Surprise! NK has nukes.
Jason Gavenonis
from:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/pacific_rim/story.jsp?story=343290
North Korea has stunned the United States by admitting it has a secret
nuclear weapons programme, in violation of a 1994 agreement with the
Clinton administration, a senior US official disclosed last night.
Pyongyang is also understood to have informed American diplomats that it
no longer considers itself bound by the deal, which in essence traded US
financial assistance for a promise by the North Korean regime to abandon
its nuclear weapons programme and submit its nuclear facilities to
international inspection.
loki
Actually, your subject and your post are not consistent. The post
says that they have a nuke *program* while the subject says
they have actual nukes. Hmmm... The article says *program*
as well but nothing about actual nukes or the ability to deliver them.
Loki
Jason Gavenonis
Sorry... it's been a long day (reading Clausewitz for class). You called
me on the semantic error. But considering that they have ballistic
missiles and we *think* that they have enough Pu for a couple of devices,
it's not too much of stretch to draw the implication of the subject from
the content of the assorted articles that have been popping up. Why
announce their program to the world unless their device is near
completion? Do they really have that much to gain by provoking us with a
bluff?
With certain other recent events around the world, I also find the timing of
this announcement to be rather interesting.
-Jason
Gml...@scvnet.com
"Steve Bartman" <sbar...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:kfhsqugrcaknv05v8...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 22:01:49 -0700, Chris J...... <ch...@noadress.com>
> wrote:
>
> >What I'm wondering is; why admit it? I suspect they are up to
> >something, and one possibility is a shakedown of the US, Japan and S.
> >Korea for more aid in return for abolishing the program (just like
> >they did in 1994). If so, i hope we aren't dumb enough to fall for it
> >again.
>
> Since we never paid up the first time it's not a case of "again."
No inspections, no payments.
Jason Gavenonis
> >On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 22:01:49 -0700, Chris J...... <ch...@noadress.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>What I'm wondering is; why admit it? I suspect they are up to
> >>something, and one possibility is a shakedown of the US, Japan and S.
> >>Korea for more aid in return for abolishing the program (just like
> >>they did in 1994). If so, i hope we aren't dumb enough to fall for it
> >>again.
> >
> >Since we never paid up the first time it's not a case of "again."
> The construction is already underway on the reactors, and didn't we
> give them fuel oil too?
> What is puzzling me is that they admitted to their nuclear program.
> That's IMHO got to have some reasoning behind it. I'm just wondering
> what it is, and I suspect this may get messy.
Perhaps they figure that since we'll be busy with Iraq, they can get away
with it, or their program has reached a critical point, with their
device(s) near completion. Either way, with the axis of evil neatly
aligning itself, they have put Bush in an awkward situation: in order to
remain consistent with his rhetoric on dictators with WMD, it follows
that action in Korea is necessary to retain his credibility.[1]
Coupled with Bush's current position of not discouraging Israel from
retaliating if Iraq attacks, this situation definitely has the potential
to get very messy very quickly.[2]
-Jason
[1] This doesn't mean that I'm personally volunteering to go fight in Korea,
either, Mr. Bartman, in case you were wondering.
[2] Billiary, however, has previously pledged to go fight for Israel (and
die!) if she is attacked, although he may not have been entirely truthful.
Loren Pechtel
wrote:
>What I'm wondering is; why admit it? I suspect they are up to
>something, and one possibility is a shakedown of the US, Japan and S.
>Korea for more aid in return for abolishing the program (just like
>they did in 1994). If so, i hope we aren't dumb enough to fall for it
>again.
The program should be abolished with a Tomahawk.
Jason Gavenonis
> On 17 Oct 2002 14:13:41 GMT, gavenoni...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu
> (Jason Gavenonis) wrote:
> >Perhaps they figure that since we'll be busy with Iraq, they can get away
> >with it, or their program has reached a critical point, with their
> >device(s) near completion.
> Regarding the state of their program; Just a hunch, but I suspect that
> either it's been successful (they have functioning weapons) or it hit
> a snag and they decided to get something out of it by trading it away.
> I doubt they would admit to their program if it was right on the verge
> of success.
Functioning weapons imply successful tests, which are hard to hide in a
small country that's being carefully observed. Last time I checked, we
could even detect underground detonations by satellite and seismograph. I'd
consider the device "near completion" until it has been successfully
tested. You don't know they're functioning devices until one has gone
off properly. They may not, however, have had enough Plutonium to spare
on a test device.
And now Rumsfeld has come out and said he thinks that they probably have
2 devices:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2337997.stm
"""
The United States believes North Korea already has a "small number" of
nuclear weapons, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said.
"""
Chris Vail
"Loren Pechtel" <lorenp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kp4uqusssls4daa49...@4ax.com...
-----thrown by somebody with REALLY HUGE ARMS....
Chris
Loren Pechtel
(Jason Gavenonis) wrote:
>> I doubt they would admit to their program if it was right on the verge
>> of success.
>
>Functioning weapons imply successful tests, which are hard to hide in a
>small country that's being carefully observed. Last time I checked, we
>could even detect underground detonations by satellite and seismograph. I'd
Very small bombs can be confused with earthquakes, but anything
beyond that can't be concealed.
Steve Bartman
(Jason Gavenonis) wrote:
>[1] This doesn't mean that I'm personally volunteering to go fight in Korea,
>either, Mr. Bartman, in case you were wondering.
Who said anything about volunteering? You kids today . . .
Steve
--
Author of "The PaxAm Solution"
E-book version now available at:
http://riverdaleebooks.com/index.html
Steve Bartman
(Jason Gavenonis) wrote:
>Functioning weapons imply successful tests, which are hard to hide in a
>small country that's being carefully observed.
Like Pakistan? How do we know all of those tests were home grown?
Jason Atkinson
(Jason Gavenonis) wrote:
>Perhaps they figure that since we'll be busy with Iraq, they can get away
>with it, or their program has reached a critical point, with their
>device(s) near completion. Either way, with the axis of evil neatly
>aligning itself, they have put Bush in an awkward situation: in order to
>remain consistent with his rhetoric on dictators with WMD, it follows
>that action in Korea is necessary to retain his credibility.[1]
>
>Coupled with Bush's current position of not discouraging Israel from
>retaliating if Iraq attacks, this situation definitely has the potential
>to get very messy very quickly.[2]
And, of course, we don't have to resources to handle Iraq and North
Korea at the same time, while still keeping our forces in Afghanistan.
I wonder if we are going to see a US effort to pull out of the Balkans
quicker?
--
Cadet SGT, D Company, Virginia Tech Corps of Cadets
Cadet, MS III, New River Battalion, US Army ROTC
"Pride NOW, Tradition ALWAYS, HOTEL FOREVER!" HOTEL-04
"You can't be a dragon, this is a fantasy game!" Hambone
Jason Atkinson
Want to guess how much of the ROK population and the 8th Army lives
within range of DPRK artillery?
War in Korea will result in a US victory, but it ain't going to be
easy.
loki
> I'll bypass my regular draft call doom-and-gloom, but if you're 18-26
> I wouldn't make any long-term plans if Bush goes after NK too.
Since we don't have enough bodies to go after Iraq and NK at the
same time and keep our current committments, it's pretty much a
given that this would require a draft.
Gods, I'm not worried all that much about Iraq (though the Israel
bit is worrysome) the thought of another war with NK is very
frightening to me. Where do the Chinese fall this time?
Loki
Loren Pechtel
wrote:
>>>What I'm wondering is; why admit it? I suspect they are up to
>>>something, and one possibility is a shakedown of the US, Japan and S.
>>>Korea for more aid in return for abolishing the program (just like
>>>they did in 1994). If so, i hope we aren't dumb enough to fall for it
>>>again.
>>
>> The program should be abolished with a Tomahawk.
>
>Want to guess how much of the ROK population and the 8th Army lives
>within range of DPRK artillery?
>
>War in Korea will result in a US victory, but it ain't going to be
>easy.
If we just blew up their nuke stuff and did nothing else I don't
think they would invade. As you say, they would lose.
Earl
news:fd8vqus39orterhno...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 02:17:50 GMT, jaat...@NO.edu (Jason
> Atkinson) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 19:58:18 GMT, Loren Pechtel
>><lorenp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 22:01:49 -0700, Chris J......
>>><ch...@noadress.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>What I'm wondering is; why admit it? I suspect they are up
>>>>to something, and one possibility is a shakedown of the
>>>>US, Japan and S. Korea for more aid in return for
>>>>abolishing the program (just like they did in 1994). If
>>>>so, i hope we aren't dumb enough to fall for it again.
>>>
>>> The program should be abolished with a Tomahawk.
>>
>>Want to guess how much of the ROK population and the 8th
>>Army lives within range of DPRK artillery?
>>
>>War in Korea will result in a US victory, but it ain't going
>>to be easy.
>
> The KCIA is by all accounts quite good, which leaves one
> possibility; *if* they or we can find out where the nukes
> are, they can either be destroyed from the air or seized in
> a raid, and anything suspected of being a nuclear production
> side could be bombed.
>
> A much better scenario IMHO than a full blown war, but an
> iffy one at best.
>
> One thing about the NK nuclear program; if they are
> enriching Uranium, where did they get the tech for that? If
> they are using centrifuges, I'd want to have a VERY close
> look at Pakistan, who have been acquiring a lot of N. Korean
> missile technology over the past few years.
>
> "There are as many ways to know of many things,
> as there are things of which to know."
>
> Chris J.........
> 2jch...@lycos.co.uk
> to e-mail, remove anything numeric.
>
I can not say how NK does it, but:
30 years ago my high energy research group did studies on laser-
chemical separation of isotopes.
Take a mixed isotope chemical compound. There is a separate
wavelength for decomposition of the U238-X and U235-X bond.
There is spectra overlap which messes with efficiency, but a
couple stages gets high yields. So shine a tunable laser on the
target and pick up the decomposition products.
Jason Atkinson
wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 02:17:50 GMT, jaat...@NO.edu (Jason Atkinson)
>wrote:
>>War in Korea will result in a US victory, but it ain't going to be
>>easy.
>
>The KCIA is by all accounts quite good, which leaves one possibility;
>*if* they or we can find out where the nukes are, they can either be
>destroyed from the air or seized in a raid, and anything suspected of
>being a nuclear production side could be bombed.
They do have a good reputation, and I would imagine that 50 years of
being able to focus their attention on a very specific threat while
letting their allies worry about the rest of the world makes them all
that more efficient in gathering intelligence on the DPRK.
Nevertheless, I find the idea that DPRK will turn the other cheek if
we attack them to be very improbable. Remember that we are talking
about a nation that probably views its last war with us as a victory,
and has had decades to prepare its entire military for invading the
South. Yes, they are primitive, and yes, their economy could not
support a protracted war against the ROK and allies. However, numbers
and preperation will mean that they in all likelyhood will not role
over and die in a week inflicting minimal casualties. If nothing
else, their artillery will be a problem.
Jason Atkinson
wrote:
>Unfortunately we are probably talking hardened targets, requiring
>either LGB's or some version of the "bunker buster" ground penetrator,
>and that requires manned aircraft. Other than that, I agree with you,
>if other means fail.
If it comes to that, we should also be prepared to launch simultaneous
strikes on their command and control system, logistics, and forward
deployed forces. Taking on NK is not quite comparable to tossing a
few cruise missiles at chemical plants in Sudan or radar sites in
Iraq.
Don't get me wrong, we may have to do it, however I think Americans
have become far too casual in the last decade about what initiating
armed conflict really involves.
David Freeman
"Jason Atkinson" <jaat...@NO.edu> wrote in message
news:3db00df9....@news.vt.edu...
>
> Nevertheless, I find the idea that DPRK will turn the other cheek if
> we attack them to be very improbable. Remember that we are talking
> about a nation that probably views its last war with us as a victory,
> and has had decades to prepare its entire military for invading the
> South.
For the DPRK view on events, take a look at the history pages on their
official website:
http://www.korea-dpr.com/history30.htm
Dave
Chris Vail
"loki" <lo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:aonrgp$nv4$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
The Chinese, as always, will look out for
China's best interests. Fifty years ago, these
coincided with NK's, but the world has changed
since. China may offer political or propaganda
support, but I really doubt it would amount to
much more than that. We buy too many Nike
sneakers from China. They like their 'most
favored nation' status. Its in their best long-term
interests to keep it. I think the current political
regime is practical enough to realize this. That
doesn't, of course, mean that they will: Germany's
biggest trading partner in 1938 was France. Never-
theless, I think (and pray) that the era of the madmen
is over.
Chris
Jason Gavenonis
Unless, of course, we park the 7th fleet in front of Taiwan again.
Jason Gavenonis
But an earthquake where there shouldn't be one coupled with the
detectable gas emissions would indicate the presence of an underground
detonation.
Colin William
> And, of course, we don't have to resources to handle Iraq and North
> Korea at the same time, while still keeping our forces in Afghanistan.
I thought we were supposed to see Germany taking over the predominant role
in Afghanistan? Or does that not preclude the ongoing presence of large
numbers of US troops?
Colin
Howard Berkowitz
gavenoni...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Jason Gavenonis) wrote:
Earthquakes are also more likely not to be point sources. Other sensors
can come into play even if there's no leakage. One might wonder, for
example, if there is a thermal ground effect that a staring satellite
array (e.g., DSP) might see.
Howard Berkowitz
Atkinson) wrote:
I agree. Desert Storm started with a complex defense suppression and
counter-C3I effort, which was helped somewhat by flat desert.
Afghanistan is mountainous, but the Taliban didn't have a particularly
sophisticated defense system.
North Korea is heavily mountainous, has personnel that have spent lots
of time in near-combat or combat, and LOVES to dig things in.
Jason Gavenonis
IIRC, Korea is in a subduction zone, so they wouldn't really get
earthquakes anyway.
Again, IIRC, the satellite detection method relies upon the thermal
expansion of the highly pressurized gasses released from an underground
blast.
Michael W. Ellis
news:6E6953680BBFF403.BD454A40...@lp.airnews.net...
Paging Ed Ames...
--
Michael Ellis
first initial last name at pesa commercial domain
"Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies,
justice will be done." - George W. Bush 9/20/2001
Steve Bartman
wrote:
>Gods, I'm not worried all that much about Iraq (though the Israel
>bit is worrysome) the thought of another war with NK is very
>frightening to me. Where do the Chinese fall this time?
"Fall" or "fallout"? Enough drifts over the border and they'd get very
involved. That included biowar fallout.
Where would they really land if we were involved in Afghanistan, pre-
or post-Iraq (especially post with the number of troops that will
consume), plus a war on the Korean peninsula? I'd say right on top of
Taiwan.
Scott Lurndal
And very small bombs are quite difficult to engineer.
scott
Steve Bartman
wrote:
>They do have a good reputation, and I would imagine that 50 years of
>being able to focus their attention on a very specific threat while
>letting their allies worry about the rest of the world makes them all
>that more efficient in gathering intelligence on the DPRK.
As Sen. McCain (or someone) pointed out this morning gathering
intelligence inside NK is all but impossible except by remote means.
Strangers tend to stand out when every citizen is cataloged and has
two other people watching his every move. There's little internal
movement, jobs are assigned, and clandestine meetings are usually
short and fatal.
>Nevertheless, I find the idea that DPRK will turn the other cheek if
>we attack them to be very improbable.
Me too. Some of my family fought in the last war there. The Gurkhas
may be tougher, but not many other basic soldiers in the world could
compete with your basic NK infantryman. A Seoul, the major target and
prize, is a day's walk. They don't have to conquer SK a la 1950. They
just have to grab Seoul, hold it hostage, and ask for terms. About 1/4
of SK's population lives there, the economy absolutely depends on it,
and we and the SK's would be loath to have it destroyed.
Steve Bartman
wrote:
>Don't get me wrong, we may have to do it, however I think Americans
>have become far too casual in the last decade about what initiating
>armed conflict really involves.
You show wisdom, young cadet. After all, there's only one John to go
around. <g>
Ceri Jones
>
> Don't get me wrong, we may have to do it, however I think Americans
> have become far too casual in the last decade about what initiating
> armed conflict really involves.
I've often had the same thought, but didn't voice my opinion. The last time
i said something similar I got roundly accused of "USA-bashing"
--
THE WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE IS THE HIGHEST LAW
Fred J. McCall
:Actually, your subject and your post are not consistent. The post
:says that they have a nuke *program* while the subject says
:they have actual nukes. Hmmm... The article says *program*
:as well but nothing about actual nukes or the ability to deliver them.
We think they have perhaps one or two. Or so I heard earlier today.
--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer
Fred J. McCall
:What I'm wondering is; why admit it? I suspect they are up to
:something, and one possibility is a shakedown of the US, Japan and S.
:Korea for more aid in return for abolishing the program (just like
:they did in 1994). If so, i hope we aren't dumb enough to fall for it
:again.
Why NOT admit it? They were caught. They're also now known to be
working very hard to assemble an enrichment facility.
Fred J. McCall
:On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 22:01:49 -0700, Chris J...... <ch...@noadress.com>
:wrote:
:
:>What I'm wondering is; why admit it? I suspect they are up to
:>something, and one possibility is a shakedown of the US, Japan and S.
:>Korea for more aid in return for abolishing the program (just like
:>they did in 1994). If so, i hope we aren't dumb enough to fall for it
:>again.
:
:Since we never paid up the first time it's not a case of "again."
I could swear they got a bunch of heating oil and such out of the
deal. The only problem was they didn't want to take reactors from
South Korea.
--
You are
What you do
When it counts.
MikeWrite
"Chris J......" <ch...@noadress.com> wrote in message
news:o451ru4a52gu7c35g...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 12:43:08 -0500, Steve Bartman <sbar...@visi.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 23:20:49 -0700, Chris J...... <ch...@noadress.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>> Admitting it now and
> >>>adding they also have other WMD has little downside for them and might
> >>>have an upside if it leads to fearful concessions on the part of the
> >>>west/Japan/and SK.
> >>
> >>In other words, blackmail.
> >
> >Such an ugly word.
>
> So is Danegeld, which would be a far more accurate term under the
> circumstances.
I'm having a Howard moment, picturing ravening Danes roaring in country as
mattock-wielding baritones and mincing out as tulip-laden sopranos.
Mike
MikeWrite
"Steve Bartman" <sbar...@visi.com> wrote in message
>
> The issue is the ratio between accepting the massive, open-ended costs
> of trying to relieve those we don't care for of weapons we have in
> spades, or not expending those costs in advance of an attack that
> probably won't ever come. Adding to the calculus, as in Iraq, must be
> an additional factor that trying to perform such a cleansing might
> bring on what you fear.
Exactly. In Iraq's case I'd change "might" to "will almost certainly." I
suppose the argument is, if he's likely to do that should we invade now,
then isn't he likely to go ahead and use them in some fashion anyway, at
some future date, and the longer we wait the harder knocking him down will
become. Or, the longer we wait, the more likely it is he'll provide WMD to
others who will then use them against us.
Of course, that brings us right back to a self-fulfilling prophecy: we
attack now to prevent WMD terror later and, as a result, he unleashes WMD
terror now.
I also fear he'll pull a Hussein and just go ahead and distribute CBW to
terrorists before we attack, figuring we're going to do so and he might as
well ensure retribution.
(But aren't we already in-country with SpecOps forces? At what point will
Hussein decide we're already invading, regardless of what's said in public?)
Another nice mess we've gotten ourselves in, having sent him the base stocks
for CBW development.
M
Fred J. McCall
:On 17 Oct 2002 21:27:47 GMT, gavenoni...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu
:(Jason Gavenonis) wrote:
:
:>> I doubt they would admit to their program if it was right on the verge
:>> of success.
:>
:>Functioning weapons imply successful tests, which are hard to hide in a
:>small country that's being carefully observed. Last time I checked, we
:>could even detect underground detonations by satellite and seismograph. I'd
:
: Very small bombs can be confused with earthquakes, but anything
:beyond that can't be concealed.
The seismic signature of a nuclear explosion is fairly distinctive.
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
Fred J. McCall
:Some estimates I've read say 1M casualties in a general war on the
:peninsula. And unlike Iraq the NK army will fight to the death.
Don't be too sure. While I don't know that I'd argue with you, a case
could be made that they're getting pretty hungry up there....
:I'll bypass my regular draft call doom-and-gloom, but if you're 18-26
:I wouldn't make any long-term plans if Bush goes after NK too.
Steve, how long do you think it would take to restart a draft, once we
determined to do it? You're talking a very long time before that can
happen.
As for your closing sentence - I'll bypass the use of the word wombat
in this sentence, but wombat.
--
"If it's the fool who likes to rush in.
And if it's the angel who never does try.
And if it's me who will lose or win
Then I'll make my best guess and I won't care why.
Come on and get me, you twist of fate.
I'm standing right here, Mr Destiny.
If you want to talk, well then I'll relate.
If you don't, so what? 'Cuz you don't scare me.
-- "Gunfighter", Blues Traveler
Fred J. McCall
:"Steve Bartman" <sbar...@visi.com> wrote
:
:> I'll bypass my regular draft call doom-and-gloom, but if you're 18-26
:> I wouldn't make any long-term plans if Bush goes after NK too.
:
:Since we don't have enough bodies to go after Iraq and NK at the
:same time and keep our current committments, it's pretty much a
:given that this would require a draft.
I think they're assuming they won't need much in the way of ground
troops to take on Iraq. I'm not convinced it's a GOOD assumption, but
some case can be made for it.
Korea could get ugly, though, although I think it would be short-term
ugly.
--
"The odds get even - You name the game.
The odds get even - The stakes are the same.
You bet your life."
-- "You Bet Your Life", Rush
Fred J. McCall
: If we just blew up their nuke stuff and did nothing else I don't
:think they would invade. As you say, they would lose.
You assume we know where it is.
You assume they're sane.
Neither of those assumptions is true.
--
"You keep talking about slaying like it's a job. It's not.
It's who you are."
-- Kendra, the Vampire Slayer
loki
> "loki" <lo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> :"Steve Bartman" <sbar...@visi.com> wrote
> :
> :> I'll bypass my regular draft call doom-and-gloom, but if you're 18-26
> :> I wouldn't make any long-term plans if Bush goes after NK too.
> :
> :Since we don't have enough bodies to go after Iraq and NK at the
> :same time and keep our current committments, it's pretty much a
> :given that this would require a draft.
>
> I think they're assuming they won't need much in the way of ground
> troops to take on Iraq. I'm not convinced it's a GOOD assumption, but
> some case can be made for it.
We don't have the personnel in the Air Force to maintain all of that
if we're using the same strategy that we used in Iraq and Afghanistan.
> Korea could get ugly, though, although I think it would be short-term
> ugly.
Probably.
Loki
Loren Pechtel
(Jason Gavenonis) wrote:
>> Very small bombs can be confused with earthquakes, but anything
>> beyond that can't be concealed.
>
>But an earthquake where there shouldn't be one coupled with the
>detectable gas emissions would indicate the presence of an underground
>detonation.
They lie on the ring of fire. Earthquake territory.
Loren Pechtel
wrote:
>|> Very small bombs can be confused with earthquakes, but anything
>|> beyond that can't be concealed.
>
>And very small bombs are quite difficult to engineer.
I meant yield, not physical size.
Loren Pechtel
wrote:
>I was thinking more along the lines of a raid solely on their nuclear
>sites, somewhat akin to what the Israelis did to Iraq's reactor in the
>early 80's.
That's what I was thinking in suggesting a Tomahawk strike also.
Jason Gavenonis
> Steve Bartman <sbar...@visi.com> wrote:
> :Some estimates I've read say 1M casualties in a general war on the
> :peninsula. And unlike Iraq the NK army will fight to the death.
Which will come quickly considering how malnourished they are?
> Don't be too sure. While I don't know that I'd argue with you, a case
> could be made that they're getting pretty hungry up there....
> :I'll bypass my regular draft call doom-and-gloom, but if you're 18-26
> :I wouldn't make any long-term plans if Bush goes after NK too.
> Steve, how long do you think it would take to restart a draft, once we
> determined to do it? You're talking a very long time before that can
> happen.
I read somewhere not too long ago that Congress was in the process of
getting a WWII draft ready in early 1940.
Jason Gavenonis
It really depends on the type of plate boundary. California gets lots of
earthquakes, where you have the two plates grinding against each other, but
not many volcanoes popping up. Vice versa for the Pacific Northwest,
where the Juan de Fuca plate is subducting under the north american one.
Mexico gets a little of each, depending on where you are.
Korea has 5 known volcanoes (http://www.volcanolive.com/korea.html);
Japan has hundreds. The plate boundary there is mostly subduction zones,
which produce mostly volcanoes. However, when earthquakes happen in
subduction zones, they tend to be damn big ones. Compare to California,
which has a different plate boundary, and gets hundreds of little
earthquakes.
Loren Pechtel
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I think they're assuming they won't need much in the way of ground
>troops to take on Iraq. I'm not convinced it's a GOOD assumption, but
>some case can be made for it.
I think that's right. Look what happened last time--our ground
forces utterly dominated theirs. Given control of the air we could
safely attack with a far smaller force as our airpower could ensure
that it never got faced with too much to handle at once.
>Korea could get ugly, though, although I think it would be short-term
>ugly.
True, although I doubt an invasion is needed. Take out the
offending facilities by air, that's it. Any ground war would be
fighting from prepared defensive positions at the DMZ.
Fred J. McCall
:On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 18:08:52 -0700, Chris J...... <ch...@noadress.com>
:wrote:
:
:>However, part of the agreed framework stipulates that the DPRK will
:>remain a party to the Non-proliferation treaty and will allow
:>inspections. That alone would preclude uranium enrichment.
:
:I've never read the NPT. I thought it only covered actual assembly and
:testing/production of devices.
Nope. It also covers 'efforts to obtain'.
Fred J. McCall
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote
:
:> "loki" <lo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
:>
:> :"Steve Bartman" <sbar...@visi.com> wrote
:> :
:> :> I'll bypass my regular draft call doom-and-gloom, but if you're 18-26
:> :> I wouldn't make any long-term plans if Bush goes after NK too.
:> :
:> :Since we don't have enough bodies to go after Iraq and NK at the
:> :same time and keep our current committments, it's pretty much a
:> :given that this would require a draft.
:>
:> I think they're assuming they won't need much in the way of ground
:> troops to take on Iraq. I'm not convinced it's a GOOD assumption, but
:> some case can be made for it.
:
:We don't have the personnel in the Air Force to maintain all of that
:if we're using the same strategy that we used in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I think what they're counting on is that they can get Iraq's military
to take the field against us and they will then obliterate it from the
air. After that they expect Saddam to fall to internal forces. This
is all driven by Rumsfeld's vision of how we should fight modern wars.
I agree with him about a lot of things, but not about this one.
After all, what do you do when it doesn't work according to plan?
:> Korea could get ugly, though, although I think it would be short-term
:> ugly.
:
:Probably.
I think North Koreans run out of logistic support in fairly short
order. Of course, I also think some Western generals are going to be
surprised at how little logistical support a NK Infantry division
actually requires while still remaining in the fight.
--
You have never lived until you have almost died.
Life has a special meaning that the protected
will never know.
Fred J. McCall
:On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:29:49 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
It still holds. Very small bombs are quite difficult to engineer. As
you reduce the amount of fissile material below a certain point, it
becomes MUCH harder to get them to actually go 'bang'.
Fred J. McCall
:On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 06:08:15 GMT, Fred J. McCall
:<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:>I think they're assuming they won't need much in the way of ground
:>troops to take on Iraq. I'm not convinced it's a GOOD assumption, but
:>some case can be made for it.
:
: I think that's right.
Spoken like someone who's never been shot at.
:Look what happened last time--our ground
:forces utterly dominated theirs. Given control of the air we could
:safely attack with a far smaller force as our airpower could ensure
:that it never got faced with too much to handle at once.
We've been singing this song since the 1940's. It has NEVER worked
that way. How many thousand casualties are you willing to risk if
you're wrong? If you stick in 60,000 men and you're wrong, you're
unlikely to get many of them back.
:>Korea could get ugly, though, although I think it would be short-term
:>ugly.
:
: True, although I doubt an invasion is needed. Take out the
:offending facilities by air, that's it. Any ground war would be
:fighting from prepared defensive positions at the DMZ.
You apparently have no conception of the difficulty of this sort of
thing. The North Koreans tend to build in ROCK. We had to send
people in on the ground to do 'tunnel busting' in Afghanistan. What
miracle do you think would make that unnecessary in North Korea?
Howard Berkowitz
Howard Berkowitz
Freeman" <dfre...@REMOVETOREPLYwoodhill.co.uk> wrote:
> "Jason Atkinson" <jaat...@NO.edu> wrote in message
> news:3db00df9....@news.vt.edu...
> >
> > Nevertheless, I find the idea that DPRK will turn the other cheek if
> > we attack them to be very improbable. Remember that we are talking
> > about a nation that probably views its last war with us as a victory,
> > and has had decades to prepare its entire military for invading the
> > South.
>
> For the DPRK view on events, take a look at the history pages on their
> official website:
>
> http://www.korea-dpr.com/history30.htm
The pages certainly read like a direct translation of official
indoctrination from Korean into fairly poor English. If that is
suggestive of their ability to understand the opposition (from an
intelligence standpoint) and availability of people who can even
communicate in Western colloquial English, it's even a more frightening
indication of their unpredictability.
I wonder what the audience is supposed to be? Asian?
MikeWrite
"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> I think what they're counting on is that they can get Iraq's military
> to take the field against us and they will then obliterate it from the
> air. After that they expect Saddam to fall to internal forces. This
> is all driven by Rumsfeld's vision of how we should fight modern wars.
> I agree with him about a lot of things, but not about this one.
>
> After all, what do you do when it doesn't work according to plan?
>
1) Cover it up.
2) Blame the press.
3) Blame the Democrats.
4) Blame the allies.
5) Blame the weather.
6) Claim the result _was_ the plan.
M
Jason Atkinson
<lorenp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 06:08:15 GMT, Fred J. McCall
><fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>I think they're assuming they won't need much in the way of ground
>>troops to take on Iraq. I'm not convinced it's a GOOD assumption, but
>>some case can be made for it.
>
> I think that's right. Look what happened last time--our ground
>forces utterly dominated theirs. Given control of the air we could
>safely attack with a far smaller force as our airpower could ensure
>that it never got faced with too much to handle at once.
Last time we had an extra six divisions in the active Army invetory,
no forces in Bosnia, none in Kosovo, none in Afghanistan, and none
fighting a war in Korea because we fell into to the assumption that we
can bomb Korea without any consequence.
>>Korea could get ugly, though, although I think it would be short-term
>>ugly.
>
> True, although I doubt an invasion is needed. Take out the
>offending facilities by air, that's it. Any ground war would be
>fighting from prepared defensive positions at the DMZ.
What makes you think we can locate and identify all of them with
certainty, much less take them out with a cheap and easy shot.
Besides, they have also prepared.
--
Cadet SGT, D Company, Virginia Tech Corps of Cadets
Cadet, MS III, New River Battalion, US Army ROTC
"Pride NOW, Tradition ALWAYS, HOTEL FOREVER!" HOTEL-04
"You can't be a dragon, this is a fantasy game!" Hambone
Jason Atkinson
wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:52:45 GMT, jaat...@NO.edu (Jason Atkinson)
>wrote:
>
>I was thinking more along the lines of a raid solely on their nuclear
>sites, somewhat akin to what the Israelis did to Iraq's reactor in the
>early 80's.
>
>However, doing as you suggest would be highly advisable if we thought
>their reaction would be to attack.
They don't have all those forces massed on the border, heavy artillery
built into the mountains and targets at ROK and US forces, and special
forces teams prepared to infiltrate South Korea for nothing.
>>Don't get me wrong, we may have to do it, however I think Americans
>>have become far too casual in the last decade about what initiating
>>armed conflict really involves.
>
>Agreed completely.
>
>Personally, I feel that before US ground forces are sent in somewhere
>where serious casualties are likely, it would be better to exhaust all
>other military options (and I do mean all), including sustained air
>attacks, if necessary without regard for collateral damage.
I don't think that separating air and ground combat would be possible
in this case. They have the forces there to invade the South. US
soldiers are already on the line there to defend the South. The DPRK
has nothing to gain by letting us bomb them with impunity. I can't
see any nation with the capability they have to react not using it.
Jason Atkinson
wrote:
The last time I saw a website purporting to be the official DPRK site,
it was put together and hosted by someone from Japan. The English
wasn't any better, though the propaganda a bit more varied.
Howard Berkowitz
ch...@noadress.com wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 03:34:55 GMT, jaat...@NO.edu (Jason Atkinson)
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:33:10 -0700, Chris J...... <ch...@noadress.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:52:45 GMT, jaat...@NO.edu (Jason Atkinson)
> >>wrote:
> >>
>
> The ROK has some good defensive policies, such as in Seoul. They have
> underground shopping malls under the major streets, fairly deep under
> them. They basically consist of large parallel corridors with stairs
> up at major intersections and also they have entrances to the
> basements of all the major buildings. These malls run for miles, and
> contain a lot of food stalls and small supermarkets along with other
> stores. They are ideal for bomb shelters, especially with the easy
> access from so many points. They would also make one heck of a good
> defensive position, and are laid out with that in mind by the look of
> them (I spent a lot of time shopping in them, and was amazed by them).
>
Excellent points, but you do make me wonder if downtown Toronto is being
prepared for a DPRK attack. Thinking about it, is it COINCIDENCE that
about the third food stall from the stairs in the building where I
taught had WONDERFUL Korean food?
Jason Gavenonis
escalate (not that we should, but that's what tends to happen)
Jason Gavenonis
> On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 03:34:55 GMT, jaat...@NO.edu (Jason Atkinson)
> wrote:
> >On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:33:10 -0700, Chris J...... <ch...@noadress.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:52:45 GMT, jaat...@NO.edu (Jason Atkinson)
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >
> >>I was thinking more along the lines of a raid solely on their nuclear
> >>sites, somewhat akin to what the Israelis did to Iraq's reactor in the
> >>early 80's.
> >>
> >>However, doing as you suggest would be highly advisable if we thought
> >>their reaction would be to attack.
> >
> >They don't have all those forces massed on the border, heavy artillery
> >built into the mountains and targets at ROK and US forces, and special
> >forces teams prepared to infiltrate South Korea for nothing.
> That's very true. They also have tunnels under the DMZ, big ones
> suitable for moving armor south. Some have been discovered and
> blocked, but I'd bet there are more.
> The ROK has some good defensive policies, such as in Seoul. They have
> underground shopping malls under the major streets, fairly deep under
> them. They basically consist of large parallel corridors with stairs
> up at major intersections and also they have entrances to the
> basements of all the major buildings. These malls run for miles, and
> contain a lot of food stalls and small supermarkets along with other
> stores. They are ideal for bomb shelters, especially with the easy
> access from so many points. They would also make one heck of a good
> defensive position, and are laid out with that in mind by the look of
> them (I spent a lot of time shopping in them, and was amazed by them).
While great for a bomb shelter, wouldn't they be pretty easy to gas?
Earl
> On 18 Oct 2002 10:11:57 GMT, Earl <Ea...@Neosoft.com> wrote:
>
>>Chris J...... <ch...@noadress.com> wrote in
>>news:fd8vqus39orterhno...@4ax.com:
>
>>> One thing about the NK nuclear program; if they are
>>> enriching Uranium, where did they get the tech for that?
>>> If they are using centrifuges, I'd want to have a VERY
>>> close look at Pakistan, who have been acquiring a lot of
>>> N. Korean missile technology over the past few years.
>>>
>
>>I can not say how NK does it, but:
>>
>>30 years ago my high energy research group did studies on
>>laser- chemical separation of isotopes.
>
> I've read some interesting papers on that. Israel did some
> work, and released it, though it's possible that theirs was
> a red herring intended to mis-direct some Arab nuclear
> programs. The Iraqis fell for it, and spent quite a bit on
> laser separation, without result.
>
>>Take a mixed isotope chemical compound. There is a separate
>>wavelength for decomposition of the U238-X and U235-X bond.
>>There is spectra overlap which messes with efficiency, but a
>>couple stages gets high yields. So shine a tunable laser on
>>the target and pick up the decomposition products.
>
> Wasn't picking up the excited isotopes a big part of the
> problem?
>
There are many ways of laser separation.
For the non military isotopes (the only ones that could be
published) you could chose to attack either isotope (abundance
question) by a direct decomposition or an excited intermediate
that was then attacked with reactive chemicals.
Obviously the excited intermediate had the advantage of lower
energy input but with the drawback of being downright messy. You
also had a problem of a greater carryover of the unwanted
isotope from pure kinetics effects. Quench gasses were always
needed, but we were always doing gas phase traping. Think of
codepositing reactive chemicals and argon in a direct gas
(vacuum) to solid quench. Most of our studies involved chemicals
that are not user friendly and had interesting pyrophoric
properties.
If you had a big enough hammer, just break the bond on the
desired isotope and let the filters pick up the crud.
Earl
> On 21 Oct 2002 02:01:40 GMT, Earl <Ea...@Neosoft.com> wrote:
>
>>There are many ways of laser separation.
>>
>>For the non military isotopes (the only ones that could be
>>published) you could chose to attack either isotope
>>(abundance question) by a direct decomposition or an excited
>>intermediate that was then attacked with reactive
>>chemicals.
>
> If I read that right, you mean changing the state and/or
> breaking the bond of just the target isotope and whatever
> materiel it's bonded to (such as fluoride with Uranium in
> Uranium hexafloride?).
>
> BTW, would you need to attack the excited intermediate with
> reactive agents? Or could differing electromagnetic
> properties be utilized for a magnetic route?
You need to make the 2 isotopes different in chemical
properties. Many chemical reactions have an intermediary excited
state that must be achieved in order for a reaction to go to
completion. If you let the laser provide a little boost the
frequency favored by a specific isotope will bias the chemical
reaction far out of line from the natural abundance, giving a
order of magnitude preference for a specific isotope.
Consider something simple like HF DF and TF. This set of isotope
mixes has 3 very distinct frequencies associated with the bond.
Shine a laser at an energy of the HF bond and it will break
while the energy is not absorbed by TF. Or for the same matter
you can create an excited HF bond that will react with something
like Si more readily than TF. The net result is that you have
now changed the abundance of the isotopes in the mix.
Electromagets have little differentiation for excited vs
unexcited states.
>
> From what i recall, one of they keys to laser separation is
> to create, via magnetic fields, a parallel axis of spin,
> similar to what occurs in an MRI scan? (I'm going from
> memory here, and I'm also out of my depth in this field, so
> please excuse me if I put my foot in my mouth.. )
>
The purpose of magnetic fields is to create a wider separation
of the energy absorption states. Think of it as a means of
splitting the absorption specta into more bands, which then can
be used to fine tune with lasers.
>
> I can think of quite a few of those. Of course, there are
> few things as "unfriendly" as Uranium hexaflouride. <G>
Oh, I would not tend to agree.
One of the sulfur fluorides is as toxic as nerve gas.
The UF6 will just be corrosive, heavy metal toxic, and fluoride
poison with a slight radioactivity. really rather benign
compared to some of the interesting stuff.
>
>>If you had a big enough hammer, just break the bond on the
>>desired isotope and let the filters pick up the crud.
>
> I'd guess that the problem with that is you need a very,
> very precise hammer or you break the (molecular) bonds on
> the undesired isotope, too?
>
> From what I recall, this was one of the problems the Iraqis
> could not solve, and led to their abandonment of laser
> separation in their nuclear program.
>
That is actually rather easy.
Consider a laser that will excite U235 and U238 -X.
You simply pass a beam through a ---PURE--- sample of U238-X and
that frequency is absorbed (filtered out). The resulting light
will not cause a reaction on another sample.
So the light is sent to a mix of isotopes and the remaining freq
have a slight (highly reduced because of freq overlap on
absorption) effect on the U235 - X but no effect on U238-X.
Chemicaly process as necessary.
What this is is a tunable laser that is specific for U235-X
bond.
Alternatively you can reverse the chosen isotope to correct from
over absorption of needed freq from concentration effects.
Eric Pinnell
wrote:
>Name them. Why would Russia, or China, or India get involved.
>(France?) Israel has more than any regional opponent will ever have,
>and should she be challenged can much more easily get more. Their
>delivery systems are robust. I don't see any other regional power
>getting 200 or 300 multi-stage weapons any time soon, or ever
>actually. Having four or five crude devices is not useful in the face
>of 200 accurate, survivable responses. Again, deterrence works.
Deterrence is going to be a problem for Israel long term. While the
Muslims don't have accurate guidance technology for their NK designed
IRBMs, eventually they'll get it. Note that Israel appears to be
developing a strategic submarine force using AIP and cruise missiles
to retaliate.
Eric Pinnell
(Author, "The Claws of The Dragon", "The Omega File")
For a preview, see: http://www.ericpinnell.com and click on "books"
Jason Gavenonis
Hopefully getting the necessary equipment is more difficult than
manipulating the simple equations found in any good pchem book. I had no
idea that isotope separation (on paper) was that simple.
-Jason
Howard Berkowitz
ch...@noadress.com wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 19:28:41 -0500, Steve Bartman <sbar...@visi.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 01:33:57 -0700, Chris J...... <ch...@noadress.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>>>Widespread in terms of the number of nations that have them? I don't
> >>>>think so.
> >>>
> >>>The nuclear group has been in high single digits at least for decades.
> >>
> >>High single digits is nothing compared to even a quarter of the
> >>world's nations having them, and I suspect that if proliferation
> >>spreads, it will also accelerate, and soon you would see perhaps half
> >>the world's countries nuclear-armed.
> >
> >That could happen, but I personally think that nukes will be largely
> >out of favor inside a century, and probably much sooner.
> >Genetically-engineered bioweapons have much more promise and are more
> >deniable.
>
> Bio weapons of what sort? They are of limited usefulness against one's
> neighbors due to the problem of contagion quickly spreading.
>
> That's even true globally, to a lesser degree. (though I admit, that
> didn't stop the Soviets from developing contagions)
The traditional military criteria for bioweapons included that it would
not spread, or had minimal spread, from human to human. This is true of
the declassified agents the US weaponized: tularemia, anthrax,
botulinus toxin, Venezuelan equine encephalomyelitis, and Q fever. As
you suggest, the Soviets did experiment with some agents that could
spread.
For terrorists seeking the next world anyway, this may be irrelevant.
>
> As for deniability; I don't see how a bio weapon would be inherently
> more deniable than a nuke would be, provided equal care was taken with
> each regarding deniability.
There's a "fingerprinting" technique, discussed by the Stimson Institute
among other places (FAS.org is probably the best place to start), to
look for nucleic acid and protein sequences in "legitimate" industrial
production, to detect dual use without revealing trade secrets.
>
> >>>It's spreading, slowly, but spreading as the colonial era fades. But
> >>>that doesn't mean they'll be in widespread use. The downside of being
> >>>an international pariah is too great. Currently the greatest odds are
> >>>on the Indian sub-continent, not in the Middle East.
> >>
> >>Currently, I agree. I also think a nuclear war between India and
> >>Pakistan would be highly unlikely to spread, so I was not that
> >>concerned a few months back when that looked possible.
> >
> >Why would Pakistan, a Muslim country, being nuked by a non-Muslim
> >country be any more or less risky than any other Muslim country being
> >nuked by a non-Muslim country?
>
> Because I was referring to the present, when (hopefully) Pakistan is
> the only Muslim nuclear power. Were there several others, I would have
> a differing opinion of the outcome.
>
> >There's nothing inherently special
> >about the Middle East unless Mecca or Medina are targets, (and
> >possibly Qom and a small handful of others.)
Mecca and Medina are the worst conceivable targets. In Saddam's case,
Tikrit, Baghdad, and some of the military and industrial facilities
limits his ability to make large-scale war.
>
> Nothing inherently special? The rabid hatred of Israel and the
> strategic importance of oil come to mind....
>
> >>However, the middle east is another matter. Assume half the middle
> >>eastern nations had nukes.
> >
> >A big assumption, given their on-coming poverty when the oil runs out.
>
> I think we differ on time frames. I don't think the oil will run out
> for several decades. all that soon. I wish I could say the same for a
> time frame for nuclear proliferation.
>
> >Most are run by families with little interest in entering major-league
> >geopolitics. (Having nukes gets you lots of attention.) And if they
> >have a couple they don't have delivery systems. The expense is
> >immense, and would be better spend on conventional defense.
>
> Conventional defense is all well and good, unless you face a nuclear
> armed neighbor.
>
> The nations I most worry about are not those generally thought of as
> being run by families. More specifically, I am concerned about Iran,
> Iraq, Syria, Libya, and possibly Egypt (should it's internal politics
> change).
Syria is run by the elder Assad's son.
> >
> >Name them. Why would Russia, or China, or India get involved.
>
> China?
> China is presently an oil importer, and will become a big one as it's
> economy expands. That alone gives them a strategic interest in the
> middle east, as does geographic proximity and a Muslim majority in
> some Western Chinese provinces.
>
> The US? Already deeply involved.
>
> Russia? Muslim interferences in internal Russian politics (Chechnia)
> would be a cause, especially if there was even the hint that the
> Chechens might get a nuke from the middle east.
>
> >(France?) Israel has more than any regional opponent will ever have,
> >and should she be challenged can much more easily get more.
>
> She also has a lack of strategic depth; it would not take many nuclear
> weapons of even moderate yield to effectively destroy Israeli's
> viability. The same can not be said for most of the middle Eastern
> nations simply due to geographic size.
>
> >Their
> >delivery systems are robust. I don't see any other regional power
> >getting 200 or 300 multi-stage weapons any time soon, or ever
> >actually. Having four or five crude devices is not useful in the face
> >of 200 accurate, survivable responses. Again, deterrence works.
>
> Deterrence requires three factors;
> #1. Knowing whom has attacked you.
> #2. The attacker knowing that their own nation will be wiped out.
> #3, the attacker caring about #2.
>
> >>
> >>Barely stopped their use. I disagree with you about luck; have you
> >>been following the recent revelations about just how close we came
> >>during the cuban missile crisis?
> >
> >Still a balancing of interests along with JFK deciding not to listen
> >to the senior military.
NO ONE in the US government even suspected there were tactical nuclear
weapons in Cuba.
>
> I'm not sure quite what you mean; Are you saying JFK should have
> listened to his military advisors, or he was correct not to?
>
> >>>Dictators are usually far more rational than our own elected
> >>>representatives. And a rational dictator does not use nukes on a
> >>>superpower with thousands to his several.
Against an invasion force, he just might get away with it on the
international stage. Still, I think the US would demand massive
retaliation, and the big danger would be if it were against the USSR,
not Cuba.
>
>
> >>As to your comment about dictators being rational, I strongly disagree
> >>in a substantial fraction of cases.
> >
> >Can you name ten? Remember, acting in a way the US would not is not
> >prima facie evidence of insanity.
>
> Ten? Setting the bar a little high aren't we?
>
> Bear in mind that the definition of "rational" I'm using is not the
> same as insanity. What I'm referring to is a tendency to miscalculate
> resulting in war. (which in my view is more dangerous than garden
> variety insanity.)
>
> I'm also going to name some by regime rather than individual names,
> due to my being unable to remember and too lazy to look up;
>
> In no particular order;
> 1.Hitler.
> 2. Saddam.
> 3. Galtieri (Argentina; Falklands war)
> 4. Kaddaffi (however it's spelled this week; Libyan dictator who in
> the past has been involved with terrorism.)
> 5. North Korea, 1950.
> 6. Nasser of Egypt. 1967 (all 1967 references are for the Arab
> preperation for and mobilization for war with Israel.)
> 7. Syria 1967
> 8. Husein of Jordan 1967.
> 9. Iraq 1967
> 10.Egypt 1973 (all 1973 references are for the 1973 war with Israel).
> 11. Iraq 1973
> 12. Syria 1973
> 13. Jordan 1973
>
>
> The problem is when the "rationality" of survival dictates foreign
> adventurism. Think Galtieri and the Falklands for one, and
> particularly Sadat's 1973 attack on Israel. (by several accounts, he
> knew he would loose, but did it for internal political reasons).
> >
> >The best way to end NK as we know it is to flood it with food, oil,
> >VCRs, portable radios, medicine, phones, PCs--everything wrapped in
> >the NYT and a wide variety of women's fashion magazines.
There was a long-time running initiation ritual for new hires in CIA
psychological operations. During the introductions, a wild-eyed ex-OSS
type would burst in and scream he had the way to crush Soviet morale.
"Have 2-foot long condoms made and air drop them, stamped "Made in USA.
Medium"".
David E. Powell
news:aiCdnWGdR7V...@News.GigaNews.Com...
MUCH snippage
> > >
> > >The best way to end NK as we know it is to flood it with food, oil,
> > >VCRs, portable radios, medicine, phones, PCs--everything wrapped in
> > >the NYT and a wide variety of women's fashion magazines.
>
> There was a long-time running initiation ritual for new hires in CIA
> psychological operations. During the introductions, a wild-eyed ex-OSS
> type would burst in and scream he had the way to crush Soviet morale.
>
> "Have 2-foot long condoms made and air drop them, stamped "Made in USA.
> Medium"".
Didn't they do something like that in Vietnam, or is that just a rumor?