WTF Are the North Koreans Smoking Now?

[Broomstick]

Its bizarre but I think the US national psyche is too obsessed with their 'vulnerabilities' to be able to understand that they're basically Zeus throwing thunderbolts and everyone else is just a victim.

I have to agree with that. Why the US is like that I've never quite been able to figure out.

(Yes, I am agreeing with Stark. You might want to check hell for snowball accumulation.)

[PeZook]

Its bizarre but I think the US national psyche is too obsessed with their 'vulnerabilities' to be able to understand that they're basically Zeus throwing thunderbolts and everyone else is just a victim.

I have to agree with that. Why the US is like that I've never quite been able to figure out.

(Yes, I am agreeing with Stark. You might want to check hell for snowball accumulation.)

I think Simon touched on that a bit - it could be a legacy of the Cold War, where the US was vulnerable in a very real sense. And it continued into our contemporary times, which can be even in seen in media and movies that paint a scary picture of the US being invaded and conquered. The last time this was even a remote threat was during the cold war, but the militaristic rhethoric you hear always circles around that issue: soldiers in Afghanistan are Defending Our Freedoms, the Designated Enemy wants to Take Our Freedom Away, etc.

Is it a cynical attempt at propaganda that makes use of scaremongering to make people do what you want? Perhaps. But it wouldn't work if the scare tactic did not exploit actual fears of the populace, now would it?

[Stark]

I have to agree with that. Why the US is like that I've never quite been able to figure out.

(Yes, I am agreeing with Stark. You might want to check hell for snowball accumulation.)

I think the medical name is 'fear'. Maybe nations are like people, and America feels that it was abused as a child and now simply inflicts that suffering on others without even really knowing why. Maybe you're a load of fascists and cowards. Maybe your culture simply doesn't allow you to actually consciously acknowledge the reality of your nation's power. Maybe you're no worse than anyone else except your mistakes shake the world.

Regardless, the sooner Americans in general understand why their country scares the fuck out of most of the human race the better.

[gigabytelord]

I just found a particularly scathing news article on AJE, It's clearly biased but if the some of the info is true then we are the bad guys here.

Edit: Maybe "we are the bad guys" is too simplistic but what else would you consider it?

Based on the ear-splitting levels of hysteria deployed by American networks, mighty superpower Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) is about to bomb the poor, undefended United States of America into the Stone Age.

Oops, sorry, that was the mighty superpower itself shocking and awing Baghdad 10 years ago.

And still, with the DPRK holding eight nuclear warheads against Iran's zero, I repeat, zero; and with the DPRK even threatening to nuke the US (which they can't) as opposed to no such threats from Iran, the usual Washington armchair warriors have their chattering ballistic missiles all pointed towards… Iran.

Those poor defensive bombers

Let's try to inject a little bit of sanity into such voluminous nonsense.

Essentially we just need this Wall Street Journal piece(paywall), where the proverbial, unnamed White House "officials" leaked to a Rupert Murdoch-owned operation that this whole thing was about provoking Pyongyang.

Anybody with minimal reading skills and an IQ not relevant to sub-zoology had already figured that out at least two weeks ago.

Just take a look at this abridged timeline. This is South Korea already telegraphing its own provocations, way back on March 6.

This, on March 19, is South Korea and the US in their joint naval drills, parading a nuclear attack submarine right at the DPRK's door - your typical "mine is bigger than yours".

This, on March 20, is the Pacific Command flying B-52 bombers out of Guam to show off its "continuous bomber presence".

This, on March 26, is a leak about the Unified Quest war game at the Army War College; it was all based on a collapsing North Korea where the leadership "lost control over their nukes". This is as appalling as a script as Hollywood's ghastly Olympus Has Fallen.

And this, on March 28, is the clincher: two "Batman" nuclear-capable stealth B-2 bombers were flown from Missouri to show off in the skies very close to the DPRK, simulating bombing raids on North Korean targets as part of a "defensive" mission - prompting worldwide chatter about a new "Bombers for Peace" programme.

Each B-2 costs a whopping $3bn. Flying them costs at least $135,000 an hour. They must be worthier than paying a decent salary for legions of American teachers. By the way, any teacher worth his/her salary would laugh the notion of the US using B-2 bombers as "deterrence" in Asia out of the classroom.

Oh they do love the smell of napalm

The so-called Obama administration "playbook" to deal with North Korea leaked to the Wall Street Journal did work to perfection; the DPRK's leadership predictably went ballistic.

When I was in North Korea three years ago the consensus was overwhelming; the scars of vicious American bombing of their cities during the Korean War have never healed. US B-29 bombers dropped more napalm in Korean cities than in Vietnam; the North was virtually flattened. The Korean War: A History, by Bruce Cumings (Modern Library, 2010), has all the tragic, gruesome details.

Without understanding this, it is impossible for the rest of the world to contextualise the North's paranoia. When the DPRK's leadership sees nuclear B-2 bombers - capable of dropping 30,000 pound, bunker-busting MOABs (Mother of All Bombs) - simulating raids right at their doorstep, they do take it very seriously; they do fear it could happen all over again.


US: Wouldn't be surprised if North
launches missile

And then Pentagon head Chuck Hagel has the gall to urge the DPRK to "tone down its rhetoric", offering a "path to peace" - via the "Bombers for Peace" programme, for sure. Just in case, Hagel also called the South Koreans to reassure them "all options remain on the table", as in nuclear umbrella, conventional strike capabilities and missile defence.

Now the "playbook" narrative has been slightly tweaked; the White House is taking a time out - to see what the North Koreans come up with. Hagel is of course behind the playbook. Same for Secretary of State John Kerry. If this is Washington's idea of "diplomacy", one wonders what those Pentagon geniuses will come up with when they devise another "playbook" for Iran.

So here is how it worked. The "playbook" was a massively orchestrated US provocation. The DPRK, predictably, reacted with anger. But then only the response was branded as a provocation.

Washington may have cornered the PR war - because the solipsistic DPRK, lost in translation and virtually isolated, cannot possibly win. But what is the Pentagon really up to? Invasion? Getting into a real war? Accumulating at least 250,000 American body bags? Nuke the whole North? Test the "pivoting" to Asia and provoke China?

Round up the usual weaponisers

Cui bono? Once again, weapons manufacturers for the industrial-military complex, who else? Missile defence is on the up and up; soon there will be 44 interceptors along the Pacific Coast, instead of the current 30.

The young Kim Jong-un, 30, is matchless in the boys with toys department; he can play with loads of missiles, the fourth largest army in the world at 1.1 million (75 percent of them stationed within 100km of the DMZ) and, to top it off, a whole country.

But as much as the real military powers behind the throne, he is not suicidal. The DPRK did not just watch the "playbook" unfold. It did move some of its Musudan ballistic missiles (mobile, range of 4,000km, largely based on Soviet submarine-launched ballistic missile technology), as well as Hwasong-13 intercontinental ballistic missiles (also mobile, in three stages, with a range of 10,000km). It is assumed in the West that neither missile system has been tested.

By now, they are positioned at the DPRK's eastern coast. Some sort of test could happen as early as April 15; that would celebrate the birthday of the founder of North Korea, Kim Il Sung. If successful, Washington better not mess with the young Kim, "playbook" or not; the DPRK will prove it can launch mobile long-range missiles.

Once again, good news for the US missile defence lobby. The Lords of War always win - especially in the context of Obama's pivoting to Asia; and despite all Armageddon predictions, it is plain obvious the DPRK is not going to attack anyone.

Discuss.

[LaCroix]

Americans used to have a much higher degree of confidence in this. Ironically back when the US was more vulnerable to attack, in that countries 1 through N ganging up on it would have posed an actual threat that couldn't be repaid in kind. The Cold War scared people very deeply in the US because it took away the sense of security, and because the intentions of the USSR were a huge unknown from the point of view of... pretty much any American.

So for anyone born before about 1980, the normal state of affairs is that everyone could die on a few minutes' notice because some asshole pushed a button. This does not make people think of themselves as "Zeus throwing thunderbolts." And it makes them very receptive to the idea that new threats exist which could destroy them (if slower and more subtly) just like the old threats could.f

The new generation who weren't affected by Cold War mentality may have a different attitude on average, but they aren't in power and at the moment the system is working rather hard on immiserizing them into submission so that they won't upset the status quo too much.

You know who else lived through all of this? Europeans.
Who would have been nuked to a cinder and drenched in fallout by both sides of the Cold War, just to not leave any loose ends? Europeans.
Where would the radiation-hardened Soviet tanks roll through atomic wastelands? Europe.
Who was thinking "please don't let them push the button over this" whenever the US and Russia clashed, or the US and China clashed, or any of the gazillion proxy wars was waged, exactly because they would be caught in it? Europeans.
Who had absolutely no influence whatsoever on these events, because they couldn't even vote sane people into power at one side of that equation? Europeans.

So while the US came out of the Cold War with the sense of "we might not win", all of Europe got out of it with the secure knowledge of "whoever fucks up, we pay the price". Maybe this can help you to understand why we Europeans get our teeth at edge whenever the US goes on to rattle their sabres against their enemy of the day.

[Ahriman238]

By Christine Kim and Joyce Lee, Reuters
SEOUL - North Korea warned foreigners in South Korea on Tuesday to leave the country because they were at risk in the event of conflict, the latest threat of war from Pyongyang.

Soaring tensions on the peninsula have been fuelled by North Korean anger over the imposition of U.N. sanctions after its last nuclear arms test in February, creating one of the worst crises since the end of the Korean War in 1953.

"We do not wish harm on foreigners in South Korea should there be a war," said the KCNA news agency, citing its Korea Asia-Pacific Peace Committee.

Pyongyang last week advised embassies there to consider pulling out in case of war. Earlier on Tuesday, North Korean workers failed to turn up at a factory complex operated with South Korea, effectively shutting down the last major symbol of cooperation between the hostile neighbors.

Few embassies in Seoul have advised their citizens to quit. The United States, which has also been threatened by Pyongyang, has said there were no imminent signs of threats to American citizens.

Pyongyang has shown no sign of preparing its 1.2 million-strong army for war, indicating the threats could be partly intended for domestic purposes to bolster Kim Jong Un, 30, the third in his family to lead the reclusive country.

South Korea's president said she was disappointed at North Korea's decision to halt operations at the Kaesong industrial park, which generates $2 billion in trade for the impoverished state.

News of the Kaesong closure diverted attention from speculation that the North was about to launch some sort of provocative act this week -- perhaps a missile launch or new nuclear test. However, residents of Seoul carried on with daily activities with no trace of anxiety.

Few experts had expected Pyongyang to jeopardize Kaesong, which employs more than 50,000 North Koreans making household goods for 123 South Korean firms.

World leaders have expressed alarm at the crisis and the prospect of a conflict involving a country claiming to be developing nuclear weapons.

China, the North's sole diplomatic and financial ally, has shown increasing impatience with Pyongyang. Russian President Vladimir Putin said hostilities could create a cataclysm worse than the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster.

The North is also angry at weeks of joint U.S.-South Korean military exercises off the coast of the peninsula, with B-2 stealth bombers dispatched from their U.S. bases.

But the United States announced the postponement last weekend of a long-planned missile launch, a move officials said was aimed at easing tensions on the peninsula.

North Korean authorities told embassies in Pyongyang they could not guarantee their safety from Wednesday, after saying conflict was inevitable amid the joint U.S.-South Korean military exercises due to last until the end of the month. No diplomats appear to have left the North Korean capital.

Mostly recap of things that have happened before, but the "all you foreigners get out of the South" part is new.


Gigabytelord: Of course we're the bad guys. We and the Russians were always the villains of this piece. We agreed to temporarily split Korea with the Russians, then illegally fixed the election when our side democratically chose a communist unification-ist leader. We prevented the peaceful unification of Korea, on the grounds they'd be communists, and we were preventing the spread of communism at all costs.

The Korean War may have technically started when the North invaded the South to force unification, with considerable Russian support, but the US created the context in which that could happen.

I've known one or two people to protest that when we started winning, we should have pressed on and unified the country under our terms, instead of reestablishing the pre-War line. They've generally been considered belligerent but ultimately harmless nuts.

[Broomstick]

Based on the ear-splitting levels of hysteria deployed by American networks, mighty superpower Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) is about to bomb the poor, undefended United States of America into the Stone Age.

While I have to agree the US media is sounding a bit hysterical they sound that way over everything. Consider this, however, as an alternate explanation: if one of the grievances of the DPRK is that their words are not heard/broadcast, and that their military and threats are not taken seriously, and that that is part of the reason they're ratcheting up the rhetoric could the daily reporting on by the US networks be an attempt to defuse the situation by demonstrating that yes, they are heard and they are taken seriously? Seriously enough for anti-missile units to be deployed in neighboring nations. They are not being dismissed.

Is that likely? I don't know, I'm just tossing it out there. While I'd be the first to agree the US media is often stupid and obsessed with trivia if this was the case it wouldn't be the first time the press/media worked on behalf of the US government.

Oops, sorry, that was the mighty superpower itself shocking and awing Baghdad 10 years ago.

Just to get this out of the way: we in this thread are all agreed the Iraq war was started on forged evidence and those responsible should be held accountable (even if that is extremely unlikely to ever happen), correct?

And still, with the DPRK holding eight nuclear warheads against Iran's zero, I repeat, zero; and with the DPRK even threatening to nuke the US (which they can't) as opposed to no such threats from Iran, the usual Washington armchair warriors have their chattering ballistic missiles all pointed towards… Iran.

Er... really? I haven't read/heard much about Iran lately. There's also the small detail that Iran has natural resources like petroleum the US has long been known to take a great deal of interest in acquiring.

Without defending the issue, the fact is that the ONLY interest the US had in North Korea for the most recent decades, up until they acquired nukes, was the fact the US was pledged to defend South Korea and Japan. Since nukes, well, yes, there is the nuke issue but even the Hysterical US Media is saying that the DPRK can NOT reach the US mainland, Guam at most. The concern is more about the future potential to develop long-range missiles, not immediate bombing of the CONUS or even Hawaii and Alaska. The region around the DPRK is mostly interested in business and trade, not in fighting each other even if centuries-old animosities remain. Aside from the DPRK the region is pretty stable.

Iran, however, in addition to its potential to harm another ally (Israel) has Valuable Resources and is also located in a part of the world which is arguably unstable. While the DPRK can't really touch the US if Iran does something to disrupt the petroleum flow that will have an immediate impact on the US. So even without nukes Iran could be seen as more threatening. Which is not a position I'm going to defend to the death, just a possible reason why the US government spends a lot more time and energy on the “Iran problem” rather than the “DPRK problem” most of the time.

Essentially we just need this Wall Street Journal piece(paywall), where the proverbial, unnamed White House "officials" leaked to a Rupert Murdoch-owned operation that this whole thing was about provoking Pyongyang.

Huh. You know what the problem with using anonymous sources is? No one can verify they're actually who they say they are and/or have the credentials they claim. While I am willing to consider the possibility that the US government might leak in this manner (it wouldn't be the first time) not every claim of this sort is factual.

Just take a look at this abridged timeline. This is South Korea already telegraphing its own provocations, way back on March 6.

One side of a never-officially-ended-war declares the armistice null and void and the other side says that if attacked they'll respond.... and the latter is the provocateur? I'm not sure I follow that logic.

This, on March 19, is South Korea and the US in their joint naval drills, parading a nuclear attack submarine right at the DPRK's door - your typical "mine is bigger than yours".

This, on March 20, is the Pacific Command flying B-52 bombers out of Guam to show off its "continuous bomber presence".

The US has done annual war games with South Korea for 60 years. Hell, the B-52's were in the Korean war back in the 1950's. They're freakin' 60-70 years old themselves. The way this AJE piece is written it's like any of this is new but it isn't, it happens every damn year just like the Lunar New Year or Buddha's Birthday. It's no secret that the US and ROK have an agreement and that military exercises are part of it. This is as “provocative” the DPRK's regular occurring military exercises.

This, on March 26, is a leak about the Unified Quest war game at the Army War College; it was all based on a collapsing North Korea where the leadership "lost control over their nukes". This is as appalling as a script as Hollywood's ghastly Olympus Has Fallen.

The US has contingency plans for if space aliens invade. They have similar scenarios for if Pakistan/India/Israel/any other nuclear bomb possessing nation “lost control over their nukes”. The reporter might find it “appalling” but the military's job is to have a plan for such things and yes, they're occasionally war gamed. Maybe he thinks no one should ever think about or consider such a possibility?

And this, on March 28, is the clincher: two "Batman" nuclear-capable stealth B-2 bombers were flown from Missouri to show off in the skies very close to the DPRK, simulating bombing raids on North Korean targets as part of a "defensive" mission - prompting worldwide chatter about a new "Bombers for Peace" programme.

Again, not only do most of us in thread agree that wasn't the best move, it seems the US government might also be thinking the same. So yes, this has a basis in truth.

The so-called Obama administration "playbook" to deal with North Korea leaked to the Wall Street Journal did work to perfection; the DPRK's leadership predictably went ballistic.

So... is this reporting implying Obama is trying to provoke a nuclear war? Or what?

When I was in North Korea three years ago the consensus was overwhelming; the scars of vicious American bombing of their cities during the Korean War have never healed. US B-29 bombers dropped more napalm in Korean cities than in Vietnam; the North was virtually flattened. The Korean War: A History, by Bruce Cumings (Modern Library, 2010), has all the tragic, gruesome details.

Just gloss over the damage done to South Korea in that same war, why don't you? The DPRK has complete control over the resources and labor of North Korea. They chose to build the world's fourth largest military and fund a nuclear program rather than repair the war damage. Also, why not discuss the utility of using long-term scars of that sort as propaganda to keep the populace riled up about The Enemy?

Without understanding this, it is impossible for the rest of the world to contextualise the North's paranoia. When the DPRK's leadership sees nuclear B-2 bombers - capable of dropping 30,000 pound, bunker-busting MOABs (Mother of All Bombs) - simulating raids right at their doorstep, they do take it very seriously; they do fear it could happen all over again.

Just as the residents of Yeonpyeong island fear being shelled again... but somehow people being killed in South Korea doesn't count. This is a wonderful illustration of the double-standard at work. Everything done by Party A is bad, and Party B can do no wrong, even if it does exactly what Party A does, or does something arguably worse.

Just in case, Hagel also called the South Koreans to reassure them "all options remain on the table", as in nuclear umbrella, conventional strike capabilities and missile defence.

… in other words, nothing different than has been the case for 60 years.

So here is how it worked. The "playbook" was a massively orchestrated US provocation. The DPRK, predictably, reacted with anger. But then only the response was branded as a provocation.

Pot. Kettle. This completely ignores that the DPRK has engaged into its own provocations in the past which directly affects present relations with its neighbors.

Washington may have cornered the PR war - because the solipsistic DPRK, lost in translation and virtually isolated, cannot possibly win. But what is the Pentagon really up to? Invasion? Getting into a real war? Accumulating at least 250,000 American body bags? Nuke the whole North? Test the "pivoting" to Asia and provoke China?

This is starting to sound like the DPRK propaganda about the US.

Once again, good news for the US missile defence lobby. The Lords of War always win - especially in the context of Obama's pivoting to Asia; and despite all Armageddon predictions, it is plain obvious the DPRK is not going to attack anyone.

I'm sure the residents of Yeonpyeong island might not feel the same. Fact is, the DPRK is not an innocent victim here. They've done plenty of nasty, dirty stuff themselves. In that respect they are like every other nation in the world. I'd prefer they not attack anyone but so far as I can see they've been the ones to shoot/kidnap/assassinate far more often than anyone else over the past six decades. How many North Koreans have been kidnapped by the South? How many DPRK islands shelled? How many DPRK ships sunk by the South? How many North Koreans killed by Southern snipers along the DMZ?

While this article does bring to light potential crap on the part of the US/ROK it completely avoids any mention of the DPRK's crap. A balanced article would take a more nuanced approach. This isn't just a little biased it is heavily biased.

[Thanas]

Weighing in on the general scale, I don't think the US is any different at all than any other hegomon in the modern age. With Britain it was the threat of France, then Russia, then Germany. The British press regularly acted in a manner that was overall very reminiscent of the worst US pieces about Iraq (ZOMG WE MUST TAKE AFGHANISTAN OR ELSE THE RUSSIAN OCTOPUS WILL THROTTLE OUR INDIA).

If the world would not have nukes or be so interdependent of each other, I doubt a lot of people would care that much either.

[Broomstick]

What do you think about the notion that making everyone much more interdependent by encouraging foreign trade lessens the likelihood of actual war? (Again, not a position I intend to defend to the death, just one I've heard on occasion.)

[DarkArk]

Edit: Whoops, nevermind. Somehow missed there was another page and it has been answered.

[Thanas]

What do you think about the notion that making everyone much more interdependent by encouraging foreign trade lessens the likelihood of actual war? (Again, not a position I intend to defend to the death, just one I've heard on occasion.)

Sure, it helps - between the guys that do the trading. If you have another nation sitting near the trade routes that is either shunned or not interested it is less helpful.

But really, trade only prevents war between equals. Otherwise - see Libya.

[DarkArk]

Maybe you're no worse than anyone else except your mistakes shake the world.

That tends to happen when you have a quarter of the world's economy under one government. I think there's also something to be said for the fact that most Americans aren't really comfortable with how powerful their country is. They don't engage with the outside world much, in part because the US itself is so large, and so the idea that the US is the most powerful country on earth is somewhat terrifying to people. Thus they ignore it. Problem being that doesn't make that power go away, nor change the actual role the US plays in the world.

Oops, sorry, that was the mighty superpower itself shocking and awing Baghdad 10 years ago.

Well, that article proved mine and Simon's point. Looks like Broomstick covered the rest of the article.

What do you think about the notion that making everyone much more interdependent by encouraging foreign trade lessens the likelihood of actual war?

Perhaps it lessens the possibility, but I don't think trade itself will stop it. Just look at 1914, people made that very argument. They weren't wrong in the sense that it would make the war more destructive, it did, but it didn't stop it happening either. Both Venezuela and China are heavily dependent on trade with the US, yet both have cool to terrible relations with it.

[Broomstick]

Maybe you're no worse than anyone else except your mistakes shake the world.

That tends to happen when you have a quarter of the world's economy under one government. I think there's also something to be said for the fact that most Americans aren't really comfortable with how powerful their country is. They don't engage with the outside world much, in part because the US itself is so large, and so the idea that the US is the most powerful country on earth is somewhat terrifying to people.

It's not just a matter of size and power. Don't forget that many Americans have a deep and abiding distrust of their own government.

Both Venezuela and China are heavily dependent on trade with the US, yet both have cool to terrible relations with it.

On the upside, though, the US/China relationship is far better than when I was a child when not only weren't we trading with them, we weren't even talking to them about anything. China may not be a good example because, however shaky the US/China relationship is now trade seems to part of the general improvement over time.

[DarkArk]

Don't forget that many Americans have a deep and abiding distrust of their own government.

Isn't that the goddamn truth.

China may not be a good example because, however shaky the US/China relationship is now trade seems to part of the general improvement over time.

My point was more that trade doesn't make countries fast friends, and that if the political situation demands it economic trade won't be enough to stop a war. If China decides to make a go for Taiwan, trade between the PRC and the US won't stop the US from interfering. I'm not saying it can't improve relations, it can and will. But the ideal of international trade annihilating war is a folly.

In other news, potential to shoot down the North Korean missile launch if it looks suspect:

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asi ... 30586.html

Japan has ordered its armed forces to shoot down any North Korean missile headed towards its territory, a defence ministry spokesman said Monday as speculation grows Pyongyang may fire one this week.

TOKYO - Japan has ordered its armed forces to shoot down any North Korean missile headed towards its territory, a defence ministry spokesman said Monday as speculation grows Pyongyang may fire one this week.

Defence Minister Itsunori Onodera issued the order, which will see Aegis destroyers equipped with sea-based interceptor missiles deployed in the Sea of Japan, the defence official said.

The official, who was speaking on condition of anonymity, said the order, which was issued Sunday, was routine and was being kept low-key.

"We won't hold press conferences on this order because of Japan's policy principle that we will not be swayed by North Korean provocations.

"If we announce this publicly and explain in details, North Korea will get to know part of our strategy," the spokesman told AFP.

The order came as a top South Korean security official said Sunday that North Korea may test-launch a missile this week, while the United States has delayed its own missile test because of soaring tensions on the peninsula.

Sunday's order is similar to those Japan's defence ministry has issued three times in the past -- in April 2009 and in April and December last year -- when North Korea launched what it called a satellite.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 464214.cms

WASHINGTON: A top US military commander said Tuesday he favored shooting down a North Korean missile only if it threatened the United States or Washington's allies in the region.


When asked by lawmakers if he supported knocking out any missile fired by North Korea, Admiral Samuel Locklear, head of US Pacific Command, said: "I would not recommend that."

But the four-star admiral told the Senate Armed Services Committee he would "certainly recommend" intercepting an incoming North Korean missile "if it was in defense of our allies" or the United States.

Amid widespread speculation North Korea could be preparing a missile launch, Locklear also said he was confident the US military would be able to detect quickly where any missile was headed.

"It doesn't take long for us to determine where it's going and where it's going to land," said Locklear, who oversees American forces in the Asia-Pacific region.

The US military has a powerful radar in Japan to help track a possible missile launch as well as naval ships in the area equipped with anti-missile weaponry. Japan and South Korea also have their own missile defense systems.

The Pacific Command chief's comments underscored the delicate balancing act faced by President Barack Obama as his administration attempts to demonstrate US resolve without aggravating the crisis on the Korean peninsula.

Given North Korea's repeated violations of UN Security Council resolutions that bar the pursuit of long-range ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons, Pyongyang represents "a clear and direct threat to US national security and regional peace and stability," Locklear said.

North Korea has issued dire threats that it could stage an attack on the United States with nuclear weapons, but experts doubt it is able to do so.

Both the admiral and lawmakers voiced concern that possible miscalculation could trigger an unintended war, and Locklear acknowledged the situation was "volatile."

[Stark]

Isn't that pretty obvious?

[ChaserGrey]

Not surprised at all by the above. There's a reason Japan's been the #3 anti-missile spender in the world for quite a while now (behind the US and Israel). They're all too aware of just who's downrange from Pyongyang, and they're going to be watching the trajectory on that missile veeeeeery carefully. I think the Admiral's got it right: shooting the missile down is a last resort, but I feel better knowing we can exercise it if we need to.

And while Broomstick's eviscerated the al-Jazeera article quite nicely, I just want to point this out:

This, on March 26, is a leak about the Unified Quest war game at the Army War College; it was all based on a collapsing North Korea where the leadership "lost control over their nukes". This is as appalling as a script as Hollywood's ghastly Olympus Has Fallen.

First of all, the Unified Quest game was held back in early February, before the current crisis started. Second, I'd consider it borderline professional irresponsibility if the military hadn't at least considered the possibility. North Korea is opaque enough that it's hard to know how stable the Kim regime really is and AFAIK we know nothing about who has control or possession of their bombs. It's also a scenario that, if it happens, will likely appear without warning and escalate rapidly, which makes it prudent to work out plans beforehand.

[Scrib]

Americans distrust of their government seems highly variable to me. some are perfectly fine using it as a tool to bludgeon everyone into accepting their morality (which makes me think that the opposition is not to the government getting involved in people's lives but the manner in which they do so". They're perfectly fine with fellating the military and it's "freedom-protecting" initiatives. They're not really bothered when the president has the power to imprison people and can use drones without trial.

Yet whenever someone mentions their guns they jump up as if the tyranny has just begun. Because handguns and automatic rifles will stand up to the US military.

[Stark]

It's just how they're trained. Look at this thread where people were literally incapable of escaping the mental rat maze culture constructed for them to look at this situation from a different perspective.

It's pretty hard for people to not just agree with stuff like YEAH WE'RE TOUGH THEY BETTER BACK DOWN THOSE CRAZY PROVOCATORS! No matter how doublethink it is.

[Broomstick]

Of course people like it when the government does something they're in favor of! That doesn't mean they trust the government.

Distrusting the US government is as American as flag waving and singing the national anthem before a ball game.

[Stark]

America doesn't have a monopoly on unthinking nationalism, and many cultures are built on doublethink. It's not even unusual.

You might be more accurate if you said TALKING about distrusting the government was American. :v

[Broomstick]

Well, OK, talking about how awful/untrustworthy the government is is all-American. I tell you, though, to an American hearing it for the first time the European practice of requiring people to register their locations and national ID cards it's freaky. I am, of course, aware these aren't inherently sinister practices and indeed much good can come of them I'm just saying a lot of less-informed Americans would find that threatening whether they should or not.

[DarkArk]

Isn't that pretty obvious?

It's the first I'd seen of both the North Koreans planning another launch, and also South Korea, Japan, and the US being so open about the potential to shoot it down. This changing of tack to saying: "we will shoot it down if it looks the slightest bit iffy." Also the Japanese have revealed that they have another missile battery prepared to defend Tokyo.

Also the NYTimes is pretty bad at covering the day-to-day stuff of this situation.

[Broomstick]

Actually, Japan has THREE anti-missile batteries to defend Tokyo.

I think a situation where folks will let Pyongyang target empty ocean is fair enough. It certainly is sufficient for missile testing. Nations have a right to protect their airspace. If the DPRK decides to test a missile by firing it over Japan then Japan can decide to test its anti-missile technology. If the DPRK doesn't want their shit shot out of the sky they can aim it where nobody lives.

[Pelranius]

Actually, Japan has THREE anti-missile batteries to defend Tokyo.

I think a situation where folks will let Pyongyang target empty ocean is fair enough. It certainly is sufficient for missile testing. Nations have a right to protect their airspace. If the DPRK decides to test a missile by firing it over Japan then Japan can decide to test its anti-missile technology. If the DPRK doesn't want their shit shot out of the sky they can aim it where nobody lives.

The DPRK can't really complain, since all they have to do is aim south over the ECS (I think they tried it with the Unha "space launchers").

[Darth Herobrine]

Each B-2 costs a whopping $3bn.

B-2 bombers - capable of dropping 30,000 pound, bunker-busting MOABs (Mother of All Bombs)

I have two problems with these statements:
One: the B-2 Spirit costs $929 mill per aircraft (1997 dollars)
Two: B-2s can't carry MOABs. These bombs are only deployed from transport planes like the C-130.