KillingtonZone.com

U.S. installs antimissile weapons in SK. Spending tons of $. These are to stop nukes. Lots of equipment being moved. Heavy brinkmanship. Trump is telling crazy fat boy...f*** or fight.

Best analysis I've found...

tick-tock.....tick-tock...tick-tock...tick-tock..tick-tock.

freeski wrote:tick-tock.....tick-tock...tick-tock...tick-tock..tick-tock.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-0 ... orth-korea" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

madhatter wrote:

freeski wrote:tick-tock.....tick-tock...tick-tock...tick-tock..tick-tock.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-0 ... orth-korea" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-0 ... nsequences" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Looks like we're going to use tactical nuclear weapons against North Korea. This will save a lot of lives.

ICBM and China is playing us.

Several things I don't get about DPK, and the hoopla surrounding the missile launches.

While DPK might launch a missile towards Japan or some other country, and while they may sometime soon be able to threaten the west coast of the US, why would they? If DPK sends a nuke to Hawaii, they would be obliterated by our response. The only conclusion is it is saber rattling, and a deterrent, not a threat.

Why does South Korea continue to keep its capital city growing (for 70 years) when it is all of 35 miles from huge artillery at the border? They have caused their own crisis of vulnerability from this inertia and poor planning.

Why does China even care about DPRK over the interests of the rest of the world?? China exports $2,300B a year, of which only $3B goes to DPK. Whereas $390B goes to the US. They can easily afford to write DPK off economically. The most likely reason that occurs to me is that someone is benefiting personally, in cash, from selling DPRK military technology.

The top export destinations of North Korea are China ($2.34B), India ($97.8M), Pakistan ($43.1M), Burkina Faso ($32.8M) and Other Asia ($26.7M). The top import origins are China ($2.95B), India ($108M), Russia ($78.2M), Thailand ($73.8M) and the Philippines ($53.2M).

http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/prk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

China is not only DPRK's trading partner, they are the largest by a factor of a thousand. We can't pressure DPRKs economy like we did with the Soviet Union in the 80's. The only way is through China. That, or inaction, or send in the minutemen.

Why is the US ramping up the rhetoric about ICBM testing, and a needed military response? The likelihood of a military first strike by us seems very low given the risks and costs.

The risk of inflaming the Chinese economically over DPRK has got to be less than the risk of war. It makes sense for the US to incrementally rachet up trade sanctions with China until China sees that the cost is just too high to continue its partnership with DPRK. The bonus is that we need to level our trading deficit with China anyway.

Is there any other reason an economically emerging and well militarized China wants or cares about the continuation of the Kim dynasty?

Mister Moose wrote:Is there any other reason an economically emerging and well militarized China wants or cares about the continuation of the Kim dynasty?

China wants a buffer.

So you say NK will bow to the threat of massive retaliation and you let them build a nuclear threat. What about Iran? Should they be allowed to have enough nukes to take out 20 cities anywhere on the globe?

Maybe the best bet is to kill fatboy. Butt, they're watching for it. He's in hiding; body doubles and what happens if he is killed. It would be great if NK just collapsed. We should send in as much pro west propaganda as we can.

Fatboy is playing with fire.

freeski wrote:

Mister Moose wrote:Is there any other reason an economically emerging and well militarized China wants or cares about the continuation of the Kim dynasty?

China wants a buffer.

So you say NK will bow to the threat of massive retaliation and you let them build a nuclear threat. What about Iran? Should they be allowed to have enough nukes to take out 20 cities anywhere on the globe?

Maybe the best bet is to kill fatboy. Butt, they're watching for it. He's in hiding; body doubles and what happens if he is killed. It would be great if NK just collapsed. We should send in as much pro west propaganda as we can.

Fatboy is playing with fire.

"let them build a nuclear threat" isn't quite what I said. All options have grave risk, so it's which poor choice is the better play. I think that massive pressure to China is in order given the gravity of the risk from a nuclear DPRK. At a thousand times any other trading partner, China wields great power with DPRK. I would rather have a trade war with China and pay more for toasters at Walmart than have a nuclear explosion in LA or Hawaii, and what that would lead to. This tactic if it even would work, will take years to play out. If you wait until another crisis develops, you no longer have the time for sanctions.

The risk with both DPRK and Iran is more than a direct attack from their homeland. It is that either could sell a weapon to a terrorist group or other rogue nation.

Just a guess, but I doubt killing "fat boy" would do much. No doubt the many generals that have been advising this young leader would provide transition to the next face of the regime.

If Cuba is any indication, even with reduced Chinese support DPRK could struggle on for decades.

2nd ICBM launch, at night from a mobile launcher.

Jeffrey Lewis of the California-based Middlebury Institute of International Studies said the launch showed Los Angeles was within range of a North Korean missile, with Chicago, New York and Washington DC just out of reach.

"They may not have demonstrated the full range. The computer models suggest it can hit all of those targets," he said.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/nor ... ocid=ientp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Meanwhile the pablum talk continues:

Following a meeting of South Korea's National Security Council, Moon said he wanted the United Nations Security Council to discuss new and stronger sanctions against the North, the presidential Blue House said.

The European Union called the launch "an outright violation" of international obligations and a "serious threat" to international peace and security, and urged North Korea to engage in dialogue to pursue denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula.

EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini would discuss the matter with the foreign ministers of South Korea and other partners at the ASEAN ministerial meeting in Manila on Aug 6-7.

I'm sure North Korea will abandon their missiles, now that the EU has come out with such strong action.

Once the US is within range a pre-emptive first strike takes on a whole new risk. It isn't just Seoul that stands to be attacked. It's us. If we wanted to act pre-emptively, that time is either nearly gone or gone already. All that's left to demonstrate is re-entry, and I'm not sure that gamble is one worth taking.

The decision so far appears to be let DPRK go nuclear, and we'll install sufficient countermeasures in South Korea.

If we do it right they'll be a new shipping lane just north of the DMZ.

Mister Moose wrote:The decision so far appears to be let DPRK go nuclear, and we'll install sufficient countermeasures in South Korea.

GWB, Obama, and Trump had opportunities to act but allowed it to go on. We'll live with a nuclear North.

He's launching right up to Japan. A nation in that area may decide to act and we'll be on board. SK has a lot to say obviously. I'd like to see us end it in a peaceful nuke strike.

Anyone seen Dunkirk?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nort ... SKBN1AO011" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;