North Korea: Threat or Blackmailer?

[CRedskinsRule]

SKorea: North Korea moved missile to east coast

Every move we make bothers China, They have long considered east Asia and the Pacific their territory, and us interlopers. If the Chinese were to start patrolling in international waters about 1000 miles off the Los Angeles coast with a sea borne missile defense array, you would be ok with that?

Would you be ok with them trying to develop a sea borne missile defense array at all?

Again the hypocrisy and arrogance of the US military is amazing. Any other country tries to do half the things we do, and we would be hearing how aggressive and bellicose they are.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

SKorea: North Korea moved missile to east coast

Every move we make bothers China, They have long considered east Asia and the Pacific their territory, and us interlopers. If the Chinese were to start patrolling in international waters about 1000 miles off the Los Angeles coast with a sea borne missile defense array, you would be ok with that?

Would you be ok with them trying to develop a sea borne missile defense array at all?

Again the hypocrisy and arrogance of the US military is amazing. Any other country tries to do half the things we do, and we would be hearing how aggressive and bellicose they are.

Why would their ability to defend themselves against incoming missles be alarming?
I would believe that most of their ships already have some kind of CWIS capablity anyways.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

Why would their ability to defend themselves against incoming missles be alarming?
I would believe that most of their ships already have some kind of CWIS capablity anyways.

In China's shoes:

Guam is a launching base for US aircraft, and naval vessels. If they felt we were an aggressive opponent, they could see defending those assets as a threat to their ability to defend themselves. Just as in football, a good defense enables an offense to be more aggressive.

My main point is you are looking at it from a skewed view that pre-supposes the US to be a gentle giant, but much of the world looks at us as a heavy handed military power, and any additional military hardware or expertise is going to be considered at some level as a threat.

Outside of the Chinese theater, look at the anti missile batteries we had proposed in eastern europe to protect against iranian threats. The russians didn't accept those, and put a lot of pressure on the us to change their locations. Why? What was their rationale? Because us having that ability to stop incoming threats enabled us to launch a strike in such a way that their first wave defense wouldn't then carry out an effective retaliation.

China clearly has wargame scenarios, as we do, where their first goal would be to reduce our effectiveness in the Pacific theater, which would, I imagine, taking out our Guam base. A missile defense system there forces them to account for that and target it more heavily.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

SKorea: North Korea moved missile to east coast

Every move we make bothers China, They have long considered east Asia and the Pacific their territory, and us interlopers. If the Chinese were to start patrolling in international waters about 1000 miles off the Los Angeles coast with a sea borne missile defense array, you would be ok with that?

Would you be ok with them trying to develop a sea borne missile defense array at all?

Again the hypocrisy and arrogance of the US military is amazing. Any other country tries to do half the things we do, and we would be hearing how aggressive and bellicose they are.

I do agree with your point in some ways. If i were a non-nuclear country, i would probably have the same attitude as North Korea and Iran. "Wait a second. You've got a bazillion nukes you use to defend your country.... but youre going to tell me i cant do the same to defend mine? F*ck you!"

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

In China's shoes:

Guam is a launching base for US aircraft, and naval vessels. If they felt we were an aggressive opponent, they could see defending those assets as a threat to their ability to defend themselves. Just as in football, a good defense enables an offense to be more aggressive.

My main point is you are looking at it from a skewed view that pre-supposes the US to be a gentle giant, but much of the world looks at us as a heavy handed military power, and any additional military hardware or expertise is going to be considered at some level as a threat.

Outside of the Chinese theater, look at the anti missile batteries we had proposed in eastern europe to protect against iranian threats. The russians didn't accept those, and put a lot of pressure on the us to change their locations. Why? What was their rationale? Because us having that ability to stop incoming threats enabled us to launch a strike in such a way that their first wave defense wouldn't then carry out an effective retaliation.

China clearly has wargame scenarios, as we do, where their first goal would be to reduce our effectiveness in the Pacific theater, which would, I imagine, taking out our Guam base. A missile defense system there forces them to account for that and target it more heavily.

Whatever...you're kinda all over the place in that repsonse.
Anyways, I wouldnt get too wound up what the Chinese think about Guam considering we can park equipment in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan which are a lot closer to China.
And there will be no conflict between us and China, not in my lifetime anyways. They have no blue water navy and they are not going to attack their cash cow and biggest debt holder.
Guam is only relevant right now because the media keeps mentioning it.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

I do agree with your point in some ways. If i were a non-nuclear country, i would probably have the same attitude as North Korea and Iran. "Wait a second. You've got a bazillion nukes you use to defend your country.... but youre going to tell me i cant do the same to defend mine? F*ck you!"

Last I checked my govt does not publish daily threats of mass destruction and create videos of burning/nuked (insert a capitol of a country here) and a nuclear blasted Israel.
NK and Iran are rogues states in every sense of the word.
These idiots with their nukes are like emo 16 year olds that found their daddys loaded pistol.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

Last I checked my govt does not publish daily threats of mass destruction and create videos of burning/nuked (insert a capitol of a country here) and a nuclear blasted Israel.
NK and Iran are rogues states in every sense of the word.
These idiots with their nukes are like emo 16 year olds that found their daddys loaded pistol.

we don't need to make videos, we've actually attacked another country with them.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

we don't need to make videos, we've actually attacked another country with them.

Gee... I wonder why??

[hooskins]

http://i.imgur.com/hNTGgd0.gif

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

we don't need to make videos, we've actually attacked another country with them.

You need to get your facts correct. They attacked us and we just responded.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by firstdown

You need to get your facts correct. They attacked us and we just responded.

Bazinga!

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by firstdown

You need to get your facts correct. They attacked us and we just responded.

My facts are right, we attacked Japan with nuclear weapons. That's a fact. You want to spin semantics on the word attack go ahead, but no other sovereign nation has used nuclear weapons in a hostile act against another sovereign nation except the US. And we happen to have the largest military budget in the world.

More on the semantics: The word attack is defined as:
"to set upon with violent force" attack - definition of attack by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia., verb tr. definition 1

I think dropping nuclear bombs on an industrial city constitutes an attack. period.

[Alvin Walton]

As FD said responded is a far more appropriate word than attack.

And they were begging for it......it was justified and a much better alternative to invasion.

You make it sound like we snuck up on them and whacked them from behind while they were innocently arranging flowers.
Thats not what happened.
They kicked us in the balls when we werent looking and we responded by beating the tar out of them.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by firstdown

You need to get your facts correct. They attacked us and we just responded.

By attacking them with nuclear weapons.

Lets do a quick head count, will all other nations who have actually used nuclear weapons against another country please stand up.

Anyone? anyone??

Don't get me wrong. I absolutely condone the use of nuclear weapons on Japan in WWII. Both times. And, yes, the attack was in response to an initial attack upon us and a means to conclude an ongoing war.

But ... we used nuclear weapons against another country to attack their homeland and are still the only country in the world to do so.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

But ... we used nuclear weapons against another country to attack their homeland and are still the only country in the world to do so.

So you agree it works as a deterrent?