How long until war breaks out with N. Korea?

[Porsche-O-Phile]

There were rumors yesterday (unsubstantiated, based only on Japan's analysis of seismic tremors) of a possible second nuclear test by N.K. and now N.K. is saying that any action by the U.S. (e.g. sanctions) would be construed as an "act of war", presumably to justify their taking action against U.S.-backed South Korea. Add to this our current warmongering administration with the worst diplomacy skills in U.S. history and a do-nothing U.N. ambassador (to say nothing of the U.N. being pretty much do-nothing itself lately). Leads me to believe this is probably a bit more than sabre-rattling and we can probably expect some sort of move militarily by one side or the other soon.

How soon you guys think?

My prediction is 4-6 weeks.

[techweenie]

Before November 7 or not at all.

I believe we have an aircraft carrier approaching NK waters. Good opportunity for another "Gulf of Tonkin incident."

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Wag the Dog? Against. . . Foley-gate? Hmmm. . . Hadn't considered that, but plausible.

[Christien]

Can't see it happening. NK's nukes can't reach Europe, let alone the US. While I wouldn't rely on the GWB gov't or the UN to solve the NK problem, I do think this is an issue that the majority of world powers will see eye to eye on, and act accordingly. There really isn't much argument over the NK issue, unlike Iraq.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

But they most certainly can (and would) attack South Korea. . . Or Japan.

[svandamme]

Originally posted by Christien
Can't see it happening. NK's nukes can't reach Europe, let alone the US. While I wouldn't rely on the GWB gov't or the UN to solve the NK problem, I do think this is an issue that the majority of world powers will see eye to eye on, and act accordingly. There really isn't much argument over the NK issue, unlike Iraq.

agreed

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Christien
Can't see it happening. NK's nukes can't reach Europe, let alone the US.

Facts have never been much of an issue with this administration.

[Christien]

A little correction to my post - I read the thread title, and assumed you meant with the US, then read the poll question, and saw you meant war on the Korean peninsula. So I'll revise and say it's a question of how you interpret Pyongyang's statement that their test was due to US "hostility", whatever that's supposed to mean. I mean, the US showed "hostility" to Saddam Hussein. They've done nothing like that to NK. What, does saying "don't break international arms treaties" count as "hostility" now?

Anyway, point is, I see what you mean - a skirmish with S. Korea I could see happening. Will it actually happen? I'd say not likely.

[svandamme]

Originally posted by techweenie
Facts have never been much of an issue with this administration.

but China has been.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Christien
I mean, the US showed "hostility" to Saddam Hussein. They've done nothing like that to NK. What, does saying "don't break international arms treaties" count as "hostility" now?

No, Dubya called NK part of the 'axis of evil' and attacked one of the other countries in that group. There was plenty of talk about attacking NK at the time... maybe not official, but also not officially discouraged.

[Christien]

True, I forgot about that. Still, that was how long ago? Before last week, NK was just a simmering issue in the news - not entirely missing, but never lead stories, and not at the forefront of anyone's agenda, esp. after what happened between Lebanon and Israel recently. It's almost as if Kim was getting antsy that the world was forgetting about him, so he threw a tantrum. I really can't see the US's talk about NK as "hostility".

[Moneyguy1]

Tech..

I think that makes sense. If you were on a "short list" of enemies and another member of that short list were attacked, I think you would feel threatened.

Logical consequences.

I still think the leaders who want conflict should be given weapons and locked in an arena with the winner determined by one-on-one battle. THis would certainly make the world a heckufalot more peaceful if the leader's hides were put in jeopardy.

[BGCarrera32]

Originally posted by techweenie
Facts have never been much of an issue with this administration.

or any of your drivel...

[Porsche virgin]

Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile
a do-nothing U.N. ambassador (to say nothing of the U.N. being pretty much do-nothing itself lately).

I didn't think we had an official UN ambassador because Congress refuses to confirm him.

Yes, the UN is useless. We should pull out, IMHO.

There won't be a war because the S.K. gov't is too busy being conciliatory towards N.K. Despite all the saber rattling, S.K. is still ramping up trade with the north and sending aid. We wouldn't declare war w/o S.K. on board.

[alf]

The powers in that regoin will do their best to avert a war and put NK in check. NK, unlike Iraq, is surrounded by economic power-houses that want to maintain peace and stability.

[targa911S]

Oh I think China will have about enough of his antics soon and take him out before he starts something.

[alf]

Originally posted by targa911S
Oh I think China will have about enough of his antics soon and take him out before he starts something.

I would not be surprised if that happened; I hope W keeps his wits about him and not get us into another FUBAR.

[livi]

The NK nuke was a primitive statement by a primitive nation completely out of tune. What they really want is a hug, but they don´t know how to ask for it.

[targa911S]

Why waste the bombs? The Chinese will only waste one bullet long before he becomes and embarassment to them and hurts trade....done.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Christien
Can't see it happening. NK's nukes can't reach Europe, let alone the US. While I wouldn't rely on the GWB gov't or the UN to solve the NK problem, I do think this is an issue that the majority of world powers will see eye to eye on, and act accordingly. There really isn't much argument over the NK issue, unlike Iraq.

Did that stop the US government from war with Spain, when Spain had no ability to attack America?

Did that stop Woodrow Wilson from putting US warships within a combat zone, and declaring war after a British passenger liner loaded with ordnance was sunk?

Did that stop the US government from entering any other war in which profits were to be made for the connected few?

The answer to all is NO.

As long as the ruling elite that controls the US government has nothing to lose, and sufficient cannon fodder from chumps and the sons and daughters of chumps to depend upon to die for them, these actions will continue.