How do you know what type or quality of weaponry NK has?....CNN, Fox....Brian Williams tell you?

Quote from: CathMomof7

What a joke.  

North Korea has Russians weapons that are decades old and completely obsolete.

North Korea is starving.  Routinely, people risk being killed just to escape starvation.

North Korea has the might of over 25, 000 heavily armed U.S troops pointed right at their heads, literally.  Any attack would be ѕυιcιdє.

However, North Korea is really adept at inciting fear to meet its needs.  The only defense they have is everyone's fear of their nuclear weapons, which may or may not be active or usable.  But when they threatened to bomb someone, the U.S or Russia or some other sucker starts some negotiation with them.  Then they trade food and supplies for  a promise not to bomb someone.  It's pretty clever if you ask me.

The only ally North Korea could possibly have is China.  And I doubt China wants to go to war right now.

IF North Korea actually did attack with a nuclear bomb, they would have to bomb South Korea first or else the U.S. Military would obliterate North Korea in about an hour flat.

I was once a member of the US Army stationed in South Korea.  I know quite well what North Korea has and does not have.  

Andddd, you believe all that?

Quote from: Vandaler

Quote from: Christopher67

The source of the picture you attached is credited to the CFR

Oh boy...

Just type "North Korea missile range" in Google search image and you will find as many sources you want to show that the longest range missile is 6000 km and how far that out.  Please do take the time to find a longer range missile that North Korea has and test fired successfully and after you have come up empty, you will be able to contemplate the size of your incompetence.

Yes, I believe countless corroborating sources.

Now compare that to you... You have no sources that believe what you seem to think: that North Korea as the capacity to reach turkey with a missile.  None.   How did you end up in this messed up position?  Heck, I doubt you even know yourself why you ended up defending this idea.  

Also, lobbing a missile is only half the problem, since in those super long distances, re-entry technology is also a problem due to the excessive heat caused by the air friction....  North Korea does not master that tech either.  

But I think you need first to realize your arguing for a position that no one supports. Your alone on this, with not even a hint of proof to the contrary.  Even the dumb video that started this thread does not state that North Korea has this capacity.

The video only relate what some small news paper in Lebanon reported in Arabic, quoting "sources" in North Korea.  A report that has no credibility and that was not picked up by any other news outlet in the world. Only the Internet rumor mills picked up on it, but that all it takes for Cathinfo's "intelligentsia" to start it's "look, I'm juggling with two oranges" routine and to convince you, Sir, of the inconceivable.

It's quite the spectacle and one I can't seem to get tired of.

Why is North Korea our Problem?

Patrick J Buchanan





Why Is North Korea Our Problem?

By Patrick J. Buchanan
 
Share Pat's Columns:

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on LinkedIn Share on StumbleUpon

 
Friday - January 8, 2016

 For Xi Jinping, it has been a rough week.

 Panicked flight from China's currency twice caused a plunge of 7 percent in her stock market, forcing a suspension of trading.

 Kim Jong Un, the megalomaniac who runs North Korea, ignored Xi's warning and set off a fourth nuclear bomb. While probably not a hydrogen bomb as claimed, it was the largest blast ever in Korea.

 And if Pyongyang continues building and testing nuclear bombs, Beijing is going to wake up one day and find that its neighbors, South Korea and Japan, have also acquired nuclear weapons as deterrents to North Korea.

 And should Japan and South Korea do so, Taiwan, Vietnam and Manila, all bullied by Beijing, may also be in the market for nukes.

 Hence, if Beijing refuses to cooperate to de-nuclearize North Korea, she could find herself, a decade hence, surrounded by nuclear weapons states, from Russia to India and from Pakistan to Japan.

 Still, this testing of a bomb by North Korea, coupled with the bellicosity of Kim Jong Un, should cause us to take a hard look at our own war guarantees to Asia that date back to John Foster Dulles.

 At the end of the Korean War in July 1953, South Korea was devastated, unable to defend herself without the U.S. Navy and Air Force and scores of thousands of U.S. troops.

 So, America negotiated a mutual security treaty.

 But today, South Korea has 50 million people, twice that of the North, the world's 13th largest economy, 40 times the size of North Korea's, and access to the most modern U.S. weapons.

 In 2015, Seoul ran a trade surplus of almost $30 billion with the United States, a sum almost equal to North Korea's entire GDP.

 Why, then, are 25,000 U.S. troops still in South Korea?

 Why are they in the DMZ, ensuring that Americans are among the first to die in any Second Korean War?

 Given the proximity of the huge North Korean Army, with its thousands of missiles and artillery pieces, only 35 miles from Seoul, any invasion would have to be met almost immediately with U.S.-fired atomic weapons.

 But with North Korea possessing a nuclear arsenal estimated at 8 to 12 weapons and growing, a question arises: Why should the U.S. engage in a nuclear exchange with North Korea, over South Korea?

 Why should a treaty that dates back 60 years commit us, in perpetuity, to back South Korea in a war from the first shot with Pyongyang, when that war could swiftly escalate to nuclear?

 How does this comport with U.S. national interests?

 In 1877, Lord Salisbury, commenting on Great Britain's stance on the Eastern Question, noted that "the commonest error in politics is sticking to the carcass of dead policies."

 Is this not true today of America's Asian alliances?

 North Korea's tests of atomic weapons and development of land-based and submarine-launched missiles should cause us to reconsider strategic commitments that date back to the 1950s.

 President Nixon, ahead of his time, understood this.

 As he began the drawdown of U.S. forces in Vietnam in 1969, he declared in Guam that while America would meet her treaty obligations, henceforth, Asian nations should provide the ground troops to defend themselves. Gen. MacArthur had told President Kennedy, before Vietnam, not to put U.S. foot soldiers onto the Asian mainland.

 Now that we have entered a post-post Cold War era, where many Asian nations possess the actual or potential military power to defend themselves, something like a new Nixon Doctrine is worth considering.

 Take all of the major territorial quarrels between China and its neighbors — the dispute with India over Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh, the dispute with Japan over the Senkaku Islands, with Vietnam over the Paracels, with the Philippines over the Spratlys.

 In none of these quarrels and conflicts does there seem to be any vital U.S. national interest so imperiled that we should risk a clash with a nuclear power like Beijing.

 Once, there was a time when Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Tojo ruled almost all of Eurasia. And another time when a monolithic Sino-Soviet Communist bloc ruled from the Elbe to the Pacific.

 As those times are long gone, is it not time for an exhaustive review of the alliances we have entered into and the war guarantees we have issued, to fight for nations and interests other than our own?

 Under NATO, we are committed to go to war against a nuclear-armed Russia on behalf of 27 nations, including tiny Estonia.

 One understood the necessity to defend West Germany and keep the Red Army on the other side of the Elbe, but when did Estonia's independence become so critical to U.S. security that we would fight a nuclear-armed Russia rather than lose it?

 Indeed, how many of the dozens of U.S. war guarantees we have outstanding would we honor by going to war if they were called?
 

Do You Appreciate Reading Our Emails and Website?

   Let us know how we are doing - Send us a Thank You Via Paypal!

 

Read More At: http://buchanan.org/blog/why-is-north-korea-our-problem-124544

 

Share Pat's Columns:

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on LinkedIn Share on StumbleUpon

 

Visit Pat Buchanan's Official Website at Buchanan.org
   -- Sign up for Pat's email updates, follow on Twitter, FaceBook and Pat's YouTube Channel.... Plus all of his syndicated columns and more!
 

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book: The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority

 

Get Pats Books...  Signed by Pat Buchanan!
http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-shop