STORM2K

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world ... magery.htm

You may click on all those images which are from january 28 and you will see them larger.

That whole complex called Yongbyon in North Korea covers a big area with distint facilities.

I would favor a preemptive strike of that plant that has restarted it's production of Plutonium that will make 6-8 nukes in a few months if all diplomatic talks are not useful.

With what has happened so far I think we should back off a little. The N. Koreans are already finger pointing at us saying that we would be the cause of WWIII if we don't. Let's keep talking but in no way should we cave in to there demands. I thought the U.S. had a policy on terrorism.
What they are doing, IMO, is nothing short of it.

As long they dont push the red button we will be ok because more threats from them with no action will be the best scenario but I fear that somebody will push that button but let's pray that nothing will happen but North Korea is by far more dangerous than Iraq.

We MUST give diplomacy a chance to work. In Iraq...a sufficient argument has been made that we have tried all we can, but you can't say that with North Korea. I think N.K. is spouting this angry rhetoric to make us lose our cool, but we need to remain calm and make intelligent intellectual strategic decisions.

Garrett

I think they are trying to push us so we look like the agressor. Then they get U.N. backing and push us out of S. Korea. Then they move in and clean house. They want what S. Korea has.

I agree. SK and the US have things that NK wants. They are not going to destroy what they want unless pushed into it. The bigger threat would be if those nukes found their way to Iraq or other terrorists who have nothing to lose.

I really believe we have to stay focused on Iraq. If we don't it could be fatal.

It will be the beginning of WWIII!

Diplomacy has worked well over the years - look at the Cold War. Either nation, the US or USSR could've pushed the button at anytime.

Ask yourselves why North Korea is demanding direct talks with Washington, and/or insisting on a U.S./NK "non-aggression pact"?

This is so that they can cry "FOUL!" if the U.S. is forced to break that "pact" AFTER NK uses their muscle to dominate the old pre-WW II Japanese sphere of influence...and this is why direct negotiations ain't on the menu. The U.S. has rightly stated that this is an international problem, and should be handled multilaterally (the true job of the UN).

NK has tried to cut the UN out by reneging on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, but not so far that it wants no voice in that feckless body of "To my left, the ministers, most sinister, the ministers..."(courtesy of the screenplay from "The Fifth Element", but oh, so apropos!).

I'm sure you're right Bill about Nk's intentions with negotiating directly with the US.

What I don't understand, to get back on Iraq, is how that is not an international issue too, along with something that should also be handled multilaterally? Iraq is also a threat to to it's Middle Eastern neighbors and Europe.

Iraq is an International issue. An issue that has now gone on for 12 years without resolution. The fact that for 8 years we did nothing to force the issue is directly due to the administration in power at the time.

The US will always reserve the right to act when the President deems that it is in the security interests of the United States.

I would have to say not only the last administration, but also the UN have allowed this to go on for the last 12 years. If it is a multilateral decision, the responsibility cannot then be held by one country alone.

The same thing then can also happen with NK.

Right, Stephanie; if Kim Jong-Il lobs a "headache ball", we retaliate.

And may I remind you tha the U.S. is NOT acting on its own...UK, Spain, Denmark, Poland, Czech Republic and Romania are also with our "coalition", as are the Kuwaitis, and several "silent partners" who will provide non-military support. And when push comes to shove, the Turks WILL be in the game out of their own self-interest.

This is "multilateralism", Stephanie...just not under UN command (or for that matter "sanction", but who cares?).

I agree that the UN is equally at fault for the twelve years of inactivity. Now that they have failed to do anything we must.