North Korea threatens to wipe U.S. off the map

[Schuyler]

even wikipedia says it's docked there. Madness I tells ya.

Nope. Wiki says it docks there, not that it is docked there. Wiki says this:

June 23, 2009: USS John C Stennis conducts operations in the Gulf of Alaska participating in the training exercise, Northern Edge.

 

[skunkape]

Most North Koreans are starving to death. I don't think they directly pose much of a threat to us at this time. If they try to do something covert, I suspect that a nuke sub sitting right off their coast would reduce the entire country to a burnt-out glass soapdish.

dB

There's no reason to be hungry in North Korea if you like rabbit-stew.

Fat German Rabbits to Feed Poor: Monster Bunnies For North Korea - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International


I believe the U.S. would be extremely reluctant to use a nuke. We have conventional weaponry that would make the country look more like the aftermath of a giant explosion in a meat-factory with the greatest of ease. I'm sure our military is watching everthing that moves over there. If they attempt to launch a missile at the U.S., I predict it won't even get off the launch-pad. My dad was in South Korea serving as an MP for 4 years. He pretty much chuckles and shakes his head when Kim Jong Il starts waving his puny little dick around.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

 

[methshin]

Nope. Wiki says it docks there, not that it is docked there. Wiki says this:

• Builders: United States (Newport News Shipbuilding Company in Newport News, Virginia)
• Laid down: March 13, 1991
• Launched: November 11, 1993 (List)
• Operator: United States Navy
• Commissioned: December 9, 1995 (List)
• Status: In active service, based at Naval Base Kitsap in Bremerton, Washington
• Operations: Operation Southern Watch, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Noble Eagle

so when they say "based at" they mean that is where it goes when it is not in active service?

 

[skunkape]

• Builders: United States (Newport News Shipbuilding Company in Newport News, Virginia)
• Laid down: March 13, 1991
• Launched: November 11, 1993 (List)
• Operator: United States Navy
• Commissioned: December 9, 1995 (List)
• Status: In active service, based at Naval Base Kitsap in Bremerton, Washington
• Operations: Operation Southern Watch, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Noble Eagle

so when they say "based at" they mean that is where it goes when it is not in active service?

All of your links are 404'ing on me.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

 

[Schuyler]

so when they say "based at" they mean that is where it goes when it is not in active service?

Pretty much. It hangs out here when its not out floating around causing trouble. The families of the sailors on board all live around here. The Air Wing is based somewhere in California. It's been gone since mid January. We know it's now in Alaska. Deployments, generally speaking, are for about six months at a time. So my guess, unless they step on the gas and head back to the far east, she'll be coming back here in a couple of weeks. They'll never say exactly when they will depart, but with an 1100 foot ship it's pretty obvious.

 

[Kevin Daly]

Given the relative sizes of the nuclear arsenals involved, I think it would be fair to ask "You and whose army?".

I assume that like much of the drivel that comes out of Dear Leader's drool-flecked gob, this one is primarily intended for internal consumption.

I'm sure talking tough gets him loads of chicks.

 

[thefoundryman]

Schuyler, I'm curious to know what keeps you awake at night. What do you perceive to be the outcome of this scenario if NK will not behave?
If I may also be so bold, as to ask if you know, through your sources that the riots in Iran are 'sponsored' if you catch my drift?

 

[skunkape]

What do you perceive to be the outcome of this scenario if NK will not behave?



I predict China, and maybe Russia, will do the U.S. a "favor," and clean up the mess. That will be the narrative released to the public.

<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

 

[Schuyler]

Schuyler, I'm curious to know what keeps you awake at night. What do you perceive to be the outcome of this scenario if NK will not behave? If I may also be so bold, as to ask if you know, through your sources that the riots in Iran are 'sponsored' if you catch my drift?

I sleep like a baby. It's why I drink.

Seriously, though, I have to be careful not to get beyond myself and pretend to have knowledge I don't. Stating the facts as I know them is a lot easier than getting into an analyses of what I perceive may happen. I also need to be careful not to insert my own wishes into any scenario. So, I need to tip toe into this carefully. I also will try to be a-political. I think both Republicans and Democrats stink equally badly for different reasons.

As for North Korea, I think this is really about the USA and China. Not that I think NK is simply a Chinese proxy, but China is right there with all their spy stuff watching the scenario carefully. They've been pushing us lately with 'incidents at sea.' We don't want China to see us in serious action which they would track very carefully. Japan is also involved here, so the US will try to bend to their wishes as well. I suspect there are some back room negotiations going on here that are something like this: "Look, China, if NK launches against us, we're going to take it out. But it might be in your best interests to reign these guys in." That's the Skunkape Scenario. The question is, will we take out a test launch? If Japan begs us to and China says 'Go ahead,' we might. The real answer to that is that it depends on what is happening in the rest of the world. We need some background:

Obama has a delicate task. He is more or less in the same position that both Kennedy and Carter, and even Teddy Roosevelt faced. All three Presidents were perceived by foreign leaders as weak, young, and inexperienced.

Roosevelt took over after McKinley's assassination. He took charge immediately. He sent the Great White Fleet around the world 'introducing' it to the might of the US Navy. Congress didn't want to fund the tour. Roosevelt said, 'OK. I've got enough money to send them half way around myself. You get them home." He carried a big stick. He was the most popular President in US history. Nobody messed with him.

Kennedy walked into the middle of the Bay of Pigs, a complete disaster. He showed no resolve and left them hanging. The USSR pounced on this and sent rockets to Cuba. The resulting Cuban Quarantine put the world on the brink of war. It's the closest we ever came, though when Kennedy was killed, that was pretty close, too. The military went to Defcon 1. They thought the USSR was behind it. I have friends who were in US Army Europe at the time and they freaked. Back to Cuba, the US tricked the Soviets with a fake radio message on an 'accidentally' open channel, courtesy of the US Navy, that was picked up by the Russians and made them back down. What REALLY happened after that is that the US agreed to remove its missiles from Turkey in exchange for the USSR removing theirs from Cuba. It was a quid pro quo kind of thing, but in the eyes of the world, the perception was that Kennedy rose to the task, faced off the Russians, and made them blink. Pretty dangerous stuff, but it worked.

Incidentally, the US military is a very good trickster. They've done this kind of thing before. You could probably write a book. Think 'The Hunt for Red October.' They do this kind of shit all the time.

Carter was also perceived as weak. He came into the presidency apologizing, just like Obama has just done. Then he lost Iran, and not only that, he messed up on the hostage issue. Every single day, Walter Kronkite ended his broadcast on CBS Evening news with the phrase, "And this is the 377th day of captivity for the American hostages in Iran." Carter did nothing but whine to everyone else to get him out of the mess. His one try to free them ended in disaster. He lost the election and on the very day of the inauguration, the hostages were released. Love him or hate him, Reagan was a no bull shit kind of guy. That was no accident.

Now what has happened? Obama just let Iran off the hook on their suppression of protests. Apparently, according to Stratfor, it was really bad. European countries, which have traditionally been much more pro-Arabic than we are, condemned the handling of the protests in much stronger terms. (Iran isn't really Arabic. They speak Farsi. 'Iran' the word means 'Aryan.' Sound familiar?) The point is that, except for the Somali Pirate stand-off, where there is some question as to who authorized what when, Obama has not 'shown his resolve.'--and he must.

Back to Korea. Opportunity knocks. Everybody knows it. China certainly does. If he lets N Korea launch another rocket. If he lets the N. Korean ships full of weapons go, If he does nothing, then the next time, it will be bigger. I think the N Korean weapons ship is next on the list. We need to wait and see what happens there. The US is in a perfect position to take it out and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it. They also can take out a missile. That's why the fleet of destroyers (independent of the carriers) is there. The question is, will he do it? I dunno.

As to your question on the Iran protests, I've been getting multiple reports from Strafor daily. There has not been even a hint of 'sponsorship.' Strafor thinks the protests are not deep and come from one class of society--educated, urban young people. The regime is supported by the rural areas because the President is promising to a) give them stuff and b) keep them shielded from globalization, so he's very popular there. The election itself was undoubtedly fiddled with in a way that makes Florida seem like a minor glitch, but that may not matter. There is obviously a power struggle among the clerics. Stratfor thinks the status quo will hold.

I'm going to take a chance and reprint one paragraph claiming 'fair use' here, since it comes from a public source originally:

A Washington Times exclusive on June 24 claimed that Obama had delivered a letter sometime between May 4-10 through the Swiss Embassy to the supreme leader, in which he expressed his interest in “cooperation in regional and bilateral relations” and a resolution to the Iranian nuclear issue. If true, the delivery of that letter was designed to signal to Tehran that regardless of the election outcome, the United States was still prepared to negotiate. Obama is attempting to hold this strategy together by refraining from rejecting the election victory of someone he intends to deal with anyway. However, for a number of reasons — from U.S. domestic pressures to a core Iranian disinterest in making concessions at this point — the U.S. strategy to engage with Iran is already being driven into the ground.

 

[AnnetteMarie]

...Carter was also perceived as weak. He came into the presidency apologizing, just like Obama has just done. Then he lost Iran, and not only that, he messed up on the hostage issue. Every single day, Walter Kronkite ended his broadcast on CBS Evening news with the phrase, "And this is the 377th day of captivity for the American hostages in Iran." Carter did nothing but whine to everyone else to get him out of the mess. His one try to free them ended in disaster. He lost the election and on the very day of the inauguration, the hostages were released. Love him or hate him, Reagan was a no bull shit kind of guy. That was no accident....

yeah, well Carter knew about the six being snuck out of the country on Canadian passports by the Canadian embassy.... that was done in full co-operation between Flora MacDonald's ministry and Carter's administration.

as for the other 52, getting people out is not always easy and the majority of the Canadian news coverage made sure we knew it was because of negotiations held by Carter's administration that they were being released; the fact their release occurred the last day of Carter's presidency was unfortunate for Mr. Carter, he explained in an interview some years later he was not concerned about the kudos, he wanted them home.

We used to have some really great international journalists - I was always confused by how the coverage of international events differed so much between Canada and the US broadcast and print media, now they are so close to each other they may as well be clones.

That is not to say I doubt Schuyler's 'inside' info, either, but I do recall hearing more to it at the time than was reported on US stations.

I am willing to wager Schuyler has even more background details and impressions available to him, from the perspective of the military or otherwise, that he is reluctant to use - as stated preferring to stick to FACTS - but this is from the perspective of one of your cousins up north who remembers being terrified yet again at the possibility of war around the world, and quite proud and happy that our Embassy staff in such a violent corner of the world could improve the lives of six families so incredibly much by doing such a simple thing.

 

[Schuyler]

yeah, well Carter knew about the six being snuck out of the country on Canadian passports by the Canadian embassy.... that was done in full co-operation between Flora MacDonald's ministry and Carter's administration.

I remember that incident quite clearly. Someone put up a billboard at the border in Michigan saying, "Thank you, Canada!" in big, bold letters. It was a sunny spot in an otherwise pretty dismal time.

 

[AnnetteMarie]

on the subject of the protests in Iran, I was listening to a fellow being interviewed the other day, he left Iran 3 years after Palavi was deposed...

to hear him tell it, he is afraid the protests going on now will not lead to meaningful change, as it didn't work the last time. He states the last round of mass protests started out disjointed, un-connected. To give the protesters one voice and to make them more powerful, they accepted the Ayatollah group. Many did not agree with the Ayatollah, wanted no part of religion running the country, either, but to get the Shah out, they let the Ayatollah's allies be the one voice for all.

Folks like this journalist accept that led to disaster in many ways, but now the current protesters face the same problem they did when he was there 30 years ago. the fellow being interviewed does not believe they have any kind of a plan, or even know what it is they want - the vote is the one voice they need to be heard, but not knowing what it is they really want will bring them into a position where they are once again ripe for takeover by anyone who is even slightly organized.

bloody shame.

there may be some info on the interview, check our Roy Green on the Corus Radio Network or Charles Adler as Roy was filling in for Charles. both of them are definitely NOT liberal types, but they do some good interviews now and then.

 

[Xylo]

They do have a huge military establishment. But they don't have the budget to properly equip them all. So, some of them may have to fight in their underware (if they can provide their own). I don't know, wooden shovels might hurt if they hit you on the head with one.

The soviets liked big parades too. But, likewise, they never had the budget. You could tell by their kit. Uniforms were theatrical costumes, at best, that could never survive real combat. Assault rifles made out of sheet metal that rusted through if you sneezed on it. Bullets that as often blew up in your face... Insufficient depth of parts.

Soviet philosophy was massive production with great tolerance for error in specifications. Take an SU27 and land it on a rough airfield...not much of a problem. Do that with an F16 and massive problems. Throw a Kalishnikov into the mud, chances are it will fire afterwards. Do the same with an M16A2, chances are that it won't.

By the same token, Soviets wanted to have an impression of massive numbers and inexhaustible manpower whereas the US forces want to make every man count. N.Korea also has a largely conscript armed force with few veteran leaders...and a leader who is so far off the handle that he's threatening a nation that could, as was said earlier, turn his entire country into shiny, steamy, black glass.

North Korea feels extremely desperate. No global trade. Fearful of participating lest their own citizens come to realize how screwed they are. And a ruling elite desperate to cling to power. Their hope had always been to invade the South and loot its prosperity. Now, I think, they may be trying to extort money from Obama.

I wouldn't put it past him...he's "So Lonely" after all.

 

[skunkape]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/u6rDeOojFXk&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/u6rDeOojFXk&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

 

[SgtRock]

I'm sooooooo ronery, so ronrey, so twired of bweeing arone............. (Kim il Sung)

 

[Schuyler]

Just to come to a little closure here on the USS Stennis. She is headed for Everett to drop off part of the air wing at Whidbey Island on Monday. That would be the radar jammers and electronic warfare planes. She then will head to San Diego on a 'Tiger Cruise' which means family and friends can be on board, where it will drop of the F-18 Hornets part of the air wing and then be back in Bremerton on July 10th. So, it looks like the Stennis is out of the picture for awhile. I think this is probably a good thing.