home

Report: Pentagon Speeding Plans for N. Korea Attack

The Washington Times reports:

The Pentagon has stepped up planning for attacks against North Korea's nuclear program and is bolstering nuclear forces in Asia, said defense officials familiar with the highly secret process.

The officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the accelerated military planning includes detailed programs for striking a North Korean plutonium-reprocessing facility at Yongbyon with special operations commando raids or strikes with Tomahawk cruise missiles or other precision-guided weapons.

How much war will be enough for this Administration? Who will fight all these wars? Your kids? Mine?

< Pastor Accuser's Polygraph Shows "Some Deception" | Curiouser and Curiouser >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    How about Iran? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 12:47:39 PM EST
    I was expecting one of your monthly breathless updates on how our evil carriers were speeding their way across the ocean to attack Iran.  Has the Nork monthly update taken over?  

    Say it isn't so (none / 0) (#2)
    by Patrick on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    The Pentagon is actually invovled in preparing plans for war?  Noooooooooooooooooooooooo...

    It's difficult to see the problem with this. (none / 0) (#3)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 01:00:56 PM EST
    North Korea represents a significant threat to the United States, South Korea, Japan, Russia, and China. It would be outrageously negligent if our military did not make plans to address the problem.

    Plans like these are the bread and butter of a prepared military. I don't find myself moved by this any more than I would have been to discover that we had attack plans ready for use against the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

    And just what is the danger? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 01:20:12 PM EST
    The jingo bells are ringing:
    "Who really poses the greatest danger to world peace: Iraq, North Korea or the United States?" asked Time magazine in an online poll in early 2003, shortly before the US invasion of Iraq. The final results were: North Korea 6.7%, Iraq 6.3%, the United States 86.9%; 706,842 total votes cast.[1]

    Imagine that following North Korea's recent underground nuclear test neither the United States nor any other government cried out that the sky was falling. No threat to world peace and security was declared by the White House or any other house. It was thus not the lead story on every radio and TV broadcast and newspaper page one. The UN Security Council did not unanimously condemn it. Nor did NATO. "What should we do about him?" was not America Online's plaintive all-day headline alongside a photo of North Korean leader Kim Jong-il.

    Who would have known about the explosion, even if it wasn't baby-sized? Who would have cared? But because all this fear mongering did in fact take place, wwwDOTvoteDOTcom was able to pose the question -- "North Korea's Nuclear Threat: Is It Time For An International Economic Blockade To Make Them Stop?" -- and hence compile a 93% "yes" vote. It doesn't actually take too much to win hearts and mindless. Media pundit Ben Bagdikian once wrote: "While it is impossible for the media to tell the population what to think, they do tell the public what to think about."

    So sometime in the future
    , the world might, or might not, have nine states possessing nuclear weapons instead of eight. So what?

    Do you know of all the scary warnings the United States issued about a nuclear-armed Soviet Union? A nuclear-armed China? And the non-warnings about a nuclear-armed Israel? There were no scary warnings or threats against ally Pakistan for the nuclear-development aid it gave to North Korea a few years ago, and Washington has been busy this year enhancing the nuclear arsenal of India, events which the world has paid little attention to, because the United States did not mount a campaign to tell the world to worry.

    There's still only one country that's used nuclear weapons on other people, but we're not given any warnings about them.
    ...
    Did I miss something or is there an international law prohibiting only North Korea from testing nuclear weapons? And just what is the danger? North Korea, even if it had nuclear weapons and delivery systems, and there's no evidence that it does, is of course no threat to attack anyone with them. Like Iraq under Saddam Hussein, North Korea is not suicidal.



    Bury your head in the sand, I guess. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 01:43:32 PM EST
    This argument is hilarious. If we don't tell people North Korea is dangerous, we won't know North Korea is dangerous! (Of course, should North Korea ever act aggressively everyone would be screaming at the government for ignoring a patent threat.)

    This is the "bury-your-head-in-the-sand" argument. It requires us to pretend that our enemies are not dangerous. By doing this, proponents achieve two things: (1) focus shifts from foreign policy to domestic policy; and (2) US power to act abroad is reduced.

    Instead of ignoring threats, the government should provide realistic appraisals of the international system. That includes keeping an eye on the military weapons development of other states. It also includes the creation of contingency plans, should military action become necessary.

    North Korea is developing nuclear weapons. It has taken threatening positions with regard to the US and its allies. From this, it is a proper subject of observation. The fact that such observation makes us more aware of how dangerous North Korea is is a benefit of an observation program, Edger.

    Parent

    Eeeeek! The world is scary! (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 02:15:21 PM EST
    And your comment is silly and stupid, like most of your posts here. The world is dangerous, Big deal. Deal with it.

    I have decided from this and from your comments in other threads today that from here on you are no longer worth replying to. Have a nice life, Gabriel.

    Parent

    You know who won't be there (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 01:24:13 PM EST
    Who will fight all these wars? Your kids? Mine?

    Not theirs.


    Doah! (none / 0) (#6)
    by Patrick on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 01:38:12 PM EST
    Planning and preparation don't equal wars...Stop being dramatic.  

    More often than not... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 01:44:04 PM EST
    With this gang, it does.

    Parent
    Fer once we agree, edger (none / 0) (#7)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 01:38:22 PM EST
    But for different reasons.  I don't think the norks are going to use them in a conventional sense (har) but they are using the threat of nukes in order to wring money from the world.  The biggest threat that a nuclear nork is to china.  Japan, South Korea and Taiwan may end up with nukes to offset the norks and that would put a big crimp in the angelic, neato, ChiComs socialist plans.
    Second largest threat from the norks would be them selling the bombs/missles/tech to whomever can fork over the kimchee.  

    Got a link where we are enhancing the Indians nuke arsenal?    

    RE: enhancing the Indians nuke arsenal? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 02:04:08 PM EST
    (1)U.S., India Reach Deal On Nuclear Cooperation

    (2)Friday, March 3, 2006

    NEW DELHI, March 2 -- President Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced Thursday an unprecedented agreement that would provide U.S. nuclear power assistance to India while allowing the country to substantially step up its nuclear weapons production.


    Parent
    Blessed be the fruit... (none / 0) (#15)
    by desertswine on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 02:22:28 PM EST
    But we get mangoes, right?

    "The people in the US are looking forward to eating Indian mangoes."  GWB

    Parent

    Re: Fer once we agree (none / 0) (#9)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 01:43:59 PM EST
    Nope. Twice...

    they are using the threat of nukes in order to wring money from the world

    Of course. They're demonized, isolated and their people are starving. That's why they built and tested it. Would you?

    Got a link where we are enhancing the Indians nuke arsenal?

    Probably in the article I linked to. If not this will work, I'm sure.

    Meanwhile... (none / 0) (#11)
    by jarober on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 02:01:49 PM EST
    Not noticed by TL is the fact that North Korea crawled back to the 6 party talks - after China gave them a good talking to.  

    See, that's why we are engaged in multi-lateral diplomacy there - China is the only player with anything resembling influence over NK.  The Left has been all hot about "direct talks", not noticing that the country that supplies nearly all the food and oil to NK (China) is the only one that can actuall exert influence short of war.  Seems to be working.

    Which is why the new talking points are to ignore all of that, and pay attention to the gasp contingency plans gasp being developed in case something bad happens.

    North Korean War plan (none / 0) (#13)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 02:09:29 PM EST
    Step one. Lift handset.

    Step two. Press button.

    Step three. Kiss Seoul goodbye.

    Real tough one that.

    Kiss Seoul goodbye. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 02:47:56 PM EST
    Yeah, that's about the size of it. And Step 4 would probably happen before he could put the handset down.

    I have a feeling Kim knows that part, too.

    Parent

    Re: North Korean War plan (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 04:02:04 PM EST
    I misunderstood you Che, I think. Step 1 wasn't Kim picking up the handset.

    Parent
    Edger (none / 0) (#18)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:17:29 PM EST
    That was the US war plan.

    It is estimated that N. Korea can fire nearly 500,000 artillery rounds per hour onto Seoul. Only a massive nuclear attack could prevent that. A strategic hit on a reprocessing facility would doom Seoul to destruction.


    3 days and counting... (none / 0) (#19)
    by desertswine on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 09:42:10 PM EST
    Well, Little George has three day left to invade North Korea (or Iran)before Congress changes hands.

    Where do the trolls stop? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Bill Arnett on Sat Nov 04, 2006 at 12:30:49 PM EST
    There are now six Arab nations, including Saudi Arabia and the UAE (who, as Dubai Port World STILL runs American seaports all over the nation) have decided that they MUST have robust "nuclear power" reactors that can provide the materials for atomic weapons.

    As bush/cheny/rumsfeld have all admitted lately, we "cannot abandon those oil fields and the income from them to terrorists", it is clear that any country with oil, but absent nuclear weapons, will most likely be attacked by America so that no oil will go to terrorists, only to American refineries.

    Nice job, mr. boosh. You have started a proliferation race that could indeed bring about the end of the world.

    And as for attacking North Korea, like che's lounge accurately states, Seoul can be completely wiped out by conventional artillery that is so disbursed, so numerous, and so well hidden and/or armor-hardened that nothing short of completely wiping out the entire peninsula could stop a retaliation for an attack that would devastate S. Korea, but also the 25,000 American troops there.

    bush will be the first president to lose two wars simultaneously, Afghanistan where he cut and ran, and Iraq, which has been a failed mission from the start, but he can make it three losses by attacking Iran or N. Korea.

    So for all the trolls, WHERE DOES IT STOP AND HOW CAN YOU SUPPORT THIS INSANITY??

    Who knows? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edger on Sat Nov 04, 2006 at 12:40:31 PM EST
    So for all the trolls, WHERE DOES IT STOP AND HOW CAN YOU SUPPORT THIS INSANITY??

    The only reasons I can think of is that having Bush for president is probably the closest they've ever come to feeling any sense of power in their shriveled little lives, Bill. Insecure little boys sucking up the biggest bully on the playground?

    Anbody else got any idea?

    Parent