"Time passes, but they're always five to seven years from the bomb."

[little grey rabbit]

That was back in 2007.

"Remember, the Iranians are always five to seven years from the bomb," Shlomo Brom, deputy national security adviser under former prime minister Ehud Barak, told this analyst sarcastically during an interview for a book on Israeli-Iranian relations. "Time passes, but they're always five to seven years from the bomb."

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IL08Ak01.html

We are nearly 2011. Are the Iranians any closer?

 

[Puppycow]

Yes.

 

[Puppycow]

Outgoing intel chief: Iran can already produce nuclear bomb

 

[marplots]

What happened when North Korea got the bomb?

I heard they had one crazy dictator that wanted to kill the world and was in something called, "the axis of evil". How'd that pan out?

When people make me fear stuff I think I should be able to sue if the predictions don't pan out. Emotional pain and suffering. Class action suit.

 

[Puppycow]

What happened when North Korea got the bomb?

I heard they had one crazy dictator that wanted to kill the world and was in something called, "the axis of evil". How'd that pan out?

When people make me fear stuff I think I should be able to sue if the predictions don't pan out. Emotional pain and suffering. Class action suit.

How'd it pan out? North Korea is more dangerous than ever. That's how.

Remember the Cheonan?

 

[marplots]

How'd it pan out? North Korea is more dangerous than ever. That's how.

Remember the Cheonan?

I confess I didn't, I had to look it up. If I understand you right, your point is that having a nuclear weapon allows North Korea to do things it otherwise wouldn't do?

This is tough to argue against, as I honestly do not know how NK would act with or without 'the bomb'. They always seemed a bit nutty to me.

However, I would point out that the really scary stuff did not happen. Perhaps I am misremembering the hype, but it seems like there was mention of missiles and nuclear attacks on either South Korea or even the U.S. There was talk of needing a preemptive strike to prevent the nuke being born.

Don't get me wrong, I'm as interested in apocalyptic scenarios as anyone else, but I can't take the continued series of worst case predictions; especially when the top attack-news (on the U.S.) for the last almost-decade used airplanes as weapons.

I guess I should just forget things as they drift out of the public eye. Forget the biological agents that anyone with a lab could develop, the dirty bomb scenario or the nerve gas in a cargo container. It's much more efficient to just pay attention to whatever is scariest in the news currently.

Just to check though. Are terror/anchor babies still worth fearing?

 

[Mirrorglass]

I confess I didn't, I had to look it up. If I understand you right, your point is that having a nuclear weapon allows North Korea to do things it otherwise wouldn't do?

This is tough to argue against, as I honestly do not know how NK would act with or without 'the bomb'. They always seemed a bit nutty to me.

However, I would point out that the really scary stuff did not happen. Perhaps I am misremembering the hype, but it seems like there was mention of missiles and nuclear attacks on either South Korea or even the U.S. There was talk of needing a preemptive strike to prevent the nuke being born.

Don't get me wrong, I'm as interested in apocalyptic scenarios as anyone else, but I can't take the continued series of worst case predictions; especially when the top attack-news (on the U.S.) for the last almost-decade used airplanes as weapons.

I guess I should just forget things as they drift out of the public eye. Forget the biological agents that anyone with a lab could develop, the dirty bomb scenario or the nerve gas in a cargo container. It's much more efficient to just pay attention to whatever is scariest in the news currently.

Just to check though. Are terror/anchor babies still worth fearing?

Saying that missile or nuclear attacks by North Korea "didn't happen" is misleading; it suggests that the crisis is somehow a thing of the past. It isn't. Relations between North and South Korea are tighter than they have been in decades, and are getting worse. Japan, USA and South Korea have been steadily escalating their thinly veiled threats towards North Korea, which in turn has responded by issuing more and more not-at-all-veiled threats. Moreover, North Korea is in the middle of transferring power to the next dictator, and it's impossible to know what direction the country will take under him. The situation is very dire, very dangerous, and very right now.

Due to the way the media works today, it's often easy to think that crises end the moment the newspapers stop printing them. But the reality isn't quite that nice. In truth, China still oppresses human rights, Chile is still heavily damaged from the earthquake, Somalia is still a horrible place to live in and North Korea is still dangerous.

 

[Puppycow]

I confess I didn't, I had to look it up. If I understand you right, your point is that having a nuclear weapon allows North Korea to do things it otherwise wouldn't do?

This is tough to argue against, as I honestly do not know how NK would act with or without 'the bomb'. They always seemed a bit nutty to me.

However, I would point out that the really scary stuff did not happen. Perhaps I am misremembering the hype, but it seems like there was mention of missiles and nuclear attacks on either South Korea or even the U.S. There was talk of needing a preemptive strike to prevent the nuke being born.

Don't get me wrong, I'm as interested in apocalyptic scenarios as anyone else, but I can't take the continued series of worst case predictions; especially when the top attack-news (on the U.S.) for the last almost-decade used airplanes as weapons.

I guess I should just forget things as they drift out of the public eye. Forget the biological agents that anyone with a lab could develop, the dirty bomb scenario or the nerve gas in a cargo container. It's much more efficient to just pay attention to whatever is scariest in the news currently.

Just to check though. Are terror/anchor babies still worth fearing?

While it is true that North Korea has always been dangerous, they have had a very strong deterrent for a long time, which is that Seoul is within artillery distance of North Korea, and they could destroy the city even without nukes. Nukes mean that now they can destroy Tokyo too. Or at least threaten Tokyo. This means that they can get away with a lot of provokations too, as they did in the Cheonan case and in other cases before. On my mobile now but IIRC once they shot down a civilian airliner, they have kidnapped foreign nationals including children, they have tried on several occasions to assasinate South Korean leaders. In all these cases retaliation was out f the question becuase of their deterrent.

As far as terror babies go, don't get me started. The most diabolical insidious threat to the republic ever known.

 

[paiute]

That was back in 2007.



http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IL08Ak01.html

We are nearly 2011. Are the Iranians any closer?

Still more worried about Alabama.

 

[marplots]

Saying that missile or nuclear attacks by North Korea "didn't happen" is misleading; it suggests that the crisis is somehow a thing of the past. It isn't. Relations between North and South Korea are tighter than they have been in decades, and are getting worse. Japan, USA and South Korea have been steadily escalating their thinly veiled threats towards North Korea, which in turn has responded by issuing more and more not-at-all-veiled threats. Moreover, North Korea is in the middle of transferring power to the next dictator, and it's impossible to know what direction the country will take under him. The situation is very dire, very dangerous, and very right now.

I'll bow to your knowledge on the subject, but I'd like to know, with what you have outlined in mind, whether you think a preemptive attack was the proper course -- a chance missed.

Due to the way the media works today, it's often easy to think that crises end the moment the newspapers stop printing them. But the reality isn't quite that nice. In truth, China still oppresses human rights, Chile is still heavily damaged from the earthquake, Somalia is still a horrible place to live in and North Korea is still dangerous.

This I agree with completely. And that was part of my complaint. I may feel frightened after a newscast about this or any of a number of crises, but I hardly ever feel informed. A long series of troubling scenarios that don't pan out leaves me feeling drained and distrustful of the whole enterprise. I no longer think I have enough information to evaluate this stuff on my own.

 

[Mirrorglass]

I'll bow to your knowledge on the subject, but I'd like to know, with what you have outlined in mind, whether you think a preemptive attack was the proper course -- a chance missed.

I should point out that I have the bad habit of sounding far more knowledgeable than I actually am; I don't know much more about the situation than an average newspaper reader does, I just form strong impressions about it.

As for the pre-emptive attack, I'll have to say no. Partially because despite the situation being dire, I still believe it could be solved - and war is not a good way of doing that.

And even more importantly, because I do not agree with the policy of pre-emptive attacks. It's an act of selfishness and short-sightedness; a massive act of violence against the very people who suffer most from the crimes of the North Korean leaders; the North Korean citizens. It is not war that they need, but help.

But I know, of course, that reality does not always work like that. The North Korean leaders seem poised to go out in a blaze of glory rather than let progress take over their country, and it's quite possible that millions will pay the price for that in blood. Still, I hold some hope for the situation resolving without another war between a superpower and a backward dictatorship.

This I agree with completely. And that was part of my complaint. I may feel frightened after a newscast about this or any of a number of crises, but I hardly ever feel informed. A long series of troubling scenarios that don't pan out leaves me feeling drained and distrustful of the whole enterprise. I no longer think I have enough information to evaluate this stuff on my own.

It is one of the great problems with modern media. Still, it's not quite as bad as that; the information is there. News agencies do publish reports and follow-ups on stories that have fallen off the headlines; it just takes a little bit more work to see those. But naturally people - myself included - don't have the time or inclination to do that, which is why we often contend ourselves to discussing the hot topic at hand and forgetting the rest.

 

[Beerina]

That was back in 2007.



http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IL08Ak01.html

We are nearly 2011. Are the Iranians any closer?

There was precedence for a country that got the bomb much earlier than anticipated.

 

[SatanicSheep]

No doubt in my mind that the Cheonan would have been sunk even if N Korea didn't have it's nuclear "devices."

 

[INRM]

If Iran has the means to produce a nuclear bomb, the crisis will be first used by American politicians for fear mongering purposes; if people don't buy it; this weapon will happen to, through a miraculous lapse in security, get into a major city and detonate.

Nobody would ever disbelieve the fear-mongering after that point, and the destruction would make 9/11 look miniscule the amount of power the President could push for would be virtually unlimited.

 

[plumjam]

How'd it pan out? North Korea is more dangerous than ever. That's how.

Remember the Cheonan?

When's the last time North Korea invaded anyone, as opposed to, say the USA?

How many civillians of other nations has North Korea killed, compared to the USA?

Which of the following two states is the only one to have dropped atomic bombs on populated cities?
a) the USA
b) North Korea

etc..

Puppycow, perhaps one day you'll give up believing the fearmongering propaganda -that apparently feeds an emotional bias you have for the country you happen to have been born / live in - and join the rest of us in the real world.

 

[portlandatheist]

When's the last time North Korea invaded anyone, as opposed to, say the USA?

How many civillians of other nations has North Korea killed, compared to the USA?

Which of the following two states is the only one to have dropped atomic bombs on populated cities?
a) the USA
b) North Korea

etc..

Puppycow, perhaps one day you'll give up believing the fearmongering propaganda -that apparently feeds an emotional bias you have for the country you happen to have been born / live in - and join the rest of us in the real world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

What on earth is wrong with you? I just don't understand the apologists for regimes like Iran and North Korea, states that crush any and all descent with all power within their means.

Are you folks disappointed that Myanmar doesn't have nukes and they don't have a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council? Sounds like that would be a big win in your book.

 

[little grey rabbit]

How'd it pan out? North Korea is more dangerous than ever. That's how.

Remember the Cheonan?

I remember the Cheonan. I also remember that both China and Russia have refused to endorse the Western dominated military enquirý that found North Korea responsible. China, in particular, made clear it would not support any country that attacked the South Korea vessel.

I may be wrong, but as I understand there has been no UN Security condemnation of North Korea on the incident - and the reason for that is Britain and the US know they would be humiliated by a joint Chinese-Russian veto if they tried.

The problem we have is the same interests who benefit from the sinking - the Western military-industrial complex - are the ones that are telling us NK did it, yet fail to supply any convincing motivation for NK's actions.

No peace dividend for Ameriguns.

Then again Puppycow doesn't seem to want one.

 

[quadraginta]

Still more worried about Alabama.

Tom Lehrer?

 

[keale]

While it is true that North Korea has always been dangerous, they have had a very strong deterrent for a long time, which is that Seoul is within artillery distance of North Korea, and they could destroy the city even without nukes. Nukes mean that now they can destroy Tokyo too. Or at least threaten Tokyo. This means that they can get away with a lot of provokations too, as they did in the Cheonan case and in other cases before. On my mobile now but IIRC once they shot down a civilian airliner, they have kidnapped foreign nationals including children, they have tried on several occasions to assasinate South Korean leaders. In all these cases retaliation was out f the question becuase of their deterrent.

As far as terror babies go, don't get me started. The most diabolical insidious threat to the republic ever known.

IMO the way I see NK is that they dont have the finances to carry out a war of more than a few weeks. As far as I can tell NK is piss poor and any aggression to us or any of our allies would be certain death for the current regime and the use of nukes would be beyond suicidal and as nutty as they are I dont think they have a death wish.

 

[McHrozni]

I may be wrong, but as I understand there has been no UN Security condemnation of North Korea on the incident - and the reason for that is Britain and the US know they would be humiliated by a joint Chinese-Russian veto if they tried.

If you call that humiliation, would you also call every US veto a humiliation of whomever proposed the resolution?

The problem we have is the same interests who benefit from the sinking - the Western military-industrial complex - are the ones that are telling us NK did it, yet fail to supply any convincing motivation for NK's actions.

What exactly is the motivation for the 'Western MIC' to sink the corvette?

McHrozni