[nec209]

Is the US going to go to war with North Korea over shooting down stealth drone ?

It looks like North Korea broke international law .It is very serious issue when one shoot down a plane or drone.


It also sounds like the built up of military and army close to border that North Korea is planning some thing .

[CaptainPanic]

Eehm... the stealth drone was downed over Iran. It was not shot down, but instead the controls were sort of hacked. And it was the US who were flying a drone in the airspace of another sovereign country, and it was therefore the US who broke international law. And no, the US cannot afford another war. They are already practically bankrupt.

LOL, how could you get so many mistakes into such a short post?

[nec209]

CaptainPanic, on 13 December 2011 - 09:12 AM, said:

Eehm... the stealth drone was downed over Iran. It was not shot down, but instead the controls were sort of hacked. And it was the US who were flying a drone in the airspace of another sovereign country, and it was therefore the US who broke international law. And no, the US cannot afford another war. They are already practically bankrupt.

LOL, how could you get so many mistakes into such a short post?

Okay I they just update the news .

Quote

An Iranian semi-official news agency says authorities have shrugged off a U.S. request for the return of an American spy drone captured by Iran's armed forces.

Defense Minister Gen. Ahmad Vahidi says the United States should apologize for invading Iranian air space instead of asking for the return of the unmanned aircraft.

Vahidi's comments were reported on Tuesday by the Mehr news agency.

Tehran last week identified the drone as the RQ-170 Sentinel and said it was captured over the country's east.

President Barack Obama said Monday the U.S. wants the top-secret aircraft back and has delivered a formal request for the return of the surveillance drone, though it isn't hopeful that Iran will comply.

http://www.google.co...496ffde4a89ec52

Barack Obama admits Iran has downed US drone


Okay you are right it was not shot down.

Quote

State TV broadcast images Thursday of Iranian military officials inspecting what it identified as the drone. Iranian state media have said the unmanned spy aircraft was detected and brought down over the country's east, near the border with Afghanistan.

Officers in the Revolutionary Guard, Iran's most powerful military force, have claimed the country's armed forces brought down the surveillance aircraft with an electronic ambush, causing minimum damage to the drone.

American officials have said that U.S. intelligence assessments indicate that Iran neither shot the drone down, nor used electronic or cybertechnology to force it from the sky. They contend the drone malfunctioned. The officials spoke anonymously in order to discuss the classified program

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz1gPFIrt5e

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz1gPEVGRTo


Sort sounds like ENP.

This post has been edited by nec209: 13 December 2011 - 09:41 AM

[CaptainPanic]

As you can see in the video (0:18 min) "We have asked for it back, we'll see how the Iranians respond" does not sound like a declaration of war against North-Korea, does it?

So, no there won't be any new wars.


[edit], oh, I see where you got your misinformation: FOX news is not actually a source for news.

This post has been edited by CaptainPanic: 13 December 2011 - 09:44 AM

[imatfaal]

What is bat-shit crazy is that troops are beginning to gather near the North/South Korea border - but not over a downed/crashed drone in Iran - over Christmas tree lights!

I looked at the calendar to check it wasn't April the first when I heard that North Korea were calling the use of Christmas tree lights near the border psychological warfare
http://www.bbc.co.uk...d-asia-16129633

[JohnB]

Not so crazy. A great way to demonstrate that the South has plenty to spare of what the North lacks.

Electricity and lights.

Regardless of what the propaganda machine says, I doubt the message will be missed by those who see the tree.

[CaptainPanic]

Bah, the troops gather at the N/S Korean border at least twice per year. The only reason that they don't turn it into a regular military festival is that it would spoil whatever element of surprise there is left.

There is not gonna be a war, both sides have way too much to lose. North-Korea would ultimately lose the war, that much is certain. And they know it themselves. But the South would lose its capital to heavy bombardments, because Seoul is pretty close to the border. And they know that too.

The cold war in Korea is just going into the next episode of the series.

[Iggy]

CaptainPanic, on 13 December 2011 - 09:12 AM, said:

And no, the US cannot afford another war. They are already practically bankrupt.

CaptainPanic, on 14 December 2011 - 08:22 AM, said:

There is not gonna be a war, both sides have way too much to lose. North-Korea would ultimately lose the war, that much is certain. And they know it themselves.

I wouldn't trust a megalomaniac dictator's reasonable desire to avoid rationally predicted consequences. The desires may not be reasonable, or the predictions all that rational. That's the problem with totalitarian autocracy -- the country publicly plays out the private delusions of the dictator. I wouldn't put delusions of war past the Dear Leader.

Someone could have told Saddam in 1991 that invading Kuwait was a bad idea because Iraq would effectively be betting everything on a war they would certainly lose. But, Saddam may not have been thinking clearly, and in an authoritarian regime nothing is more powerful than, and everything is subject to, the leader's thoughts -- even if they are confused thoughts that might lead the country to its own destruction.

Kim Jong Il may wake up a couple years from now and believe like you said, the US can't afford another war. He could take out the South's largest military installations and population centers with a few nukes and a few hundred sarin or VX missiles. Occupying the south within a week could seem like an obtainable goal.

If he isn't worried about China intervening, or the UN issuing sanctions and sternly-worded letters of resolution, I wouldn't put it past him. I wouldn't say it's impossible. He could hold Japan hostage to be doubly sure nobody intervened, "Anyone gets any ideas and I take out Tokyo [evil laugh]". Saddam did say that the only mistake he made in '91 was invading Kuwait before he had the bomb. Kim Jong Il could be doing it just a bit smarter.

Or, the Dear Leader could wake up tomorrow and decide he's got nothing left to lose.

I think the danger that the South faces from the North, and that Israel faces from Iran, is very real and far worse than people typically imagine.

[CaptainPanic]

Iggy, on 17 December 2011 - 09:32 PM, said:

Kim Jong Il may wake up a couple years from now and believe like you said, the US can't afford another war.

I doubt it because he's dead.

Actually, now with a new leader stepping up, there is suddenly a much larger risk. South Korea has already put its military on alert, and Japan has set up a crisis management team.

But there are no signs of military activity.

[edit] I think this might be worth its own thread, which I'll set up now.

Iggy, on 17 December 2011 - 09:32 PM, said:

He could take out the South's largest military installations and population centers with a few nukes and a few hundred sarin or VX missiles. Occupying the south within a week could seem like an obtainable goal.

If he isn't worried about China intervening, or the UN issuing sanctions and sternly-worded letters of resolution, I wouldn't put it past him. I wouldn't say it's impossible. He could hold Japan hostage to be doubly sure nobody intervened, "Anyone gets any ideas and I take out Tokyo [evil laugh]". Saddam did say that the only mistake he made in '91 was invading Kuwait before he had the bomb. Kim Jong Il could be doing it just a bit smarter.

Or, the Dear Leader could wake up tomorrow and decide he's got nothing left to lose.

I think the danger that the South faces from the North, and that Israel faces from Iran, is very real and far worse than people typically imagine.

Sure, but you cannot prepare for every "IF"... as much as the USA tries, you can see the financial costs of such an attempt. And they're failing.

This post has been edited by CaptainPanic: 19 December 2011 - 09:01 AM

[nec209]

Iggy, on 17 December 2011 - 09:32 PM, said:

I think the danger that the South faces from the North, and that Israel faces from Iran, is very real and far worse than people typically imagine.

What are you saying that if there was no US those countries would go to war?

[Iggy]

nec209, on 20 December 2011 - 09:16 PM, said:

What are you saying that if there was no US those countries would go to war?

I don't know what the world would look like if the US were not a part of it, but I would answer your question and the Captain's comment about not being able to spend money on every what-if the same.

I believe the best approach is similar to what JPL calls "faster, better, cheaper" JPL used to spend lots of money on each spacecraft, trying to bring the risk of failure as low as possible to each mission. Better, they later thought, not to put all their eggs in each mission's basket. Because, even the expensive space baskets fail. They started launching lots of cheap craft with a higher individual chance of failure but accomplishing better overall results.

While the US stations a few thousand troops along the DMZ trying to deter resumed hostilities, it's good to have something like the six party talks, and good that the US, China, and other countries give North Korea food and fuel aid. The more low-cost approaches trying to prevent the worst outcome, and the more nations involved, the better.

It's the same with Iran. I saw in the news a few days ago that UN inspectors are seeking evidence, they called a "smoking gun" that would force Iran to capitulate. It's not just US spy drones looking for that evidence. It would help -- just today, for example, diplomats were meeting in Rome from the EU and US looking for ways to put pressure on Iran to resume talks over its nuclear program. Having a "don't wait for the translation" moment would be very helpful right now, and it's not just the US thinking that or trying to make it happen.

[nec209]

It looks like the US may go to war by reading this.

Quote

KABUL, Afghanistan (CNN) -- As Gen. Martin Dempsey toured around the globe over the last eight days, one issue was prominent -- Iran's nuclear intentions.

Dempsey, in an exclusive interview with CNN, warned that Iran is playing a dangerous game that could ensnare the Middle East, the United States and others into conflict and a renewed nuclear arms race. From Iraq to Afghanistan, Kuwait to Saudi Arabia, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff heard about growing concerns about Iran's ambitions.

Read more what the top generals are saying.
http://www.cnn.com/2...iran/index.html

This post has been edited by nec209: 21 December 2011 - 02:58 AM