WWIII has begin? - Page 6

Steinhauer · 11-28-2010, 11:35 PM

North Korea nuclear threat is alarming, says South | Reuters

that is so against international treaty regulations ..... (HOA)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/wo...a/23korea.html

seems North Koreans answer is to BOMB BOMB BOMB

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31473986...-asia-pacific/

Quote:

updated 6/21/2009 10:24:49 PM ET 2009-06-22T02:24:49
WASHINGTON — North Korea boasted that it has become a "proud nuclear power" and threatened Monday to harm the U.S. if attacked, as tensions mounted over a possible crackdown on exports of suspected missile parts from the North.

**Jiro** · 11-28-2010, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

North Korea nuclear threat is alarming, says South | Reuters

that is so against international treaty regulations ..... (HOA)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/wo...a/23korea.html

seems North Koreans answer is to BOMB BOMB BOMB

N. Korea threatens to harm U.S. if attacked - World news - Asia-Pacific - North Korea - msnbc.com

Steinhauer · 11-28-2010, 11:52 PM

I think I also understand that this is a "family feud" and people not in the family should "Butt Out!"

But, when a family feud involves violence, people are not going to butt out.

South Korea warns of 'firm' response to future attacks - CNN.com

US and S. Korea stage massive naval drill - Hindustan Times

Quote:

US and S. Korea stage massive naval drill

**Jiro** · 11-28-2010, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

I think I also understand that this is a "family feud" and people not in the family should "Butt Out!"

But, when a family feud involves violence, people are not going to butt out.

South Korea warns of 'firm' response to future attacks - CNN.com

US and S. Korea stage massive naval drill - Hindustan Times

oh well. don't forget that we do have multiple political parties in Korea like America. What you're reading is what the "Bomb Bomb Bomb" Party wants. They are detrimental to Korea's progress to reunification.

but no you don't really understand it. nobody does. hence.... this is dubbed as "The Forgotten War"

Steinhauer · 11-29-2010, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

oh well. don't forget that we do have multiple political parties in Korea like America. What you're reading is what the "Bomb Bomb Bomb" Party wants. They are detrimental to Korea's progress to reunification.

but no you don't really understand it. nobody does. hence.... this is dubbed as "The Forgotten War"

Try to explain it to me. I want to understand. Use an analogy that you know I can understand ... please.

I really worked hard on that creative analogy

**Jiro** · 11-29-2010, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

Try to explain it to me. I want to understand. Use an analogy that you know I can understand ... please.

Analogy is not needed. A history lesson will do. That I will do in a moment with a few posts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

I really worked hard on that creative analogy

it doesn't fit.

Steinhauer · 11-29-2010, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

Analogy is not needed. A history lesson will do. That I will do in a moment with a few posts.

it doesn't fit.

Then explain why it doesn't fit.

You would know more than anyone here.

**Jiro** · 11-29-2010, 12:06 AM

Why North Korea attack is not a crisis

Quote:

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
-North Korea's artillery barrage was serious, but this is not a crisis, say co-authors
-They say the action fits pattern of North Korea's behavior and doesn't preclude progress
-New uranium enrichment plant doesn't signal escalation in weapons capability, they say
-U.S. needs to try economic and diplomatic measures to move ahead, they say

Quote:

(CNN) -- Headlines and pundits once again declare that we have a crisis on our hands in the wake of discovering that North Korea is building a new nuclear reactor and a uranium enrichment plant.

More ominously, Tuesday brought news of direct artillery barrages between North and South Korea, heightening tensions and costing lives. But as provocative and serious as this is, neither is a crisis. Both fit a clear pattern of North Korean behavior -- a pattern that ultimately holds out the opportunity for progress.

Unfortunately, so far the U.S. response also fits a pattern of rhetorical condemnation but little in the way of creative or effective engagement. Some key lessons need to be re-learned in light of these developments.

First, the fundamental security situation with respect to North Korea has not changed. Pyongyang's estimated stockpile of plutonium bombs remains the same (four to eight bombs' worth). It does not have the capability to deliver these devices by aircraft or missile and its plutonium program remains frozen or perhaps even further eroded, as described in a report by Dr. Sig Hecker, who visited the North's nuclear facilities two weeks ago.

Tuesday, in a briefing in Washington, Hecker, the former head of the Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory, said that his report had been "hyped" in the media. He detailed how the new facilities, while potentially capable of producing material for bombs, are hardly the quickest route for North Korea to do so.

Here's why. Uranium weapons are bigger than plutonium weapons, thus more difficult to shrink to the size needed for a missile warhead.

The facility Hecker visited could only produce one or two bombs' worth of material a year, it is not clear when it will be fully operational and it has been built to replace the plutonium production facilities, not add to them. The new, small light-water reactor under construction is actually not very good for producing weapons-grade plutonium.

If North Korea wanted to expand its nuclear arsenal, it makes much more sense for it to restart the plutonium reactor it has, not replace it with this new one.

Finally, the North Koreans said they would scrap their plutonium capabilities completely in exchange for improved relations with the United States. In short, it is conceivable that the facilities are what the North claims, its attempt at home-grown nuclear energy, a goal the North has had for decades. As Hecker said, the trip raised "as many questions as it answered."

Second, as difficult as engagement is, it is preferable to the alternative, isolation and instability. Remember that North Korea succeeded in acquiring or building these new facilities during a time when sanctions were extreme and U.S. engagement was absent.

In fact, we only know about the facilities because of an unofficial visit by Americans whom the North wanted to use to reveal them. Before that, the Bush administration's years-long policy of complete isolation allowed North Korea to produce plutonium, fashion it into bombs and test two of them. Only in the last two years of the Bush era did a change in U.S. approach bear some fruit in freezing North Korea's programs.

"Strategic patience" has been the nickname for the U.S. approach to North Korea since the early weeks of the Obama administration, when Pyongyang rejected early overtures of dialogue. What the administration failed to grasp is that diplomacy with the North is pretty much the most difficult exercise one can do in international relations. But that does not mean you shouldn't continue to try, even when -- or maybe especially when -- the response is a poke in the eye.

So where does this leave us? What can or should the United States do to respond to these latest developments? Here again, everything old is new again: Creative, thoughtful approaches to engaging North Korea have to be designed and tested -- persistently.

Yes, U.S. overtures will annoy allies in the region, but not if done in concert with or through consultation with them. Yes, the administration will suffer reactionary criticism from the right for "dealing with evil" or similar screeds. But the stakes are too high to allow the long-term threats that North Korea poses to be hamstrung by near-term political scorekeeping.

President Obama has to be bold. A number of ideas about how to proceed are offered in a recent piece by Lee Sigal of the Social Sciences Research Council. These suggestions, including economic incentives and diplomatic measures such as a trip by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to North Korea and the conclusion of a peace declaration involving both Koreas and China, are a good starting point.

Sun-tzu, an ancient Chinese expert on the region, advised, "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." Good advice and as relevant as ever for the United States regarding North Korea.

**Jiro** · 11-29-2010, 12:10 AM

Survey: Americans question role in Korean peninsula

Quote:

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
-Poll examined attitudes toward U.S. military presence around the world
-Support for bases in North and South Korea remains steady
-But most people oppose U.S. involvement in any hostilities
-Poll was conducted before Tuesday's attacks

Quote:

(CNN) -- Americans are growing weary of the country's many security commitments overseas and increasingly feel that U.S. allies need to do a better job of taking care of themselves. And while more support a long-term military presence in South Korea than in Afghanistan or Iraq, most Americans feel U.S. forces should not get involved in conflict between South and North Korea.

Quote:

Asked how the United States should respond to the torpedo attack earlier this year by North Korea on a South Korean warship, in which 46 South Korean sailors were killed, only 27 percent said the United States should have joined in "punishing" the North. Sixty-six percent said that criticizing the North was adequate.

Quote:

Over the past few years, however, many U.S. military facilities in South Korea have been closed or consolidated, with much of the financial burden for the relocation borne by South Korea. That process will continue over the next five years, part of a gradual transition under which the Korean military will assume the lead in the defense of the country by late 2015.

Supporters of a substantial U.S. military presence point out that South Korea is still technically at war with North Korea, a nuclear-armed and unpredictable adversary, and that withdrawing the troops there might encourage "adventurism" by Pyongyang.

**Jiro** · 11-29-2010, 12:16 AM

Seoul endures life under the gun

Quote:

It is easy for the younger generation to overlook these scars, and the prominent U.S. military garrison -- headquarters of the 27,500 U.S. troops still stationed here as insurance against another invasion -- at Yongsan in the very heart of Seoul, is now an established part of the cityscape.

And whether the Cheonan and Yeonpyongdo incidents will permanently change attitudes is uncertain.

"Normally when the North Koreans misbehave, people don't care, but yesterday, people got nervous," said Robert Koehler, a 13-year expatriate and author of a Seoul guidebook. "People tend to get very angry, but then they settle down -- it is easy to get jaded."

But with the memories of one of the century's most devastating wars seared into their memories, the old generation cannot forget.

"For me this is nothing new," said Kim Song-hwan, a retired artist who lived through -- and painted -- the North Korean occupation of Seoul in 1950. "But it is kind of problematic that young people today are unconcerned about the danger of war."

The 20th century Korean War lasted three years and killed -- estimates vary -- between two and four million. A 21st century Korean War is likely to be shorter but, with Pyongyang possessing nuclear weapons, even deadlier.

And while Seoul in 1950 was a city that few people in the wider world had heard of, modern Seoul has tremendous international relevance as the capital of the world's 13th largest economy. Were it to come under artillery or nuclear attack, the tsunami that would sweep through global financial markets could be devastating.

Korea crisis: How will China respond?

Quote:

China is North Korea's ally and its biggest trading partner. They share a long border prompting speculation about how the communist country could react to tension next door.

China has the power to cut off North Korea's most important link with the outside world by stopping their shipments of food, fuel and weapons, but has indicated no intention to do so.

However, analysts say China's leverage over its next door neighbor may be over-rated.

"China does have more influence than other players but we have to remember China does not have absolute influence," said Wenran Jiang, political science professor at University of Alberta.

China is also reluctant to lean heavily on allies like North Korea because it follows the principle of non-interference in other countries' internal affairs, analysts say.

Quote:

So what does North Korea want? "What they really wanted for years is diplomatic recognition of North Korea by the U.S.," said Wenran Jiang.

"They are frustrated because they feel they have done the six-party talks, they have launched missiles, have done nuclear weapons tests, they have made all kinds of threats but they still don't get the U.S. to move towards normalization," he said.

Analysts say, despite the apparent ineffectiveness of the six-party talks, Beijing still stands a better chance of bringing Pyongyang back to the fold through diplomacy.

"It's important for us to remember that during the six-party talks these conflicts were less likely to happen, while without such mechanism we see such bloodshed." Jiang said.

Observers say it all comes down to building trust -- a difficult task -- and here China can play a unique role as a rising global power and a potential peace-maker.

bottom line - nobody's interested in war. it's unprofitable. it's gonna hurt many countries economically. NK makes a fuss like this once in a while just to get an attention to cut some deals. NK knows very well that they will lose the Korean War and they will be wiped off. They know this.

Steinhauer · 11-29-2010, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Asked how the United States should respond to the torpedo attack earlier this year by North Korea on a South Korean warship, in which 46 South Korean sailors were killed, only 27 percent said the United States should have joined in "punishing" the North. Sixty-six percent said that criticizing the North was adequate.

was that what you meant by not being assertive enough?

**Jiro** · 11-29-2010, 12:21 AM

China key to restraining North Korea, U.S. officials say

Quote:

Washington (CNN) -- Pressure from China would be key to getting North Korea to change its behavior, the top U.S. military official said Wednesday.

"I believe that it's really important that Beijing lead here," Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in an interview to air Sunday on CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS."

He added, "I've believed for some time that probably the country that can influence North Korea the most is clearly China."

China, Mullen said, has much at stake in stopping North Korea's leader Kim Jong Il from taking more provocative actions.

"It destabilizes the region, and China has as much to lose as anybody in that region with the continuation of this kind of behavior and what the potential might be," he said.

Like I said in my post #94 - US Ambassador Jon Huntsman said "...the American people, they need to understand is that China has five thousand years of history, cultural background and social experience."

**Jiro** · 11-29-2010, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

was that what you meant by not being assertive enough?

no. that's whole another different topic. I was referring to multinational talks, not some finger-pointing thing.

In the past, my parents have told me that North Korea and South Korea wanted to reunite together but the Americans aren't letting it to happen because it would make Korea a superpower in that region... which means the Americans will have to leave thus significantly reducing the American dominance in that region. I thought that was silly but... look at Israel in middle of multiple hostile countries

Steinhauer · 11-29-2010, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

no. that's whole another different topic. I was referring to multinational talks, not some finger-pointing thing.

In the past, my parents have told me that North Korea and South Korea wanted to reunite together but the Americans aren't letting it to happen because it would make Korea a superpower in that region... which means the Americans will have to leave thus significantly reducing the American dominance in that region. I thought that was silly but... look at Israel in middle of multiple hostile countries

I would be dumbfounded if my own government did not want Korea to re-unite.

I know for a fact we had a hand in the re-unification of Germany.

**Jiro** · 11-29-2010, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

I would be dumbfounded if my own government did not want Korea to re-unite.

I know - I thought same but it's plausible. I still ridicule it anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

I know for a fact we had a hand in the re-unification of Germany.

Germany is not equal to Korea. Different time. Different reason.

What's for sure is that the Americans are required to pack up and leave the entire region once both Koreas are reunited. The Koreans will assume the "superpower leadership". It will be a threat to China as well.

North Korea = the military supremacy
South Korea = the economic supremacy
Combine them both = The Superpower in East Asia

**Foxrac** · 11-29-2010, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

I know - I thought same but it's plausible. I still ridicule it anyway.

Germany is not equal to Korea. Different time. Different reason.

What's for sure is that the Americans are required to pack up and leave the entire region once both Koreas are reunited. The Koreans will assume the "superpower leadership". It will be a threat to China as well.

North Korea = the military supremacy
South Korea = the economic supremacy
Combine them both = The Superpower in East Asia

It is just like someone to compare with USA and CSA in 1860's.

*CSA is Confederate States of America

**Jiro** · 11-29-2010, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

It is just like someone to compare with USA and CSA in 1850's.

what's CSA?

**Foxrac** · 11-29-2010, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

what's CSA?

Look my post above.

Steinhauer · 11-29-2010, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

I know - I thought same but it's plausible. I still ridicule it anyway.

Germany is not equal to Korea. Different time. Different reason.

What's for sure is that the Americans are required to pack up and leave the entire region once both Koreas are reunited. The Koreans will assume the "superpower leadership". It will be a threat to China as well.

North Korea = the military supremacy
South Korea = the economic supremacy
Combine them both = The Superpower in East Asia

I hope that happens.

Steinhauer · 11-29-2010, 01:07 AM

Yes, Germany was a completely different ballgame except for just one very minor detail.

Communism.

The cultural differences between North and South Koreans after re-unification will be vast.

**Jiro** · 11-29-2010, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

Yes, Germany was a completely different ballgame except for just one very minor detail.

Communism.

The cultural differences between North and South Koreans after re-unification will be vast.

cultural differences? we speak the same language and follow same customs & Chinese New Year.

it's the de-brainwashing process that will be complicated because the North Koreans have no idea what century they're in and what it's like. We'll manage.

Steinhauer · 11-29-2010, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

cultural differences? we speak the same language and follow same customs & Chinese New Year.

it's the de-brainwashing process that will be complicated because the North Koreans have no idea what century they're in and what it's like. We'll manage.

Jiro, I was fortunate to become friends with a student from East Germany. She studied at Gallaudet briefly and was here on what would be comparable to the Fulbright Scholarship.

Even though the East Germans spoke the same language as the West, celebrated the same holidays and etc., there were major obstacles to overcome once Germany re-unified.

She would explain what these obstacles were in great detail. The main obstacle was overcoming what she called, "The need for money for everything."

She felt communism was a better form of government as everything you needed was provided for free. Medical care, food, shelter, etc.

**Jiro** · 11-29-2010, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

Jiro, I was fortunate to become friends with a student from East Germany. She studied at Gallaudet briefly and was here on what would be comparable to the Fulbright Scholarship.

Even though the East Germans spoke the same language as the West, celebrated the same holidays and etc., there were major obstacles to overcome once Germany re-unified.

She would explain what these obstacles were in great detail. The main obstacle was overcoming what she called, "The need for money for everything."

She felt communism was a better form of government as everything you needed was provided for free. Medical care, food, shelter, etc.

The communism in East Germany is nothing comparable to North Korea.

Steinhauer · 11-29-2010, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

The communism in East Germany is nothing comparable to North Korea.

Yes, I know that. More time has passed too.

**Jiro** · 11-29-2010, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

Yes, I know that. More time has passed too.

no. they're not even the same.

North Korea is more of military dictatorship. "Communism" is just a convenient tool for dictator to sell to people and to forge alliance with Russian and Chinese.

Steinhauer · 11-29-2010, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

no. they're not even the same.

North Korea is more of military dictatorship. "Communism" is just a convenient tool for dictator to sell to people and to forge alliance with Russian and Chinese.

yes, I get it. Communism nevertheless. To forge an alliance with Russia and China.

China, Russia quit dollar

**Jiro** · 11-29-2010, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

yes, I get it. Communism nevertheless. To forge an alliance with Russia and China.

China, Russia quit dollar

it's all about $$$.

Steinhauer · 11-29-2010, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

it's all about $$$.

Yup ... and who has the most toys wins.

edit: I gotta ask a silly question. Have you ever considered that the only reason North Korea exists is to act as a buffer for China?

Steinhauer · 11-29-2010, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

I know - I thought same but it's plausible. I still ridicule it anyway.

Germany is not equal to Korea. Different time. Different reason.

What's for sure is that the Americans are required to pack up and leave the entire region once both Koreas are reunited. The Koreans will assume the "superpower leadership". It will be a threat to China as well.

North Korea = the military supremacy
South Korea = the economic supremacy
Combine them both = The Superpower in East Asia

this was released an hour ago:

Quote:

The cables unearthed new revelations about long-simmering nuclear trouble spots, detailing U.S., Israeli and Arab world fears of Iran's growing nuclear program, American concerns about Pakistan's atomic arsenal and U.S. discussions about a united Korean peninsula as a long-term solution to North Korean aggression.

U.S. in Damage Control After Vast Leak of Diplomatic Cables - FoxNews.com

**Jiro** · 11-29-2010, 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

this was released an hour ago:

U.S. in Damage Control After Vast Leak of Diplomatic Cables - FoxNews.com

ah that same old song they've been singing for decades. yawn... nothing new.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

11-29-2010, 01:07 AM	#170 (permalink)
Steinhauer Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 8,191 Blog Entries: 1	Yes, Germany was a completely different ballgame except for just one very minor detail. Communism. The cultural differences between North and South Koreans after re-unification will be vast.