New N. Korean Missiles Said to Threaten U.S.

[MetalMilitia]

North Korea is deploying new land- and sea-based ballistic missiles (the R-27) that can carry nuclear warheads and may have sufficient range to hit the United States, according to the authoritative Jane's Defense Weekly.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-korea-north-missiles.html

...So Bush REMOVES US TROOPS from South Korea and puts them into the Iraq quagmire?

After all, a few (possible nuclear) capable missiles aimed right at us by a nation that has openly & publicly declared their dislike of us is NO THREAT, unlike that great and gathering danger Iraq presented.

It's a strange world we live in.

-MM- :crs:

[Strife]

Throw North Korea a bucket of oil and we have ourselves a war, that's what. :nono:

Edit: By the way, that ny times website, you have to be a member to view it right? I'll go cnn.

[Rage_Garden]

Well I'd rather our troops not be there, isnt it like 30 to 1? Im sure we would kick their butts if the North didnt have who knows how much artillery and rockets aimed strait at our troops and S. Korean cities. And now at least George re-started development on nuclear missle defense systems, they might not work but at least we are trying lol. I doubt they will ever do anything more than blackmailing us for food anyways, unless they dont know we also have nukes.

[lotrfan55345]

Well, atleast Seoul has a nice subway system, to survive the nucular attacks...

[substand]

...So Bush REMOVES US TROOPS from South Korea and puts them into the Iraq quagmire?

After all, a few (possible nuclear) capable missiles aimed right at us by a nation that has openly & publicly declared their dislike of us is NO THREAT, unlike that great and gathering danger Iraq presented.

So a nation who had possible wmd's who declared openly and publicly thier dislike of us is NO THREAT, like Iraq?

Besided, what are a couple 10k troops on the border gonna do to prevent a nuke attack on the US motherland?

I know you're not one of those people who says "if Iraq, why not NK?" ... But your post sounds like it. And I think its clear that we can't be everywhere all at once.

[Strife]

North Korea axis of evil? Nahh...what do we have against them anymore. Alright lets make a guess..which country is next on our hit list?

[supercharged]

Besided, what are a couple 10k troops on the border gonna do to prevent a nuke attack on the US motherland?

No but there is something that Pres. Bush has been pushing for called Missile Defense. It's been developed by Isreal and the United States to help shoot down missiles incase they happen to be shot at Israel or the United States. Currently they are stationing them in alaska and in california.

[Emerald_Dragon]

>And now at least George re-started development on nuclear missle defense systems,

we've had them all along, we just want better and more. even though we signed some ABM treaty, we secretly developed the Patriot anti-ballistic missile defense system, in time for Gulf War 1991.


>they might not work but at least we are trying

it does work, it had a very high accuracy rate. but well, what goes up, must come down. but at least the missiles didn't hit their intended targets, they landed somewhere inbetween when they were 'successfully' shot down.


>which country is next on our hit list?

Iran. It has alittle oil. not enough for a full campaign. but enough to support the insurgents.
Saudi Arabia. But we've already got troops their supporting them, so it doesn't really count.

[substand]

it does work, it had a very high accuracy rate. but well, what goes up, must come down. but at least the missiles didn't hit their intended targets, they landed somewhere inbetween when they were 'successfully' shot down.

i'm reading some sarcasm into that... or a dislike of it... tell me i'm reading it the wrong way, because I can't imagine how you could possibly portray the fact that theatre missile defense systems saved lives as a bad thing.


Iran. It has alittle oil. not enough for a full campaign. but enough to support the insurgents.
Saudi Arabia. But we've already got troops their supporting them, so it doesn't really count.

Iran has a lot of oil, and while maybe "not enough for a full campaign" it is surely in enough of a strategic position to allow for it... but as you mentioned the "insurgents," we can see at this point, there is no need for US intervention... however, we could do better in the cause of "not appearing to support the evil religious elites" ... and on that opinion, we appear divided as a country (see http://www.daneshjoo.org/article/publish/article_3130.shtml about kerry among many other online sources)

as for saudi arabia, we've begun to leave: see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2984547.stm among many online for such reports.