advertisement


Has N. Korea pushed their luck too far now?

Kim without a common enemy would have lots of internal enemies with the shot to bits economy and society structure.

Trump does not need to have a enemy in N Korea - but he is so thick he takes the bait.
 
Joe Hutch said:
Trump's not a warmonger though, so it'll be fine.
Click to expand...

The forces that control the US political machine and Trump - the Zionist/NeoCons - will do whatever the military-industrial complex demands and they always want war. Joe you've been on here long enough to know this. :D
 
gassor said:
Except that Kim has the whole place on his side anyway 100%. This is something different. This is about prestige and influence.
Click to expand...

imo Kim only has the people on his side in a similar way to Gaddafi.

The ordinary N Korean's have to talk the talk, and walk the walk, for the purposes of self preservation.
Given half a chance they would seek payback much like the Libyans.
 
JensenHealey said:
Kim without a common enemy would have lots of internal enemies with the shot to bits economy and society structure.
Click to expand...

There are no internal enemies, there is too much fear to oppose the "Shining Star of Paektu Mountain".
 
Still said:
imo Kim only has the people on his side in a similar way to Gaddafi.

The ordinary N Korean's have to talk the talk, and walk the walk, for the purposes of self preservation.
Given half a chance they would seek payback much like the Libyans.
Click to expand...

Their obedience to the Great Leader is total, they know nothing else. There is no resentment, only loyalty. N Korea is unique.
 
I have a very bad feeling about this. The US defence forces will have constantly updated their what-if strategic responses but I'm not sure Trump will heed their advice, he will view this through a prism of ego and self interest.
 
maxflinn said:
The Washington Post, CNN and Fox News all reporting as fact that the North Koreans have minitiarised nuclear warheads which can be fitted to their new ICBM's.

So like Saddam's WMD nonsense.
Click to expand...

Actually not. It was the Bush Administration that was pushing the story of Saddam's WMD and it was the press that was questioning it (pointing out the glaring inconsistencies in the yellow cake and aluminium tubes stories - I've been a NYT subscriber for a long time, so I remember well the arguments at the time). This time it's the press that is saying that the North Koreans might have miniaturised warheads, so the information may be somewhat more reliable, in that the press doesn't have a political barrow to push or action to justify.

However, miniaturised warheads are no good without a re-entry vehicle, and the North Koreans don't appear to have one - and they won't know whether they have one until they've tested one. A warhead that doesn't survive re-entry into the atmosphere is somewhat less than useless - the Americans don't even have to try to shoot it down - and nobody in their right mind is going to bank on testing it with the first shot in anger.
 
tones said:
Actually not. It was the Bush Administration that was pushing the story of Saddam's WMD and it was the press that was questioning it (pointing out the glaring inconsistencies in the yellow cake and aluminium tubes stories - I've been a NYT subscriber for a long time, so I remember well the arguments at the time). This time it's the press that is saying that the North Koreans might have miniaturised warheads, so the information may be somewhat more reliable, in that the press doesn't have a political barrow to push or action to justify.

However, miniaturised warheads are no good without a re-entry vehicle, and the North Koreans don't appear to have one - and they won't know whether they have one until they've tested one. A warhead that doesn't survive re-entry into the atmosphere is somewhat less than useless - the Americans don't even have to try to shoot it down - and nobody in their right mind is going to bank on testing it with the first shot in anger.
Click to expand...

It's a government agency that's feeding the (probable) lies, Tones. Just like Iraq.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...a-1212p:homepage/story&utm_term=.dfc02eb6f177

North Korea has successfully produced a miniaturized nuclear warhead that can fit inside its missiles, crossing a key threshold on the path to becoming a full-fledged nuclear power, U.S. intelligence officials have concluded in a confidential assessment.

The analysis, completed last month by the Defense Intelligence Agency, comes on the heels of another intelligence assessment that sharply raises the official estimate for the total number of bombs in the communist country’s atomic arsenal. The United States calculated last month that up to 60 nuclear weapons are now controlled by North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Some independent experts think the number is much smaller.
Click to expand...
 
tones said:
Actually not. It was the Bush Administration that was pushing the story of Saddam's WMD and it was the press that was questioning it (pointing out the glaring inconsistencies in the yellow cake and aluminium tubes stories - I've been a NYT subscriber for a long time, so I remember well the arguments at the time).
Click to expand...

The Western press of the time - at least according to my memory - were questioning very little...

This time it's the press that is saying that the North Koreans might have miniaturised warheads, so the information may be somewhat more reliable, in that the press doesn't have a political barrow to push or action to justify.
Click to expand...
I think that's a somewhat naive statement. Rupert Murdoch owns Fox, and the owner of the Washington Post has a $600M deal with the CIA.

Historically, most US mainstream media echoes the government's push for war, with little scrutiny of the reasoning.
 
maxflinn said:
The Western press of the time - at least according to my memory - were questioning very little...

I think that's a somewhat naive statement. Rupert Murdoch owns Fox, and the owner of the Washington Post has a $600M deal with the CIA.

Historically, most US mainstream media echoes the government's push for war, with little scrutiny of the reasoning.
Click to expand...
Simply not true. There *was* a bias in favour of military action but it was far from complete. Even the BBC had plenty of sceptical stories about "the dodgy dossier" (including Andrew Gilligan's report that the report had been "sexed up"). The Hutton inquiry (into the death of David Kelly and surrounding events) led to the neutering of the BBC as a force for decent investigative journalism; it hasn't been the same since.
 
droodzilla said:
Simply not true. There *was* a bias in favour of military action but it was far from complete. Even the BBC had plenty of sceptical stories about "the dodgy dossier" (including Andrew Gilligan's report that the report had been "sexed up"). The Hutton inquiry (into the death of David Kelly and surrounding events) led to the neutering of the BBC as a force for decent investigative journalism; it hasn't been the same since.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking the 45 minute warning nonsense etc, which appeared in many newspapers if memory serves. There was certainly much scaremongering anyway.

Perhaps the Beeb weren't as bad back then.

thesun.png
 
maxflinn said:
I'm thinking the 45 minute warning nonsense etc, which appeared in many newspapers if memory serves. There was certainly much scaremongering anyway.

Perhaps the Beeb weren't as bad back then.

thesun.png
Click to expand...

The 45 minutes was always nonsense, and the UK Intelligence Services told Tony Blair so. They also told him quite forcefully that the US was fabricating the evidence around a case for war, which Blair chose to ignore, to his everlasting detriment.

Rachel Maddow did quite a good special on it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5FaMbnINwc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top