Korean Brinksmanship

[oldr_n_wsr]

Might as well. The loon might want to meet him as he's a BB fan.

[Jarlaxle]

My son is up at the border (DMZ) guarding demoncracy so I sure hope it all just blows over

So do I.

My brother is a Marine NCO at Okinawa...I think they would be the first ones in if Kim-Jong-Un does something stupid.

[Econoline]

I kinda hope that the B-2 pilots at Whiteman AFB might be among the first ones in...

[Jarlaxle]

Or the crew of the nearest cruise-missile submarine.

[Lord Jim]

Well this is disturbing....:

Pentagon Finds Nuclear Strides by North Korea

WASHINGTON — A new assessment by the Pentagon’s intelligence arm has concluded for the first time, with “moderate confidence,” that North Korea has learned how to make a nuclear weapon small enough to be delivered by a ballistic missile.

The assessment by the Defense Intelligence Agency, which has been distributed to senior administration officials and members of Congress, cautions that the weapon’s “reliability will be low,” apparently a reference to the North’s difficulty in developing accurate missiles or, perhaps, to the huge technical challenges of designing a warhead that can survive the rigors of flight and detonate on a specific target.

The assessment’s existence was disclosed Thursday by Representative Doug Lamborn, Republican of Colorado, three hours into a budget hearing of the House Armed Services Committee with Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey. General Dempsey declined to comment on the assessment because of classification issues. [This is misleading, because it suggests the Con. Lamborn was releasing classified information to the public; that was not the case... it was a part of a report that the Defense Department maintains was "accidentally declassified"...)]

But late Thursday, the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., released a statement saying that the assessment did not represent a consensus of the nation’s intelligence community and that “North Korea has not yet demonstrated the full range of capabilities necessary for a nuclear armed missile.”

In another sign of the administration’s deep concern over the release of the assessment, the Pentagon press secretary, George Little, issued a statement that sought to qualify the conclusion from the Defense Intelligence Agency, which has primary responsibility for monitoring the missile capabilities of adversary nations but which a decade ago was among those that argued most vociferously — and incorrectly — that Iraq had nuclear weapons.

“It would be inaccurate to suggest that the North Korean regime has fully tested, developed or demonstrated the kinds of nuclear capabilities referenced in the passage,” Mr. Little said.

A spokesman for the South Korean Defense Ministry, Kim Min-seok, said early Friday that despite various assessments. “we have doubt that North Korea has reached the stage of miniaturization.”

Nonetheless, outside experts said that the report’s conclusions could explain why Mr. Hagel has announced in recent weeks that the Pentagon was bolstering long-range antimissile defenses in Alaska and California, intended to protect the West Coast, and rushing another antimissile system, originally not set for deployment until 2015, to Guam.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/world ... .html?_r=0

This is a really excellent example that illustrates the point I was making about the nature of intelligence gathering and the decisions based on it, in the discussion we had recently about the intel involved with Iraq and their possession of WMD....(or the liklihood that OBL was in that compound in Pakistan...)

It's a murky, complex, and very inexact business, particularly when dealing with regimes where we have very little in the way of reliable on the ground intelligence assets...

It involves multiple reports, coming in from multiple intelligence sources, across a range of multiple intelligence agencies...(Saying something like, "the information was there for anyone who wanted to see it" is naive and misleading given the way this works)

"the assessment did not represent a consensus of the nation’s intelligence community"

That's the sort of thing we rely on when it comes to intelligence...."assessments" and consensus"....

Our government has given reassurances to the public for some time that North Korea is some years away from reducing a nuclear device to the point that it can be delivered on a war head....

If that conclusion, (God forbid) should turn out to be wrong, and this DIA report turns out to be right, it won't mean they "lied" to us....

It will just mean that they were wrong; that they chose the wrong reports to base their "consensus" on...

And if they're wrong about this one, and there's a nuke on one of those missiles the GenX leader is planning to launch in the next few days, and we don't shoot it down before it lands on US or Allied territory....

Then our government will pay a huge price for having been wrong, and rightly so...

But it still won't mean they "lied" to us....

[Andrew D]

Big RR talked about the US having a "large standing army" but the fact of the matter is that for a nation of 300 million plus people, we really don't.

Compared to what?

There are only two other nations as populous as – and both of them are far more populous than – the US: India and China. The only other nation even coming close to the population of the US is Indonesia.

So does the US have a smaller percentage of its inhabitants in active military service than does India? China? Indonesia?

No. The US has 4.5 per 1,000 people under arms. China has only 0.6 per 1,000, India has only 1.1 per 1,000, and Indonesia has only 1.3 per 1,000. The US has, per capita, 3.46 times as many people under arms as does Indonesia, 4.09 times as many people under arms as does India, and 7.5 times as many people under arms as does China.

So how is the US’s 4.5 per 1,000 people under arms not a large standing army?

The US has a higher percentage of its population under arms than does any of a host of the US’s NATO and other allies, even limiting the comparisons to those nations which can afford military expenditures at least as well as the US can. The US’s two most important European allies – taking at face value the claim that the US needs European military allies – are the UK and Germany. The US has 4.5 per 1,000 people under arms. The UK has only 3.2 per 1,000, and Germany has only 2.3 per 1,000. And the US’s big Pacific-Rim allies? Australia has only 2.8 per 1,000 people under arms, and Japan has only 1.8 per 1,000.

So how is the US’s 4.5 per 1,000 people under arms not a large standing army?

The fact of the matter is that the US has a huge standing military – a military vastly larger than the US needs to defend itself.

[Andrew D]

And that is the crux of the problem: The US spends huge amounts of money on a military which we do not need to defend ourselves. We are told that

we need to remain militarily engaged on a global scale, with forward positioned forces, (in places like Germany) and a forward leaning policy against threats, is in order to avoid future Afghanistans....

To help prevent situations where anti-Western forces are able to metastasize to the point where they represent a serious danger, and large scale military intervention is required..

Huh?

How do “forward positioned forces (in places like Germany)” prevent “future Afghanistans”? We had “forward positioned forces” in Germany and Italy, etc., and that didn’t do fuck-all to prevent what happened in Afghanistan.

Preventing anti-Western forces from requiring a large-scale military intervention? How well has that been working?

And more fundamentally, how did we end up bearing the primary responsibility to defend Germany against an invasion by Russia (or whatever the hell it is that we are supposedly defending Germany against)? The US has almost twice as many people, per capita, under arms as does Germany. If there is a real danger of Germany’s being invaded by Russia (or whatever), how about the Germans step up and defend themselves? Why is it our job to defend them?

Of course, if it comes to it, we should – and, in those circumstances, we surely will – come to the aid of our ally. But why should we bear the primary burden of defending someone else? How about every country take primary responsibility for defending itself, and we step in only if and when one of our allies actually needs our help?

[Andrew D]

The answers to those largely rhetorical questions are both simple and sad.

The fact of the matter is that no serious person genuinely believes that Russia is going to invade Germany. Or Poland. Or the Czech Republic. Etc.

No serious person genuinely believes that anyone is going to invade the UK. Or Japan. Or Australia.

The huge chunk – at least half, and probably a good deal more than that – of the US’s military budget has nothing to do with defending the US. And most of that chunk has nothing to do with defending our allies.

The military budget is, in very large part, simply a money-making machine. It serves the interests of “defense” contractors by making them billions and billions of dollars. Those mega-corporations effectively bribe our legislators by planting their money-making operations in legislators’ States and districts.

It’s not about defense at all.

It’s a giant government-jobs program. And it’s a government-jobs program that costs far more than it should, because we permit “defense” contractors to make fortunes middle-manning the money.

Our money.

We pay huge taxes for our “defense” budget so that certain corporations – the corporations which buy our legislators like pork bellies in the commodities market – can make huge profits.

It’s all about making some people rich. The rest is just empty window dressing.

[Rick]

Is that Army or Military?

We have global reach through our Airforce and Navy that many countries don't.

[Econoline]

The military budget is, in very large part, simply a money-making machine. It serves the interests of “defense” contractors by making them billions and billions of dollars. Those mega-corporations effectively bribe our legislators by planting their money-making operations in legislators’ States and districts.

It’s not about defense at all.

It’s a giant government-jobs program. And it’s a government-jobs program that costs far more than it should, because we permit “defense” contractors to make fortunes middle-manning the money.

Our money.

We pay huge taxes for our “defense” budget so that certain corporations – the corporations which buy our legislators like pork bellies in the commodities market – can make huge profits.

It’s all about making some people rich. The rest is just empty window dressing.

Back when there was such a thing as an intelligent Republican President, one man who could be described as such--someone who knew more than a little about warfare and the military--coined the term "military-industrial complex", and warned us against it.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

ETA: this post could just as well have gone in dales's "No Tanks" thread--or that thread could have been added here.

[Rick]

The US has not used it's military to unduly influence another nation that has not done it's own saber rattling.

[Econoline]

Ike wasn't talking about the U.S. using undue influence on other nations; he was talking about the military-industrial complex using undue influence on this nation. Which it demonstrably has done.

[Rick]

Here's the transcript of that speech

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

We have the military industrial complex to thank for many of the things we take for granted today.

The PC (or Mac whichever way you swing) is a result of the need for miniaturization of nukeular weapons - the list just gets longer.

Besides I thought it was oil that shaped our domestic policy...

[dgs49]

One cannot deny that Defense spending is real spending, and it pushes money into the economy, creating jobs along with their related benefits. Thus, defense spending is "good," according to the current thinking in Washington, and not to be curtailed.

But as with many, many other government instrumentalities, the question is, do you continue spending on things that have no certain value ("military preparedness"), or curtail that spending dramatically, knowing that it will put a lot of people out of work? DoD is the biggest such boondoggle, but by no means the only one.

I find it curious that the Andrew person rails about the obscene profits that Defense contractors make when by all reasonable analysis the opposite is true. Profit margins and profitability generally of major Defense contractors are marginal at best. It is a learned skill to get even full compensation for much of the work, as DoD doesn't pay certain normal G&A and overhead expenses, and your costs are always subject to audit (for negotiated contracts, e.g., major weapons systems). In fact, wise investors steer clear of major DoD contractors, as their profitability is always subject to the whims of Congress.

Clearly, there are many major Defense expenditures that are subject to question, but I think that complaining about Defense contractors making a profit is misplaced criticism. They are not very profitable as a group.

[Rick]

"Preparedness" is always measured by failures...

[dgs49]

It is axiomatic that Armies are always well-prepared for the last war and ill-prepared for the next one.

There is no country in the world that can challenge the U.S. in a conventional war - both sides wearing uniforms and duking it out. But conventional wars are a thing of the past.

Which again makes one wonder that the fuck the North Koreans are thinking about.

[dales]

Juche.

[Rick]

Sun Tzu tells me not all wars are asymetric, wars that bog down become asymetric...

[dales]

It is axiomatic that Armies are always well-prepared for the last war and ill-prepared for the next one.

There is no country in the world that can challenge the U.S. in a conventional war - both sides wearing uniforms and duking it out. But conventional wars are a thing of the past.

Which again makes one wonder that the fuck the North Koreans are thinking about.

Let me expand a bit on the concept of "juche" since no one in the media (as far as I know) has discussed it.

http://www.korea-dpr.com/juche_ideology.html

Juche Ideology

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is guided in its activities by the Juche idea authored by President Kim Il Sung. The Juche idea means, in a nutshell, that the masters of the revolution and construction are the masses of the people and that they are also the motive force of the revolution and construction.

The Juche idea is based on the philosophical principle that man is the master of everything and decides everything. It is the man-centred world outlook and also a political philosophy to materialize the independence of the popular masses, namely, a philosophy which elucidates the theoretical basis of politics that leads the development of society along the right path.

The Government of the DPRK steadfastly maintains Juche in all realms of the revolution and construction.

Establishing Juche means adopting the attitude of a master towards the revolution and construction of one's country. It means maintaining an independent and creative standpoint in finding solutions to the problems which arise in the revolution and construction. It implies solving those problems mainly by one's own efforts and in conformity with the actual conditions of one's own POLITICS country. The realization of independence in politics, selfsufficiency in the economy and self-reliance in national defence is a principle the Government maintains consistently.

The Korean people value the independence of the country and nation and, under the pressure of imperialists and dominationsts, have thoroughly implemented the principle of independence, self-reliance and self-defence, defending the country's sovereignty and dignity firmly.

It is an invariable policy of the Government of the Republic, guided by the Juche idea, to treasure the Juche character and national character and maintain and realize them. The Government of the Republic always adheres to the principle of Juche, the principle of national independence, and thus is carrying out the socialist cause of Juche.

Nevermind that the DPRK was dependent upon the Soviets until their demise in 1991 and now has to go at it alone with help now and then from international aid organizations.

The DPRK is scared shitless of the US and the ROK and looks upon our joint military practices as provacation to war. Of course they're going to shoot off a missle now and then, they feel cornered.

If the Red Chinese can do a bit of arm-twisting and bring the DPRK in line, it might be best to wait and see.

[Lord Jim]

The DPRK is scared shitless of the US and the ROK and looks upon our joint military practices as provacation to war.

I disagree Dale...

I don't believe that the Pudgy Successor and the top military leadership of North Korea are really stupid and/or ignorant enough to believe that South Korea and the US really have any desire to take over their hell hole of a country....

We've been having joint military exercises for decades, and have never set foot on their Godforsaken land....

They act like they're afraid of being attacked for two reasons:

1. To try to wring concessions out of The West...

2. To provide an excuse to their population for why the poor bastards must continue to subsist with 13th century living standards...(" We are at war! The Americans want to invade and destroy us! We must make sacrifices to preserve our Glorious Revolution!")