cut and paste' feature, the list does indeed go on and on and on.....but who cares?

Apparently Chimp does. Talk about whipping it out.

What a big... list!! You win!!

Let's jump right to that 'classist' thing. Here's a question for ya, Lance*, who do you think is out there on the playa? it's multiple choice...

a) the poor and proletarian
b) the vast ignorant bulk of middle America
c) the mostly white, upper middle classes with enough money to spend on a week in the desert supplying one's own food, water, electricity and bringing costumes, drugs and an art project to boot

Think 'c' lives in gated enclaves? Huh? Think you're slumming it with the bohos out in the desert? HAhahahaha.

But I'm not done. The answer is d)everyone who wants to be there and can figure out a way in--from 'enlightened' geniuses who can't stop themselves from cutting and pasting to full-on redneck assholes lookin' for tits and a ride thru Jiffy Lube.

Unfortunately for diversity 'd' trends towards 'c'.

It's all a matter of wanting to do it, Chimpo. There's people in those gated communities who grew up in Bed-Stuy--and there's people wanderin' the streets who were born with silver spoons up their asses and their noses as high in the air as yours is. Despite anything you might hear to the contrary, all you need to 'rise above your station' in this country is determination--and talent.

I gotta couple of friends from the UK, ones from a bit of money, the other isn't. One went to university, the other worked in a laundry. Y'know what they both say? Both say they're pretty much lib-dem, both are pretty equally 'socially aware'--and they were no different back in England, and both say that they would've never spoken, even had they met, had they met in the UK--different classes. It just never would have occured to them that they had anything in common.

Oh, and I'm sorry about telling you to read a book, that was truly heartless of me. Have someone read a book to you.

Better?

*Does anyone get this reference? Am I the only one who remembers this? Please, if you know what I'm referring to, say so, so that I stop thinking that I imagined the whole thing

[meander]

secret agent?

Seems Chimp was displeased with the initial lack of response he got to his anti-war rant (on a message board hosted by a counter-cultural event, NOT a political discussion forum), and resorted to weak jabs at the AMERICAN PEOPLE, not our gov't or leader that MANY of us don't support. I wonder what kind of reception he was hoping for?

[blyslv]

I wonder what kind of reception he was hoping for?

Ditto heads. But they are otherwise occupied.

[Patience]

Fuck that. Psychotic international bullies need to be eliminated; all the talk in the world won't ever change that.

Who gets to decide who is a "psychotic international bully?" The U.S., because might makes right? That is why unilateral military action is against the U.N. charter. It promotes diplomacy and negotiation over use of force. It elevates the gravity of war--only the truly unavoidable conflicts will be approved for action by a multilateral committee like the U.N. Grudge wars and power plays, such as this war, will not. If one nation can just decide that the leader of another nation is unsuitable and decide to "eliminate" him, why can't any nation do the same?

Again, while I agree that Iraq (and the world) is better off without Saddam in power, it is not for the U.S. to decide who gets to rule sovereign nations. If the people of Iraq wanted Saddam ousted, it was their responsibility, and theirs alone, to rise up against him.

For example, after the 2000 election was stolen, I would have loved to see an uprising in this country that tossed Bush out on his ass. I would still love to see something like that happen. But let's say some other country, say, the UK (sorry Chimp), decided that Bush had stolen the election and that the American people needed to be "saved" from the usurper who had overtaken the White House illegally, in order to protect democracy. So they bomb the White House and take Bush out, or (pretend with me for a moment) they land troops on the east coast and start to push toward Washington, killing tens of thousands of Americans, bombing the bejeezus out of the Carolinas, New York, Massachusetts, etc. until they surrounded Washington. They mostly hit military targets, but occasionally bomb schools, marketplaces, hospitals.

Now I can't fucking STAND George Bush. I think he's bad for this country and bad for the world. But if that happened, you might find me strapping on the camo and off to fight the redcoats, because who the fuck are THEY to determine our future, or our freedom? Anyone willing to wreak that kind of unprovoked destruction IS a psychotic international bully. You can't eliminate them in this way without being one yourself. The Bush administration is just such a bully. They have little regard for international law, world opinion, nor, apparently, human life.

A nation is like a human being. It treasures nothing more than the right to determine its own path, its own future. That, essentially, is what freedom is. It is simply wrong for the U.S. to try to force the rest of the world down the path it thinks is best. Regardless of the benefits of ousting Saddam, U.S. interference cannot free Iraq. It can only change the face of its enslavement.

[nymphgonebad]

don't make me start editing again.

how 'bout shorter posts? less eye strain.

tanx - alice

[PJ]

Who gets to decide who is a "psychotic international bully?" The U.S., because might makes right?

For better or worse, yes. Or sometimes a second-rate power (USSR, China) will get away with doing it because nobody else thinks it worth the price of armed conflict between major powers to toss 'em back out of, say, Afghanistan.

If one nation can just decide that the leader of another nation is unsuitable and decide to "eliminate" him, why can't any nation do the same?

They can, if they can get away with it. That's always been true.

Again, while I agree that Iraq (and the world) is better off without Saddam in power, it is not for the U.S. to decide who gets to rule sovereign nations. If the people of Iraq wanted Saddam ousted, it was their responsibility, and theirs alone, to rise up against him.

It was unrealistic to think that they ever could or would.

...let's say some other country, say, the UK (sorry Chimp), decided that Bush had stolen the election and that the American people needed to be "saved" from the usurper...they bomb the White House and take Bush out, or (pretend with me for a moment) they land troops on the east coast and start to push toward Washington, killing tens of thousands of Americans, bombing the bejeezus out of the Carolinas, New York, Massachusetts, etc. until they surrounded Washington. They mostly hit military targets, but occasionally bomb schools, marketplaces, hospitals....you might find me strapping on the camo and off to fight the redcoats, because who the fuck are THEY to determine our future, or our freedom?

I'll wait for the movie version. Honestly this isn't a bad story premise; shine it up a tad and pitch it in Hollywood and I'll bet it'd fly.

...A nation is like a human being. It treasures nothing more than the right to determine its own path, its own future...It is simply wrong for the U.S. to try to force the rest of the world down the path it thinks is best. Regardless of the benefits of ousting Saddam, U.S. interference cannot free Iraq. It can only change the face of its enslavement.

IMO we've seen the last of such adventurism for the near future. FWIW I don't consider them to be "enslaved" just because the US military is temporarily the national police force while a home-grown government is built. The US will totally pull out of that place as soon as it's practical to do so; leaving prematurely would assure an international furor and extremely shrill complaints by the opposing political party at home.

[Badger]

I don't mind the long post really - even though I would take issue with 60-70% of what Patience said above.

Still, its from the gut, and original enough.

[Kinetic]

And I thought I wrote long posts, man those were hard to read.

Remember, some of us suffer from SAS syndrome. Short Attention Span. If it's too long I just start speed reading and skim it so you lose your impact. I'm sure there are others who share my problem so keep that in mind as you post.

[blyslv]

>>You don't hear of the DPRK and reasonable being used in the same sentence.


I'm sorry, could you say that again?

[Kinetic]

>>You don't hear of the DPRK and reasonable being used in the same sentence.


I'm sorry, could you say that again?

Maybe, if you could help me come up with a dress pattern that would fit, I would consider it.

[Patience]

Who gets to decide who is a "psychotic international bully?" The U.S., because might makes right?

For better or worse, yes.

If one nation can just decide that the leader of another nation is unsuitable and decide to "eliminate" him, why can't any nation do the same?

They can, if they can get away with it. That's always been true.

The question, then, is whether or not you condone this behavior. Because your "psychotic international bully" post clearly states that this should be the way it is. We should bomb and invade nations whose leaders we dislike, so long as we can "get away with it." By the same logic, they should bomb and invade us if they don't like our leadership and think they can get away with it.

Is that the kind of world you want to live in? Or does it just not seem like a big deal because we're safe in an ivory tower with the biggest guns and the most bullets?

[PJ]

The question, then, is whether or not you condone this behavior. Because your "psychotic international bully" post clearly states that this should be the way it is. We should bomb and invade nations whose leaders we dislike, so long as we can "get away with it." By the same logic, they should bomb and invade us if they don't like our leadership and think they can get away with it.

It's not that it "should" be that way, it's just the way it is. Unless a global government, complete with enforcement means, is enacted that's the way it's going to be. And every Joe Six Pack Voter would scream bloody murder if any politicians even proposed handing US sovereignty over to some UN-But-With-Balls World Government.

Is that the kind of world you want to live in? Or does it just not seem like a big deal because we're safe in an ivory tower with the biggest guns and the most bullets?

I think that a realistic attitude demands recognition that that's the world we do, in fact, live in--for better or worse.

And we're not perfectly safe in our ivory tower--the felling of the World Trade Towers pretty well proved that.

[Kinetic]

Remember, we're the leaders in laser research....our troops will have offensive handheld laser units before we know it. So add that to the bombs and bullets we have protecting the ivory tower.

And if all else fails we always have this:
http://tinyurl.com/78tm

When all else fails, just bomb 'em back to the stone age.

Here's another good Iraq article that some of you might be interested in:
http://tinyurl.com/pdyl
In particular I like the coverage of the updated MLRS....they've come a long ways since Field Marshal Zhukov of the Russian Army used them in-masse in the fall of Berlin.

[Patience]

It's not that it "should" be that way, it's just the way it is.

My mistake. You didn't say "should." You said "need."

Psychotic international bullies need to be eliminated

which is a moral affirmation of the system just described. Take em out if you can get away with it.

Unless a global government, complete with enforcement means, is enacted that's the way it's going to be. And every Joe Six Pack Voter would scream bloody murder if any politicians even proposed handing US sovereignty over to some UN-But-With-Balls World Government.

I don't suggest we should hand over U.S. sovereignty. I suggest that we should wield our position of power in the world with far greater caution, goodwill and care than our current leadership is capable of. I suggest that we not assume that our intentions for other nations supercede their own. I suggest it is possible to empower leadership that understands this.

I think that a realistic attitude demands recognition that that's the world we do, in fact, live in--for better or worse.

I agree completely. And our hopes for a better future demand a people willing to work toward change.

And we're not perfectly safe in our ivory tower--the felling of the World Trade Towers pretty well proved that.

Good point. All the more reason to find a better way, rather than perpetuate the same violent paradigms that got us here in the first place.

[PJ]

Remember, we're the leaders in laser research....our troops will have offensive handheld laser units before we know it. So add that to the bombs and bullets we have protecting the ivory tower.

My (admittedly-incomplete) knowlege of laser technology makes me think that we'll be using limited offensive battlefield robots before any directed enregy weapons can be made small enough for deployment on anything smaller than the biggest of weapons platforms.

The bomb statistics in that article were for Gulf War rev. A; in this year's only Gulf War (thus far) nearly 100% of the munitions dropped were precision-guided. In fact USAF brass are requesting rapid development of even smaller Paveways (200 or 250 lb.; the smallest presently in the inventory are 500 lb.) Because thanks to the availability of GPS-guidance, precision suddenly became MUCH more important than the size of the bang. Bigger-than-absolutely-necessary bang = more collateral damage, and doing a clean job is one of the things commanders are being graded upon.

[Kinetic]

Sheesh, I got so much stuff archived away that I put up the wrong stuff. It still makes the point.

Now I'm embarassed, I didn't check my facts.

I don't know about robotic soldiers, but UAV's are certainly here to stay. I can just imagine an armada of 1000 UAV's heading for Pyongyang......

[PJ]

Psychotic international bullies need to be eliminated

which is a moral affirmation of the system just described. Take em out if you can get away with it.

You're right, I wasn't thinking of my original statement when answering your later one. I do equate taking down International bullies with the use of deadly force against domestic parasites. Guy breaks into your house, shoot him dead. In my mind the fact that the criminal might have been merely there for a "crime against property" should be no defense. He's a parasite on society, unfit to live in it. Elimination of International-scale violent criminals is likely to cause a certain amount of agony of the worst possible sort to nearby innocents. Which ought to be an incentive for populations to pay attention to the sort of leaders they support. Note that this argument can be applied toward Arabs or voting Rednecks alike.

I don't suggest we should hand over U.S. sovereignty. I suggest that we should wield our position of power in the world with far greater caution, goodwill and care...I suggest it is possible to empower leadership that understands this.

Agreed. But it'll be interesting to see if, in fact, an electable Presidential candidate takes a firm stance that even comes close to that. The vast majority of American voters really liked the rapid decision to take the fight against Mideast terrorists back to the Mideast--at least in the case of Al Qaida and their Taliban hosts in Afghanistan. Despite the centuries-long history of Western failure in Afghan wars. (British Army failures mostly, plus the USSR's Red Army.) The current Iraq war, less so, but opinion varies as does fortune: some policy successes there might turn public opinion around just in time for the next Presidential election.

...our hopes for a better future demand a people willing to work toward change.

Agreed. In the meantime it really pays to understand the world we presently live in, and how it got that way. From my point of view things are vastly better than they were in either the distant or recent past. And that's been the general trend for 40000 years.

There are advantages to having the world know that the US can kick any uppity little troublemaker's ass and hand his country over to his worst enemies. And I can't think of another country that I'd rather see with that power. A very reasonable goal for the short term is to assure that this historic advantage is not wasted or mis-used. The jury is still out on Iraq IMO, and will be for another 20 years or so.

[PJ]

I don't know about robotic soldiers, but UAV's are certainly here to stay. I can just imagine an armada of 1000 UAV's heading for Pyongyang......

What Pyongyang needs is 10,000,000 transistor radios parachuted into the hands of the enslaved populace, listening to assorted radio stations in Seoul.

Or maybe a Chinese ambassador with a .45 pistol, popping a hole in Kim's head and blowing his brains and his bizarre hair all over the office wall.

[Badger]

Can't wait to read Chimpy's leakage on PJ's above post.

[Chimp]

I'm just happy people are getting into it Badger

All those who find me in some way offensive can fuck off. Joke, get it? Yo Meander I think people are responding to this 'anti war rant' thread no? Whatever - Lurker I love it, very funny, not.

I can't find the cat that was hanging around here earlier to throw amongst the proverbial pigeons so this is a short one, as soon as I can find something annoying, fatuous and controversial to paste I will.

I won the lists! Excellent!!

(This is also not meant to be taken whollly seriously)

[Kinetic]

If Kim dies, the place will be a humanitarian disaster on a scale we have never imagined possible. I shudder to think of the horrors in that land. Not to trivialize it but when I think of the DPRK it reminds me of the Lord of the Rings and the land of Mordor...dark, forbidding, evil, and full of unimaginable horrors and unspeakable acts and things.

I remember reading that Kim has missiles with 3rd stages, not like the 2 stage he used to lob that "satellite" over Japan. And that 3rd stage ability is what scares the hell out of me. That country is evil, and it's not just propaganda spin either. Too many non-American sources back that up.

Speaking of war, if we don't get another division or 2 back in active duty, we're heading for disaster. Relying on the reserves like we are is not going to cut it.

[PJ]

If Kim dies, the place will be a humanitarian disaster on a scale we have never imagined possible

It already is.

Speaking of war, if we don't get another division or 2 back in active duty, we're heading for disaster. Relying on the reserves like we are is not going to cut it.

I'm not so sure. I think we're demonstrably better off with a comparatively-very-small military, made up of only the most elite fanatics that choose that profession. The US doesn't do wars-of-attrition anymore. No trench warfare; no massed infantry charges. Nobody's better at the zap 'em and keep moving, always moving technique. And top-down Soviet style command can't accomplish jack shit against it, especially since the US is extremely likely to have complete control of the electronic battlefield as well as overwhelming air supremacy.

North Korea's real trump card is the thousands of conventional heavy artillery pieces already in place that can flatten Seoul in an hour. Nobody has anything that can do much about them quickly enough to forestall carnage on a middle-ages scale should Kim use that option.