US To Deploy Ballistic Missile Interceptors In Response To North Korean Threats 266
New submitter dcmcilrath sends this quote from the NY Times:
"The Pentagon will spend $1 billion to deploy additional ballistic missile interceptors along the Pacific Coast to counter the growing reach of North Korea's weapons, a decision accelerated by Pyongyang's recent belligerence and indications that Kim Jong-un, the North Korean leader, is resisting China's efforts to restrain him. ... The missiles have a mixed record in testing, hitting dummy targets just 50 percent of the time, but officials said Friday’s announcement was intended not merely to present a credible deterrence to the North’s limited intercontinental ballistic missile arsenal. They said it is also meant to show South Korea and Japan that the United States is willing to commit resources to deterring the North and, at the same time, warn Beijing that it must restrain its ally or face an expanding American military focus on Asia."
What a farce (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe this problem would largely go away if the media just stopped covering North Korea's every temper tantrum. An exception would be The Onion and maybe Colbert, but even that might be enough to reinforce their "Terrible Twos" sort of behavior. I do give some credit to the administration for ceasing to play the stupid game that has been going on since the early 90s:
1. Provocation
2. Talk
3. Cough up food aid or the like
4. Promise to be nice
5. Lather, rinse, repeat
a child throwing a tantrum isn't interesting (Score:2, Flamebait)
a child with nuclear weapons throwing a tantrum is
they are dangerous. and so people are interested, and for good reason, so the press covers them
anyone who doesn't understand that is buried in ignorant false complacency
Re:I hate the word "they" in blanket statements. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Its the brainwashed "minority" and leader that is the problem."
If you had watched recent videos of people visiting North Korea, you would know that the brainwashed are not the "minority" there. For generations now they have been constantly inundated with propaganda about how the United States is the epitome of evil, and apparently the majority actually believe it.
Re: (Score:2)
For generations now they have been constantly inundated with propaganda about how the United States is the epitome of evil, and apparently the majority actually believe it.
Lets face it, if you had to pick a country to play The Empire in Star Wars, the USA would definitely be it.
Re:Not trying to argue but... (Score:5, Informative)
Up until recently, North Koreans literally had no other sources of information than state-controlled propaganda. While I'm sure there were enough cases where propaganda disagreed with local reality for them to be skeptical of everything they read, if you hear a message stated as fact from the moment you're born through adulthood, and hear nothing to suggest that this might be a lie, why would you (much less the majority of people there) ever seriously consider it to be a lie? In the US we grow up hearing dissenting viewpoints for everything, causing us to be skeptical of everything. North Koreans don't have that.
There have been tens of thousands of people over the last few decades escape from North Korea to tell us about their experiences. Their perception of the world is essentially entirely drawn from state propaganda.
Increasingly, however, a market economy is beginning to fluorish, driven by trade mostly from China. Many parts of the border are largely open between the two countries. With trade in products comes trade in information, and so the propaganda machine is only now starting to lose power. But there are many people still quite insulated from this and who have no reason to believe anything other than what the state tells them.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, I'm generalizing. Even in areas that have relatively free media, there are plenty of people that happily choose to live in an information bubble and lap up propaganda. Life can be easier that way. But I suspect that there are more information skeptics in the USA than North Korea, which was largely my point. That may not be true in the future as Kim's information monopoly starts to wither.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not trying to argue but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not unlike propaganda in the US made the majority of americans think Sadam Hussein was behind 9/11...
To write such a thing is an insult to oppressed North Koreans. You can watch CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, Al-Jazeera and YouTube. You can listen to Rush & NPR, read blogs, The New York Times and The Onion You can go to a rally or fly to London and visit on Speaker' Corner in Hyde Park. You can call your friend on the phone and say "Man, the government sucks, doesn't it?"
North Koreans can do NONE of those things. NONE.
Re: (Score:3)
Not unlike propaganda in the US made the majority of americans think Sadam Hussein was behind 9/11...
While I share the apparent sentiment that this is a sorry state of affairs, the sad fact is that most of those idiots believe the way they do because they choose to. The truth is out there, readily available, with spin or without. One need only have the will to watch, listen, or read. And still, the largest single block seems to get their "truth" from Fox News. I take it back; that's not sad. It's plain fucking scary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"You'r essentially saying the people there are to dumb to know they are being lied to. Which I doubt."
Doubt it all you like. I was referring to evidence I have actually seen. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please let us see it.
Re: (Score:2)
"That people think and are human? F = U"
You're just reinforcing my point. Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry. Welcome to the real world, where it is Us vs Them tribal "bullshit."
Just what do you think we are? We are tribal. We just have a lot of crap piled up on top of those foundations.
Re: (Score:2)
their game is to provoke, shovel rhetoric, even attack, right up until the very point of open hostilities. their game is to create animosity just shy of action
you do understand how dangerous a game that is, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad censoring the media isn't a solution the average slashdotter will put up with....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1a. Use it as an excuse to increase ballistic missile defense without provoking China.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do we need to 'increase ballistic missile defense'? China isn't a credible nuclear threat unless some rouge element gets control of them. That's a whole lot less likely than in Russia, India, Pakistan or even possibly Israel. We don't have the ability to defend ourselves from a major ICBM attack - we MIGHT be able to take out a lone ICBM (assuming that it actually managed to get here), but the North Koreans would likely toss the nuke at the DMZ or South Korea. If they hit Seoul people would notice,
Re: (Score:2)
The great circle course form NK down into the western US has it's descent stage near Alaska. That's why they are placed there - not to defend Anchorage itself.
Re:What a farce (Score:5, Interesting)
Except that's not what they did this time. This time they:
1. Provoked
2. Talked
3. We agreed to cough up food aid
4. They launched a long-range missile and blew up a nuke, BEFORE the food aid was delivered. This prompted us to . . .
5. Cancel the food aid
6. They escalate the rhetoric
7. ????
This is why normally sober analysts are a bit worried. This is breaking the script.
Re: (Score:3)
Time to put the foot down (Score:2, Interesting)
It is time to stop appeasing the North Koreans and take action. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have contributed many $100s of billions to our debt, the result of wars of attrition. Our current response to North Korea continues this pattern and actually validates the North Korean threat. This has got to stop.
A country should be able to feed its people. If it cannot then it is a failed country. North Korea cannot feed its people, at least it seems as such.
Here are some steps I would recommend.
Step #1: D
Re:Time to put the foot down (Score:5, Informative)
The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have contributed many $100s of billions to our debt,
That's a low estimate, by a few factors. Think trillions.
Re: (Score:2)
I know.
Re: (Score:2)
Step #1: Discontinue all aid until nuclear observers are allowed into the country and can operate freely (with NK observation but no interference). No aid without compliance, the blood and death is on those causing the problems, not on those who would try to help.
I think plenty of people would disagree on that last part. North Korea isn't self-sufficient when it comes to food (never having fully recovered from the famine [wikipedia.org] after the Soviet Union collapsed). Stopping food aid would directly result in millions of deaths.
The North Korean government cares more about being in power than they do about feeding their own people. They've demonstrated that repeatedly. Giving the world yet another example by stopping food aid and blaming the regime won't change anything. Fu
Re:Time to put the foot down (Score:4, Insightful)
It is time to stop appeasing the North Koreans and take action. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have contributed many $100s of billions to our debt, the result of wars of attrition. Our current response to North Korea continues this pattern and actually validates the North Korean threat. This has got to stop.
Unlike Iraq or Afghanistan, NK is capable of killing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people today. Seoul has a population of 10 million and is within firing range of plain old ordnance from NK. They don't need nukes, they've already got one of our biggest allies as a hostage.
None of your unilateralist fantasies are going to work given the current situation.
Re: (Score:2)
The real threat is an attack on South Korea.
No more Samsung.
Hmm. Better watch for surreptitious communication between Cupertino and Pyongyang.
More corporate welfare (Score:5, Interesting)
It just seems like another excuse to prop up our bloated military-industrial complex. Do they really think NK will launch a missile our way, or is this just another example of security theater?
Re: (Score:2)
Do they really think NK will launch a missile our way, or is this just another example of security theater?
I imagine it is just another imaginary threat which is a perfect excuse to ramp up defence spending.
US officials during the Cold War would frequently state that the USSR had a massive advantage over the US in ballistic missles, even though in reality the US had thousands more. It was simply a fabrication in order to justify more and more military spending.
Nothing surprises me with US defence spending any more.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that we never had as many as two thousand ballistic missiles of all kinds (ICBM/SLBM), I consider it very unlikely that we had "thousands more" than the Soviets.
Note that with 2000 ballistic missiles, the Soviets would have had to have ZERO for us to have "thousands more"....
Re: (Score:2)
It just seems like another excuse to prop up our bloated military-industrial complex.
A limited missile defense system can be cost effective under certain circumstances. The Israeli Iron Dome system, for example, provided effective protection against ballistic rocket attacks during the recent conflict. Israel is a nation of limited resources which takes a practical and pragmatic view of its defense spending. If Israel can demonstrate a practical and effective missile defense system then I would argue that a similar system can also be a practical and worthwhile expenditure for the defense of
Re: (Score:3)
A quick google search will find many examples of the North Koreans making unprovoked attacks that kill people in an attempt to show off national pride. They have a history of acting irrationally and being perfectly willing to sacrifice their people in order to achieve their leaderships goals.
They also have the most heavily armed border in the world with a significant number of troops and one of the worlds largest and most fanatic armies. They have artillery pre-positioned and in the range of Seoul that they
Re: (Score:2)
What's the cost of one nuclear missile that makes it way to Honolulu, Anchorage, Seattle, San Francisco, or LA?
Is it likely to happen? No. Could it happen? Yes.
Whatever... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's how the executive branch works. Undo whatever minor things the last administration did to make them look bad. Then, and only then, decide if what they were doing was a good idea. If it is, then re-brand and redeploy in the current administration's name at the nearest convenience.
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost like it was scripted.
Under Republican President:
Interceptors deployed: +1 GOP, -1 Democrats
Interceptors canceled: -1 GOP, +1 Democrats
Under Democrat President:
Interceptors deployed: -1 GOP, +1 Democrats
Pretty much every step: +1000 Military Industrial Complex
A better use (Score:2)
One word: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The DPRK has nuclear weapons and 1.1M soldiers in active duty, who have been slowly massing along the border to South Korea for years. How would you protect South Korea in the process? Keep in mind that DPRK has another 8.2M soldiers in reserve (~38% of the DPRK population is active or reserve duty).
With an active war on North Korean soil, people are going to be fleeing in droves, mostly into China. China isn't going to like that. Possibly, they may not even let them in. How many refugees will die for
Heh (Score:4, Insightful)
...warn Beijing that it must restrain its ally or face an expanding American military focus on Asia.
I wonder if they'll be borrowing money from China in order to support that expansion :)
I wonder whether China (Score:3, Interesting)
Will 'resolve' the situation themselves to prevent South Korea, USA and other countries to have to intervene when North Korea goes to far. They would be able to establish a government friendly to China and preserve their interests in the region. Also, they would be able to show their military power in a war every other nation will find just.
Why? (Score:2)
And the US is doing this why? Is South Korea broke? Doesn't Japan have a national defense force? China is in pretty good shape militarily.
In fact Xi Jinping could pick up the phone and tell Kim Jong-Un to put his missiles away and stop being a jerk. Assuming they have working phones in North Korea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
China has indeed done that. It seems to me that The Kim regime knows it's not going to survive forever. Its large military, nuclear capabilities, and "crazy" persona are likely there entirely to keep the regime in power as long as possible. The reason China wants the DPRK left alone is because when the regime does collapse, China is going to be the one left picking up the pieces and dealing with North Korean refugees (and quite possibly an American military presence right on their border). IMO, the righ
hitting dummy targets just 50 percent of the time (Score:3)
So, somewhere around ten times more accurate than most other munitions then?
Re: (Score:2)
Is that 50 percent per interceptor? (Score:5, Interesting)
Or the system as a whole?
If the success rate is per interceptor, meaning that they have several chances to hit a warhead by using several interceptors then 50 percent isn't too bad. Fifty percent success (or failure) means that shooting say five interceptors at each warhead will result in a 95 percent chance of shooting it down, not perfect but certainly enough to make Kim Jung-Un realize he probably isn't going to inflict ANY damage with a suicidal nuclear attack. NK probably wouldn't be able to get off more than a few before the launch sites and command bunkers were nuked (can you say close to shore submarine based missiles on depressed trajectories?).
Of course if the success rate is for the system as a whole (doubtful) for example due to some basic limitation of the targeting radars, then adding more interceptors isn't going to deter Mr. Kim. He probably realizes that his attack is a long shot (ha ha) anyway and having 50 percent odds on taking out, say San Francisco is pretty good. So let's hope that the system is capable of targeting multiple interceptors at a single warhead so the odds are in our favor.
The best scenario is for to add more layers to make a multilayer defense. In addition to the Patriot missile batteries in South Korea and the Aegis missile cruisers offshore (can either of their missiles overtake an ascending ICBM launched hundreds of miles away?) whatever happened to the laser equipped 747s?
Now if Kim Jung-Un really wanted to make the U.S. worried, he should use his much more powerful (but extremely vulnerable and time consuming to launch) liquid fueled rockets to put a disguised nuke INTO ORBIT. Not only would it completely bypass the ABM defenses that are only protecting the U.S. from direct trajectories but it would reduce the warning time from 30 minutes to maybe 5 (or zero if an EMP blast was the goal). The only thing the U.S. could do would be to pre-emptively knock down EVERY satellite put up by NK which while easily doable, would really raise tensions. Of course NK would be violating the 1967 treaty banning weapons (especially nukes!) in Outer Space which is probably the only thing that kept us from accidental thermonuclear war but NK doesn't seem to pay to much attention to treaties.
So if NK starts orbiting largish satellites and testing re-entry vehicles, be afraid.
One side effect of all this is that the improvements in ABM systems is forcing China to upgrade its ICBM force. Unlike the Russians, the Chinese only had a few hundred (?) ICBMs capable of reaching the U.S. and no subs or bombers. They worried that if the shit REALLY hit the fan, the U.S. could launch a first strike taking out most of their missiles (not to mention iPhone production). The few surviving missiles would not make it through even the modest shield that is being built and thus the U.S. woud survive unscathed. So the Chinese are following the Russian model of bolstering their ICBM forces so that even after a first strike they would be able to overwhelm the limited ABM defenses in place.
This fear of an enhanced ABM system is one reason why China is (trying to) keep Mr. Kim from building ICBMs. Not to mention the fear that South Korea and Japan and possibly Taiwan(!!!) will decide they need a nuclear deterrent against North Korea. That would really complicate China's desire to become THE power in Asia (and make reunification with Taiwan much more perilous).
Just a thought: THAT's what the X-37 is for! (Score:4, Interesting)
After thinking over my previous (long) post a little, it occurred to me that the X-37 was probably designed with NK in mind.
For those of you not familiar with it, it is a extremely flexible winged spacecraft (looks like a mini-shuttle) operated by the Air Force. By extremely flexible I mean it can be launched into any orbit (including polar ones), has demonstrated orbital maneuvering capability, (very) long life in space, and considerable cross-range capability. And it can return objects from space with its cargo bay! It's too small to retrieve large commercial satellites (but not too small to retrieve a warhead) and can gently land on a runway with rubber tires not skids. It is not man-rated and does not have a docking port or any other features that would make it useful as a rescue vehicle.
It was rumored that it was sent up to spy on the Chinese space station but for a variety of reasons, not least of which was that the Chinese would see it coming and would be pissed, that was dismissed.
So when Mr. Kim starts launching more reliable "satellites" (the first one failed after achieving orbit), I imagine the U.S. will send up one of these with a good camera and radiation detectors to give it a close inspection. Maybe it'll even come into physical contact and probe it with robotic arms! If it really looks suspicious, perhaps it will stow it on board and retun it, presumably to Guantanamo bay (that way if there's a nuke on board it won't go off on U.S. soil). (Perhaps that's why it's a WINGED re-entry vehicle, in addition to giving it cross range capability, I'd imagine the g-forces would be less not to mention no annoying "thump" when it splashes down or lands).
Unlike China, it is highly unlikely that NK has developed space based radar that could detect something sneaking up on its "Satellite" from ANY direction. (Also, here's a question, does anyone know if the X-37 is stealthed?). In addition, even if the NK satellite did detect the X-37, it couldn't easily communicate that fact to the ground; I'd bet NK has only the most rudimentary communications and tracking support, probably limited to only when it's passing over NK. I'd even doubt their few "friends" in the world (China? Iran?) would be willing to help, especially if the North Koreans were using it as a cover for putting nukes in orbit! (That's not something you want to be associated with). So it's basically blind and dumb for most of its orbit, a sitting duck for the X-37.
If the next time NK puts a working satellite in orbit the U.S. follows with a launch of the X-37 remember: you read it here first!
Save money (Score:2, Insightful)
Since they don't really work, we could save $999M by paying some Hollywood set designers deploy something that just looks like a ballistic missile defense system. They could hire some extras to protest the installations for greater authenticity.
Is this the same ABM system (Score:3, Insightful)
The Democrats have been saying for the past 30 years would not work?
"The report to this bill specifically notes the possible threat from the North Korean Taepo Dong II missile, which the report claims may have the range to hit Alaska. Since this weapon is in development, we do not in fact know that this missile will be capable of that range. But with North Korea in such dire straits economically and the growing possibility of its opening, with reunification with the south increasingly likely, should we spend billions on a missile defense system that probably won't work to counter a threat that may never exist?" - John Kerry
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1995/s950804f.htm [fas.org]
Re: (Score:3)
In 1995 it wasn't just Democrats saying it won't work.
"1995 -- April 12 U.S. NAVY UPPER-TIER COMPLIANCE REPORT A U.S. Department of Defense ABM Treaty compliance report to Congress concludes that, because the system "does not have capabilities to counter strategic ballistic missiles" and assuming it will not be "tested in an ABM mode," deployment of the Navy's upper-tier missile defense system would be permitted under the ABM Treaty."
Re: (Score:2)
The Democrats have been saying for the past 30 years would not work?
I'm no expert, but my money will be on it having advanced a little since 1983.
... and subs (Score:2)
I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few subs or something of the sort nearby capable of launching a bit more than interceptors...
Can't really bitch about this (Score:3)
This is a purely defensive installation, and the cost isn't huge by military proportions. No need to even name an enemy. In fact, they could probably install three layers of this system for $3 billion and have 87 % success rate (if the probability of success does not depend on the trajectory). The chance for a nuclear strike is small, but nukes are a "holy grail" for all small totalitarian regimes, of which there are a couple in east Asia, and it's better to not be taken by surprise.
Oh right... (Score:2)
"They said it is also meant to show South Korea and Japan that the United States is willing to commit resources to deterring the North and, at the same time, warn Beijing that it must restrain its ally or face an expanding American military focus on Asia."
Because America has such a great track record with getting into wars in the Far East. Better get Britain ready to save them *again*...
Re: (Score:2)
A missile defence system on the pacific coast of the United States is going to do nothing to help South Korea or Japan.
Re: (Score:2)
Except we don't really want to bomb them back to the stone age. What do you do after you take out the Kims and their government? We'd have to do something about the millions of poorly fed, uneducated people who live there. In a war blasted country they will flood to the south or west to China and the mechanisms for coping with such a thing just aren't there. It would be an absolute crises socially and economically and it gives the nation-states involved in the Korean peninsula a reason to want to maintai
Re: (Score:2)
Also any bombing attacks against NK would have problem getting support. NK would probably not launch against the USA until they have a large number of nuclear weapons. Once they have them they warn SK, Japan and any countries housing USA military that the missiles will be used against them if they s
Re: (Score:2)
Once they have them they warn SK, Japan and any countries housing USA military that the missiles will be used against them if they support the USA.
No, that doesn't make sense. The only reason NK hates the US is because they are SK's biggest supporter. Remember, their main goal in all of this is to take over the rest of the Korean peninsula.
Besides, the bulk of the US nuclear arsenal is submarine-based, and the bulk of the cruise missile arsenal is sea (subs and frigates) based. Not to mention the 10 aircr
Re: (Score:2)
So the entire slashdot community is oblivous to the fact that refined fizzle is the only thing preventing terrorists from using a tactical nuke. If you are unfamiliar with suitcase nukes I suggest you research the tech, it's been around since the 50s bra...
What in Bog's name does a suitcase nuke have to do with a 50's bra? Did they call boobs 'boomers' back then or something?
any argument about north korea (Score:5, Insightful)
that starts with the premise that north korea will only do things that are rational and make sense, and never anything stupid, is a losing argument
citation: the behavior so far of north korea
it's rather weird that anyone is depending upon rationality, common sense and intelligence, in attempting to understand the behavior of north korea
of course they can't win. but they can do a lot of damage on their way out, and this is the problem. to not understand this is to not understand that control is not absolute, and behavior is not perfectly rational. in any country, nevermind the likes of basket case north korea
Re:any argument about north korea (Score:4, Informative)
that starts with the premise that north korea will only do things that are rational and make sense, and never anything stupid, is a losing argument
citation: the behavior so far of north korea
Victor Cha, former director of asian affairs in the white house security council amd top advisor on north korean affairs for Bush disagrees with you. [washingtonpost.com]
Most people who say things like you did don't understand that NK considers itself to still be at war - that everything they do is predicated on that belief. And it isn't wholly irrational to believe that either, we've never signed a peace treaty with them. The USA and, to a lesser extent, South Korea act like the armistice is a full-blown peace treaty, but it ain't and as far as NK is concerned fighting could break out at any time.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people who say things like you did don't understand that NK considers itself to still be at war...
i stopped reading there
you're not doing a good job of convincing people of sanity when you start with a premise that is obviously insane
the korean war ended 60 years ago. no one wants to fight this battle again. except one regime, the insane thugocracy of north korea
why is it so important to you to find sanity in the motivations of a regime that forces its people to eat leaves in order to devote more resources to build nuclear weapons?
your very premise for establishing their sanity is a point of insanity, y
Re: (Score:2)
i stopped reading there
Apparently you stopped reading before that, given how you ignored the opinion of Bush's most senior policy advisor on NK.
why is it so important to you to find sanity in the motivations of a regime that forces its people to eat leaves in order to devote more resources to build nuclear weapons?
"Know thy self, know thy enemy. A thousand battles, a thousand victories."
Re: (Score:3)
presenting the opinion of anyone on BUSH's foreign policy team as intelligence is pretty much a loser's game, don't you think?
"They've been living in this black cave for the last 50-odd years, so that, what they see of the world outside is a little bit like what Plato's people saw of the world outside the cave. But they're not crazy. Within their context, they operate in a rational fashion."
--Stephen Bosworth, US Ambassador to South Korea 1997-2000
"I think it's hard for some people to understand, in fact including me, how fearful North Korea is that they will be attacked by the United States."
--Jimmy Carter
Re: (Score:3)
i'm not entirely sure why you think these quotes do anything BUT demonstrate their insanity
They have one significant belief that differs with most of the rest of the world. That does not make them insane. Insanity means they behave in an irrational manner - given the basic premise of still being at war, everything they do is rational.
Your basic premise of insanity is the kind of sound-bite crap politicians dole out for rah-rah nationalism, it is both false and actively encourages further conflict. Saddam was a madman too, look how well that turned for us.
Re: (Score:3)
They have one significant belief that differs with most of the rest of the world.
that's called insanity you fuckwit!
Apparently that is your definition of insanity. If your definition ended there, I wouldn't have a problem. But you try to draw conclusions about NK's actions that are nothing more than word association.
Tell you what, you find one person with strong academic credentials in the study of korea - not someone playing politics but rather earnest study - who has said that the government there is insane and I'll will take back everything I've said. I will swear that there is no point in attempting to understand N
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Socialism at it's finest! (Score:5, Insightful)
Go, NK. Stand up to those capitalist lackeys.
Millions of people regularly resorting to eating grass to ward off starvation is socialism at its finest?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, but I find it's best not to respond to the strawmen that the McCarthyists like to hold up. They usually find some other grand flaw in socialism when you bother to point out that it's been working well for decades in Europe, Australia, Canada, Japan, China, and most of South America, and that many of the countries under that umbrella enjoy a better average standard of living and healthier economy than the US, too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nordic Europeans countries, Australia, and Canada have successful "socialist" programs due mostly to the fact that they have small populations and have robust resource extraction industries. Take away their oil/coal/natural gas and they would suffer just like Japan, China, and many South American countries, which counter to your claim, have either stagnant economies (Japan, S. America) or have abandoned socialism altogether (China). If you didn't know, China got rid of public health care way back in the 90'
The term "socialist" is overloaded (Score:5, Insightful)
Having government-regulated economies is different than having government-regulated political systems. Right-wingers tend to mix these two up in their heads, but in fact they are orthogonal traits.
Singapore has a more or less capitalist economy, but has heavy gov't control over political decisions (no democracy), which demonstrates that economic control and political control are different things both in theory and in practice.
Re:The term "socialist" is overloaded (Score:4, Informative)
(Look at their zero tolerance to drug policy).
That is not unique to Singapore. Asia is very sensitive to drugs (see the Opium Wars). It is quite common to have Draconian drug rules in Asia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
many of the countries under that umbrella enjoy a better average standard of living and healthier economy than the US, too.
Sure, pick on the US when it's down. It wasn't so long ago that the US enjoyed a sub-6% unemployment rate while Europe looked on in envy with 25% of their youth out of work. And for every Germany or Norway in Europe you have an Italy or Spain (Greece is too easy). For every Brazil in South America, you have a Venezuela. Socialism can quickly send your country over a cliff when the voters run up the debt and the financiers decide to make borrowing more expensive. Even the US has gone down this road - can you
Re:Socialism at it's finest! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Surprise surprise, a "communist" country that isn't actually communist.
Re: (Score:2)
North Korea is not socialist. The US is more fascist than NK is socialist (not that the US is actually fascist, but that's the point).
Re:Socialism at it's finest! (Score:5, Insightful)
North Korea is Juche which is a perverted form of Communism which in turn is a perverted form of socialism. You could argue that North Korea is a socialist society in the same sense that fascist Spain was a conservative society.
Socialism is the school of thought that's based on the idea that unfettered capitalism will infiltrate and ruin every aspect of society and act over time to concentrate wealth into ever fewer, ever more incompetent hands. This basic belief is shared by everyone from the centrist middle of the road Social democrat all the way over to the hard line Stalinist-Maoist, but the conclusions that people within socialism come to are very different. One reason why most socialists don't call themselves socialists today is because the Soviet Union and its vassal and client states and their horrible crimes against their own populations made it necessary to drop that term.
Socialism can go very, very wrong, obviously, but it's difficult to dismiss the basic premise that capitalism does destructive things.
Re:Socialism at it's finest! (Score:5, Insightful)
I prefer to use a wheel rather than a line for the political spectrum, because at the extreme "ends" (fascism/communism) it basically looks the same.
Re:Socialism at it's finest! (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, that sounds a bit like 'the political compass' where you have a left-right axis and a authoritarian-libertarian axis. You have left-wing authoritarians and right-wing authoritarians.
I tend to think about people's political beliefs and attitudes in terms of two personality types: hawks and doves (or a spectrum between hawks and doves), of three ideologies: Conservatism, Liberalism and Socialism, and of countless political movements that people (ideally) join in order to try to get things done.
It's easy to bring up the images of the stereotypical hawkish conservative who's involved in furthering religion and the right to bear arms, and of the equally stereotypical dovish liberal-socialist who's a feminist and an environmentalist, but I think most people are a lot more complicated than that and probably a lot more complicated than my amateur model accounts for. I know that research in countries with multi party systems has consistently shown that voters can switch from any party to any other party from one election to another, so it's pretty complicated.
Re:Socialism at it's finest! (Score:4, Informative)
Well, Socialism was created as a sort of cry for help. Is it a legitimate cry for help? The most common counter argument is that there has never been a truly free society and that if there had been such a society, Capitalism would have been all good. The only reason why Capitalism is destructive in our societies is because of our biased and corrupt systems of government.
I personally don't think it's possible to create a government that is above corruption and bias, but I think it is worthwhile to strive towards that as an ideal. I think people who have done it in the past have made things better. I think that history will go on forever and there will never be a point in time when people can lay down and say that everything is fixed forever, but we can improve society temporarily. As for ideology I think it's interesting to think in terms of ideology, I'm mainly interested in Liberalism (in the classical sense) and socialism, but I don't think that any ideology can be the ultimate solution to all of people's problems.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Time for your re education medicine, comrade.
No thinking. It's been proven to cause heart disease, cancer and prolonged incarceration.
Re: (Score:2)
You might have listened to what the Secretary of DoD actually said, (1) the deployments are scheduled until 2017 at the earliest, and (2) only if they are proven to work.
Now go take the little blue pills this time.
Re:Good Job (Score:5, Insightful)
My theory:
These missile interceptors aren't for North Korea. That is the excuse. They are actually a bargaining chip for China. If China reels in North Korea, then these missile interceptors near their borders will be removed. Until then, Obama can simply claim that he is trying to defend against an aggressive North Korean threat to nuke the US (even if North Korea doesn't actually have the capability to do so).
Kim Jong Un overstretched his threats and gave the US the perfect opening to do this. He is obviously much stupider than his father. At this point, he has given the US an excuse to build up its military power right on China's borders (including the deployment of more ships). And he has scared Japan and South Korea enough that they won't resist the continued US presence on their shores. China is NOT going to be happy about this. Not one bit. If I were Kim, I would be worried about the possibility that China might have him kidnapped or assassinated for this stupidity.
Re:Good Job (Score:5, Informative)
These missile interceptors aren't for North Korea. That is the excuse. They are actually a bargaining chip for China. If China reels in North Korea, then these missile interceptors near their borders will be removed. Until then, Obama can simply claim that he is trying to defend against an aggressive North Korean threat to nuke the US (even if North Korea doesn't actually have the capability to do so).
That's what I was thinking - China has a huge amount of bargaining power with North Korea (ie. even if NK stops listening to them, the vast majority of their "slush fund" accounts are in Chinese banks and currently China is ignoring the UN resolution it *supported* to freeze them. Until then, the US can pretty much attribute anything it does in the Western Pacific to countering North Korean threats...
If that analysis is wrong and it really is just to about North Korea, they clearly have won this pissing match, as the US would be spending the equivalent of ~10-20% of NK's entire yearly military budget just to counter a ridiculous idle threat.
And Un is definitely not the brightest bulb - not only has he given the US an excuse, but he has the majority of South Korea's population in favor of developing their own nuclear weapons. Given SK's GDP is $1.1T and NK's is approx. $20B, a high tech arms race is absurd.
Re: (Score:2)
That said, I've never even been to China and don't really have a good handle on the politics. Maybe Chine
Re: (Score:2)
That said, I've never even been to China and don't really have a good handle on the politics. Maybe Chinese citizens find NK attacking South Korea to be entertaining?
Maybe the Communist party leaders find it entertaining, but from my experience most of the rural citizens just want to be left alone to get by without government interference, and most of the urban citizens just want to be left alone to make money and buy Western toys. In that sense, it's really not that much different from the US :)
Re:Good Job (Score:4, Insightful)
What was China trying to get out of allowing NK to keep it's accounts anyway?
Simple: NK is a buffer state. If SK +NK would join, then American troops would be standing, on SK soil, right on the border with China. They obviously would hate that.
So what China does, is to keep the NK regime alive no matter what. But, they really hate what is happening now too: anti-ballistic systems in the US, and probably soon as well in Japan and SK. Because the GP is absolutely right, this weakens the militairy capabilities of China itself.
Re: (Score:2)
They are actually a bargaining chip for China. If China reels in North Korea, then these missile interceptors near their borders will be removed.
The summary clearly states the interceptors are going to the US Pacific coast.
Re: (Score:3)
You can see China from here.
Well, Chinatown anyway.
A number of them will be in Alaska - not all that far away from parts of China. I'm not sure that this is a terribly credible reason, however. We already *have* lots of things to point at China. ICBMs, subs, long range bombers. We can turn China into one large glass museum if we wanted to. So having more IRBMS (which we have plenty on the subs) doesn't change much. Having marginally competent interceptors doesn't help all that much either. China isn'
Re:Good Job (Score:4, Interesting)
They won't be able to go head to head with us for a long time.
Five years maybe? Ten at the outside. The Chinese industrial base is so far beyond America's, both in terms of total productive capacity and terms of manufacturing technology, that it will be almost impossible for America to maintain it's current military superiority in the medium term.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They are going to Alaska with additional radar tracking installations in Japan. Play with a great circle map for a little while. You will see that if China wanted to attack the west coast of the US, most of those paths from their missile bases would pass over Alaska, just like North Korea's paths. And the descent stages would be able to be targeted by interceptors launched from Alaska.
Here are two examples (note, I used nearby airports since this mapper requires ICN codes which are hard to find for nuclear
Re: (Score:2)
My theory:
These missile interceptors aren't for North Korea. That is the excuse. They are actually a bargaining chip for China. If China reels in North Korea, then these missile interceptors near their borders will be removed.
Uh, did you even read the summary, dude? Can you explain to me how defensive interceptors parked off the US pacific coast can simultaneously be located "near [China's] borders?"
Re: (Score:2)
Because the great circle course from china to the US shore is... along the US pacific coast! The same equipment can defend against Chinese missiles. By nullifying their projection, our own projection reaches farther.
Re: (Score:2)
Kim Jong Un does not have the influence or power that his father had. He's a figurehead used to give the impression to the NK people of a strong continuing dynasty, and as a scapegoat to the west if things should go wrong in the future. The real power lies with the military leaders.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Princes Bride Quote: (Score:2)
"You've committed one of the classic blunders, only the most famous of which is never get involved in a land war in Asia. Slightly less well known is that you should never go in against a Scicilian when Death is on the line! Ha! Ha! Ha! (Plop)"