|
On April 04 2013 14:09 EpiK wrote:North Korea seen moving mid-range missile to their east coast. Show nested quote +
SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea has moved what appears to be a mid-range Musudan missile to its east coast, South Korea's Yonhap news agency said on Thursday, quoting multiple government sources privy to intelligence from U.S. and South Korean authorities.
It was not clear if the missile was mounted with a warhead or whether the North was planning to fire it or was just putting it on display as a show of force, one South Korean government source was quoted as saying.
"South Korean and U.S. intelligence authorities have obtained indications the North has moved an object that appears to be a mid-range missile to the east coast," the source said.
The Musudan missile is believed to have a range of 3,000 km (1,875 miles) or more, which would put all of South Korea and Japan in range and possibly also the U.S. territory of Guam in the Pacific Ocean. North Korea is not believed to have tested these mid-range missiles, according to most independent experts
South Korea's defense ministry declined to comment.
North Korea has threatened a nuclear strike on the United States and missile attacks on its Pacific bases, including in Guam. Those threats followed new U.N. sanctions imposed on the North after it carried out its third nuclear test in February.
The missile was moved to the coast by train. The North has a missile launch site on the northeastern coast, which it has used to unsuccessfully test-fire long-range rockets in the past.
The Yonhap report did not say if the missile had been moved to the missile site.
Japan's Asahi Shimbun newspaper issued a similar report on Thursday, saying the North had moved what appeared to be a long-range missile to its east coast.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE93301S20130404?irpc=932
They're going to test them and piss everyone off even more.
|
|
|
On April 04 2013 14:12 krndandaman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2013 13:25 chimpandfrog wrote:On April 04 2013 12:37 krndandaman wrote:On April 04 2013 11:52 zpikduM wrote:
Why would Russia or China want to get involved with NK right now? China makes a lot of its wealth from selling goods to the U.S. and its allies. Meanwhile, Russia has spent the last twenty years trying to bridge the gap between it and the US since the fall of the USSR.
What do either of these nations have to gain by supporting NK right now? To use a fair analogy, NK is low on chips at the poker table, and the only way its gonna get back into the game is to play high risk, to bluff, to be aggressive with the chips it has left. But what happens when someone calls their bluff? China is getting tired of NK but they remain their allies because what worries them more is the lack of a buffer zone between them and South Korea/USA. If NK collapses (which they will without Chinese help) the US/SK will be right on their borders. They don't want that. All these assumptions about China backing NK in case of it performing a nuclear strike are hilarious. What's even funnier is thinking in terms of SK/USA being a threat to Chinese border. As if USA and SK would simultaneously attack China with their ground forces rofl. This is just so fearmongerish and childish to me. Where in my post am I saying that China will back NK in case of it performing a nuclear strike? Also I can't find any post that you quoted that says USA and SK would attack China in any circumstance. Please read posts correctly before accusing others of assuming things.
So you saying that China "doesn't want" US/SK on their borders (as if US would be there) is not implying that somehow they would threaten China?
As if US couldn't just obliterate any ground target without ever coming close to its borders. As if Chinese territory is in more danger by the mere fact that SK is across that border. What does it change for China at all?
|
did he really say its approved to nuke usa now ?
is he so life tired ?
|
Do we have any SK opinions on this round of NK threats?
|
NK is really testing to see what it takes to trigger nuclear war in the 21st century
|
If they were to actually 'test' it now, the US aegis destroyer should be within rights to shoot it down. They are 'at war' with SK now right.
|
1019 Posts
On April 04 2013 14:01 chimpandfrog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2013 13:36 white_horse wrote:On April 04 2013 13:25 chimpandfrog wrote:On April 04 2013 12:37 krndandaman wrote:On April 04 2013 11:52 zpikduM wrote:
Why would Russia or China want to get involved with NK right now? China makes a lot of its wealth from selling goods to the U.S. and its allies. Meanwhile, Russia has spent the last twenty years trying to bridge the gap between it and the US since the fall of the USSR.
What do either of these nations have to gain by supporting NK right now? To use a fair analogy, NK is low on chips at the poker table, and the only way its gonna get back into the game is to play high risk, to bluff, to be aggressive with the chips it has left. But what happens when someone calls their bluff? China is getting tired of NK but they remain their allies because what worries them more is the lack of a buffer zone between them and South Korea/USA. If NK collapses (which they will without Chinese help) the US/SK will be right on their borders. They don't want that. All these assumptions about China backing NK in case of it performing a nuclear strike are hilarious. What's even funnier is thinking in terms of SK/USA being a threat to Chinese border. As if USA and SK would simultaneously attack China with their ground forces rofl. This is just so fearmongerish and childish to me. Theres historical precedence for this, because it's exactly what happened during the korean war, and it's the main reason why the US/south korean forces couldn't reunify the country at that time. I don't think anyone wants the US and china to confront each other on the korean peninsula again. Historical precedence from cold war era doesn't explain anything that has to do with modern day affairs. It is entirely different and would simply not fly in this information age and 24/7 awareness. It's as good as modeling after 1812 events.
You can't be serious or you are trolling me. The geopolitics haven't changed. North korea serves as the perfect buffer to a major US ally from their doorstep and they do not want to lose that.
On April 04 2013 14:35 aksfjh wrote:
Do we have any SK opinions on this round of NK threats?
I think people are more scared than usual because the rhetoric is a lot worse in this round of warmongering, people are still uncertain about kim jong-un's intentions, and because of nuclear bombs as a factor that wasn't there before. But south korea has gone through all kinds of north korean antics (sending commandos on a bus to kill the south korean president or digging underground tunnels to invade south korea easily) so I don't think people are sitting at home scared for their lives..
|
On April 04 2013 14:45 white_horse wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2013 14:01 chimpandfrog wrote:On April 04 2013 13:36 white_horse wrote:On April 04 2013 13:25 chimpandfrog wrote:On April 04 2013 12:37 krndandaman wrote:On April 04 2013 11:52 zpikduM wrote:
Why would Russia or China want to get involved with NK right now? China makes a lot of its wealth from selling goods to the U.S. and its allies. Meanwhile, Russia has spent the last twenty years trying to bridge the gap between it and the US since the fall of the USSR.
What do either of these nations have to gain by supporting NK right now? To use a fair analogy, NK is low on chips at the poker table, and the only way its gonna get back into the game is to play high risk, to bluff, to be aggressive with the chips it has left. But what happens when someone calls their bluff? China is getting tired of NK but they remain their allies because what worries them more is the lack of a buffer zone between them and South Korea/USA. If NK collapses (which they will without Chinese help) the US/SK will be right on their borders. They don't want that. All these assumptions about China backing NK in case of it performing a nuclear strike are hilarious. What's even funnier is thinking in terms of SK/USA being a threat to Chinese border. As if USA and SK would simultaneously attack China with their ground forces rofl. This is just so fearmongerish and childish to me. Theres historical precedence for this, because it's exactly what happened during the korean war, and it's the main reason why the US/south korean forces couldn't reunify the country at that time. I don't think anyone wants the US and china to confront each other on the korean peninsula again. Historical precedence from cold war era doesn't explain anything that has to do with modern day affairs. It is entirely different and would simply not fly in this information age and 24/7 awareness. It's as good as modeling after 1812 events. You can't be serious or you are trolling me. The geopolitics haven't changed. North korea serves as the perfect buffer to a major US ally from their doorstep and they do not want to lose that. Show nested quote +On April 04 2013 14:35 aksfjh wrote:
Do we have any SK opinions on this round of NK threats? I think people are more scared than usual because the rhetoric is a lot worse in this round of warmongering, people are still uncertain about kim jong-un's intentions, and because of nuclear bombs as a factor that wasn't there before. But south korea has gone through all kinds of north korean antics (sending commandos on a bus to kill the south korean president or digging underground tunnels to invade south korea easily) so I don't think people are sitting at home scared for their lives..
Geopolitics of tin soldiers and horses is very different from geopolitics of spirit bombers, nuclear submarines and laser beams. If you don't see how or why I can explain. I really think your and many other posters ideas on "buffer states" need to be seriously revised. Btw I don't even understand what you wrote in your answer, who's doorstep?..
|
I'm slightly bit more worried about NK than usually. By providing a timetable, Kim has backed himself into a corner. Don't do what you say, and you'll only lose standing. Do what you say and there'll be a war. There seems to be an internal power struggle in NK right now, all the recent rhetoric seems to point that way.
I'm not really worried about NK actually using a nuke, I'm more worried about NK collapsing into itself and the nuke disappearing to black market.
|
On April 04 2013 15:09 Greentellon wrote:
I'm slightly bit more worried about NK than usually. By providing a timetable, Kim has backed himself into a corner. Don't do what you say, and you'll only lose standing. Do what you say and there'll be a war. There seems to be an internal power struggle in NK right now, all the recent rhetoric seems to point that way.
I'm not really worried about NK actually using a nuke, I'm more worried about NK collapsing into itself and the nuke disappearing to black market.
When did nk give a timetable?
|
|
|
On April 04 2013 16:36 Doko wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2013 15:09 Greentellon wrote:
I'm slightly bit more worried about NK than usually. By providing a timetable, Kim has backed himself into a corner. Don't do what you say, and you'll only lose standing. Do what you say and there'll be a war. There seems to be an internal power struggle in NK right now, all the recent rhetoric seems to point that way.
I'm not really worried about NK actually using a nuke, I'm more worried about NK collapsing into itself and the nuke disappearing to black market. When did nk give a timetable?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/north-korea-warns-nuclear-war-1809722
I know there is a word "could" there, but this is still a very clearly defined window of time.
|
On April 04 2013 13:40 autoexec wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2013 13:36 Loophole wrote:
A couple of NK subs left NK today. They could theoretically put a nuke inside a sub and detonate it in a west coast bay. =/ Were they subs that are designed to launch nuclear missiles? Or does North Korea even have those yet?
NK certainly does not even have a SSBN, let alone create a nuclear tipped missile that could be launched from one. The US anti sub sonar network is hands down the most advanced in the world. The only way that NK could even get any sub away from their mainland without the US being aware of it would be either gross incompetence from the skippers of the US attack subs that are most likely surrounding the Eastern seaboard of NK right now or they have one launching from someone else's port (IE China which I also would believe to be highly improbable). They only have diesel subs, which can run pretty quietly off of their electronic batteries but do not have the range to get to launch distance of the US period.
This is one of the most understated aspects of the US navy arsenal. Our nuclear subs are head and shoulders ahead of the rest of the world. While the bombers are a nice visual aspect of our deterrence the true response would come from the multiple SSBNS that are sitting in the Pacific that can launch both conventional and nuclear warheads at any target in the DPRK without any threat of retaliation or chance of detection.
|
On April 04 2013 15:06 chimpandfrog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2013 14:45 white_horse wrote:On April 04 2013 14:01 chimpandfrog wrote:On April 04 2013 13:36 white_horse wrote:On April 04 2013 13:25 chimpandfrog wrote:On April 04 2013 12:37 krndandaman wrote:On April 04 2013 11:52 zpikduM wrote:
Why would Russia or China want to get involved with NK right now? China makes a lot of its wealth from selling goods to the U.S. and its allies. Meanwhile, Russia has spent the last twenty years trying to bridge the gap between it and the US since the fall of the USSR.
What do either of these nations have to gain by supporting NK right now? To use a fair analogy, NK is low on chips at the poker table, and the only way its gonna get back into the game is to play high risk, to bluff, to be aggressive with the chips it has left. But what happens when someone calls their bluff? China is getting tired of NK but they remain their allies because what worries them more is the lack of a buffer zone between them and South Korea/USA. If NK collapses (which they will without Chinese help) the US/SK will be right on their borders. They don't want that. All these assumptions about China backing NK in case of it performing a nuclear strike are hilarious. What's even funnier is thinking in terms of SK/USA being a threat to Chinese border. As if USA and SK would simultaneously attack China with their ground forces rofl. This is just so fearmongerish and childish to me. Theres historical precedence for this, because it's exactly what happened during the korean war, and it's the main reason why the US/south korean forces couldn't reunify the country at that time. I don't think anyone wants the US and china to confront each other on the korean peninsula again. Historical precedence from cold war era doesn't explain anything that has to do with modern day affairs. It is entirely different and would simply not fly in this information age and 24/7 awareness. It's as good as modeling after 1812 events. You can't be serious or you are trolling me. The geopolitics haven't changed. North korea serves as the perfect buffer to a major US ally from their doorstep and they do not want to lose that. On April 04 2013 14:35 aksfjh wrote:
Do we have any SK opinions on this round of NK threats? I think people are more scared than usual because the rhetoric is a lot worse in this round of warmongering, people are still uncertain about kim jong-un's intentions, and because of nuclear bombs as a factor that wasn't there before. But south korea has gone through all kinds of north korean antics (sending commandos on a bus to kill the south korean president or digging underground tunnels to invade south korea easily) so I don't think people are sitting at home scared for their lives.. Geopolitics of tin soldiers and horses is very different from geopolitics of spirit bombers, nuclear submarines and laser beams. If you don't see how or why I can explain. I really think your and many other posters ideas on "buffer states" need to be seriously revised. Btw I don't even understand what you wrote in your answer, who's doorstep?..
i'm not sure why anyone would be so confused or think buffer states are irrelevant. basically the balance of power would shift way in favour of USA if they could station troops/bases that close to china. this means they have more leverage in trade discussions, negotiations etc and thats not really what china wants, is it?
|
I swear there was a really poor simulation propaganda clip of NK shooting down an animated enemy aircraft or launching a missile at the US but I can't find it anywhere, anyone know where I might find it? Definitely saw it within the last 2 days..
|
|
|
On April 04 2013 17:06 sgfightmaster wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2013 15:06 chimpandfrog wrote:On April 04 2013 14:45 white_horse wrote:On April 04 2013 14:01 chimpandfrog wrote:On April 04 2013 13:36 white_horse wrote:On April 04 2013 13:25 chimpandfrog wrote:On April 04 2013 12:37 krndandaman wrote:On April 04 2013 11:52 zpikduM wrote:
Why would Russia or China want to get involved with NK right now? China makes a lot of its wealth from selling goods to the U.S. and its allies. Meanwhile, Russia has spent the last twenty years trying to bridge the gap between it and the US since the fall of the USSR.
What do either of these nations have to gain by supporting NK right now? To use a fair analogy, NK is low on chips at the poker table, and the only way its gonna get back into the game is to play high risk, to bluff, to be aggressive with the chips it has left. But what happens when someone calls their bluff? China is getting tired of NK but they remain their allies because what worries them more is the lack of a buffer zone between them and South Korea/USA. If NK collapses (which they will without Chinese help) the US/SK will be right on their borders. They don't want that. All these assumptions about China backing NK in case of it performing a nuclear strike are hilarious. What's even funnier is thinking in terms of SK/USA being a threat to Chinese border. As if USA and SK would simultaneously attack China with their ground forces rofl. This is just so fearmongerish and childish to me. Theres historical precedence for this, because it's exactly what happened during the korean war, and it's the main reason why the US/south korean forces couldn't reunify the country at that time. I don't think anyone wants the US and china to confront each other on the korean peninsula again. Historical precedence from cold war era doesn't explain anything that has to do with modern day affairs. It is entirely different and would simply not fly in this information age and 24/7 awareness. It's as good as modeling after 1812 events. You can't be serious or you are trolling me. The geopolitics haven't changed. North korea serves as the perfect buffer to a major US ally from their doorstep and they do not want to lose that. On April 04 2013 14:35 aksfjh wrote:
Do we have any SK opinions on this round of NK threats? I think people are more scared than usual because the rhetoric is a lot worse in this round of warmongering, people are still uncertain about kim jong-un's intentions, and because of nuclear bombs as a factor that wasn't there before. But south korea has gone through all kinds of north korean antics (sending commandos on a bus to kill the south korean president or digging underground tunnels to invade south korea easily) so I don't think people are sitting at home scared for their lives.. Geopolitics of tin soldiers and horses is very different from geopolitics of spirit bombers, nuclear submarines and laser beams. If you don't see how or why I can explain. I really think your and many other posters ideas on "buffer states" need to be seriously revised. Btw I don't even understand what you wrote in your answer, who's doorstep?.. i'm not sure why anyone would be so confused or think buffer states are irrelevant. basically the balance of power would shift way in favour of USA if they could station troops/bases that close to china. this means they have more leverage in trade discussions, negotiations etc and thats not really what china wants, is it?
I really doubt it is a benefit to inhale NK from a military/strategic standpoint tbh. Imagine if Korea reunites somehow, either by force or peaceful, this is not at all like the German reunion. I mean even with a fairly strong industry/infrastructure it took ages to get both parts of Germany to a fairly equal level economy-wise (which btw even today isnt the case really) . Now you have SK which is a modern, high-tech society but a heavily on trade relying economy. NK meanwhile is basicly living in the past for 50 years and way behind in every aspect. Building up this area will be more than a heavy burden that noone can afford, even with all force combined. By that, I dont want to neglect that the reunion would be beneficial from a human standpoint, considering the camps (KZ) in NK, the political prisoners and also the aspect of reuniting the nation itself.
|
I'm amazed at how many random people on the internet know so much about warfare and potentional secret government stuff.
Feels like 80% of the stuff said in this thread is pulled right out of asses.
|
On April 04 2013 17:29 TOCHMY wrote:
I'm amazed at how many random people on the internet know so much about warfare and potentional secret government stuff.
Feels like 80% of the stuff said in this thread is pulled right out of asses.
Perhaps you can educate us then? There seems to be a lot of people here that care about what's happening and we'd love an in-depth explanation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
