Tough Talk: Barack Obama

updated 2:46 p.m. CT, Tues., June 16, 2009

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama said Tuesday that North Korea's nuclear ambitions pose a "grave threat" to the world, and he vowed to end a cycle of allowing Pyongyang to create crises and then be rewarded with incentives to back down.

"This is a pattern they've come to expect," Obama said. "We are going to break that pattern."

Obama and South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, speaking to reporters in the White House Rose Garden, sought to portray a unified stance in dealing with North Korea's recent missile and nuclear tests and its threats of nuclear war in retaliation to sanctions from the United Nations.

Obama said the leaders agreed that the new U.N. resolution seeking to halt North Korea's development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles must be fully enforced. The U.N. did not authorize military force to enforce the measures.

Lee said he and Obama agreed that "under no circumstance are we going to allow North Korea to possess nuclear weapons." The communist-led North already has tested two underground nuclear devices and is believed by U.S. intelligence to possess enough material to make several nuclear bombs.

U.S. officials have said the North Koreans appear to be making preparations for a third nuclear test. North Korea also has said it would regard efforts to enforce U.N. sanctions as an act of war.

Threat of attack?
Asked by a reporter whether he believes his country is under threat of attack from the North, Lee said, "They will think twice about taking any measures that they will regret. North Korea may wish to do so, but of course they will not be able to" because of the strong U.S.-South Korean alliance.

Obama said that North Korea's record of threatening other countries and spreading nuclear technology around the world means it should not be recognized as a legitimate nuclear power. North Korea has bargained with other countries for more than a decade about giving up its nuclear program, gaining such concessions as energy and economic aid, and then backing away from its commitments.

"We will pursue denuclearization on the Korean peninsula vigorously," Obama said. "So we have not come to a conclusion that North Korea will or should be a nuclear power. Given their past behavior, given the belligerent manner in which they are constantly threatening their neighbors, I don't think there's any question that that would be a destabilizing situation that would be a profound threat, not only to United States' security but to world security."

Nor will the international community respond to North Korean provocations, such as additional underground nuclear tests, by offering financial incentives, Lee said.

"They will not be able to gain compensation by provoking a crisis," he said. "This has been a pattern in the past but it will no longer be."

Missiles in three years
On Capitol Hill on Tuesday, Pentagon officials told a Senate committee that North Korea could build missiles that could hit the United States in as few as three years if the North continued progress on its weapons system.

Lee said that his country, along with the United States, Japan, China and Russia, will discuss new measures designed to compel the North to "irrevocably dismantle all of their nuclear weapons programs." North Korea earlier this year announced that it would no longer hold talks with those five nations.

Last week, the youngest son — and reportedly heir apparent — of North Korea's ailing leader Kim Jong Il secretly visited China and was urged by President Hu Jintao to have the North halt additional nuclear tests, a top Japanese newspaper said Tuesday.

Obama said it remains possible for North Korea to take a new path, one that could lead it away from international condemnation and toward a more prosperous future.

"Prestige and security and prosperity are not going to come through the path of threatening neighbors and engaging in violations of international law," he said.

Trade agreement
Lee and Obama also addressed an ambitious South Korean-U.S. free trade agreement to slash tariffs on goods and services.

The deal was painstakingly negotiated but currently is in limbo, stalled over U.S. lawmakers' worries it could hurt an already suffering American auto industry.

Obama said he wanted to make sure differences over autos are settled before the free trade deal is sent to Congress for ratification.

He said "questions about whether there's sufficient reciprocity with respect to cars" should be worked through "in a systematic way."

"What I've done is to affirm to President Lee that we want to work constructively with the Republic of Korea in a systematic way to clear some of these barriers that are preventing free trade from occurring between our two countries," Obama said.

The agreement signed in 2007 has been promoted as a potential $10 billion boon to the U.S. economy. Failure, supporters say, would threaten U.S. standing in an important region.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31384215...s-white_house/

So just like his predecessor, Obama has now huffed and he's puffed. Now what? More huffing and puffing, like his predecessor?

Not much you can do to make N. Korea stop... Its not like economic sanctions work, they've been tried and failed.

I'm not a diplomat, but it seems to me that when all diplomatic paths are exhausted, there are only a few other options. Ignore it, or use the military. If we wait too long though, this is going to turn into Cold War 2.0, except with an extremely fanatical opponent who can strike the US, rather than just a mostly fanatical opponent. I feel sorry for S. Korea and Japan...

It's been a cold war for well over 50 years. The Korean War never technically ended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman3000

It's been a cold war for well over 50 years. The Korean War never technically ended.

---

Its been a cold war without much of a direct threat towards the US though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sam1617

Its been a cold war without much of a direct threat towards the US though.

---

True. It becomes a vastly different ball game once NK has the ability to take out Los Angeles. Better make sure we get that missle defense thingy going.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

True. It becomes a vastly different ball game once NK has the ability to take out Los Angeles. Better make sure we get that missle defense thingy going.

---

This news is six years old at least.

We don't have to worry about NK nukes on Redmond (not a bad idea, actually) until the Navy/AF/whatever tracks an NK test rocket that actually succeeds through the sine-qua-non 3rd stage.

Then there are the trivial points of what's in the warhead, will it detonate on target, and can they actually guide it all the way to a US target.

Do US care if NK nukes nearby SK or Japan? yellow-on-yellow crime. Do US Aryan supremacists give a fuck?

NK nuking SK and/or Japan reduces business competition and creates new markets for US companies. The Business of America is Business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

This news is six years old at least.

---

:huh

Not arguing with you, just confused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by original post

On Capitol Hill on Tuesday, Pentagon officials told a Senate committee that North Korea could build missiles that could hit the United States in as few as three years if the North continued progress on its weapons system.

---

Either way it sucks for us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

NK nuking SK and/or Japan reduces business competition and creates new markets for US companies. The Business of America is Business.

---

hell for that matter, NK nuking California might do us all a favor.

Samurai's are about to fuck shit up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

:huh

Not arguing with you, just confused.

---

I happened to see Tenet's testimony to Congress. When asked if NK could hit the West Coast, his response was something like:"the unclassified answer to that question is yes"

In my mind, that suggests NK might have had the capacity for some time prior to 2003. The caveats suggested by b_d might be pertinent too, but that's too specialized a question for me.

There's a pretty big difference in detonating a nuke underground and actually having the technology to deliver it through a warhead. I think they don't have the technology to detonate a nuke in a non controlled environment just yet.

Once we pull out of Iraq, we could see a build up of troops in the region. I think either China has to keep them in line or at some time in the not too distant future we might end up resuming combat with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

I happened to see Tenet's testimony to Congress. When asked if NK could hit the West Coast, his response was something like:"the unclassified answer to that question is yes"

In my mind, that suggests NK might have had the capacity for some time prior to 2003. The caveats suggested by b_d might be pertinent too, but that's too specialized a question for me.

---

I'm not convinced, but even if it were true, arming missiles takes about another 15-20 years after you have nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles...the only thing I've seen from N. Korea are supped-up Scud missiles....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

I'm not convinced, but even if it were true, arming missiles takes about another 15-20 years after you have nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles...the only thing I've seen from N. Korea are supped-up Scud missiles....

---

Sure, maybe in the normal progression of things... However, this is all technology that has been developed by others, replicating a technology is far easier than developing your own.

Kim Jong Il may be a psychopath.... but he can't be that crazy as to launch a nuclear strike. It would ensure that their country would not exist.... along with about 5 billion other people. I honestly think that if NK launched a nuke in our direction, that China would try to shoot it down. You know they have a missile shield covering that entire area.

Even if a non nuclear war occurs, things still are shitty.

If China openly aids them in a war with the United States, I see us obviously stopping all trade to and from China. That makes this current economic mess look like somebody getting fired from a McDonalds.

If China cuts off ties with NK... then they're fucked because they probably couldn't run tanks, planes, boats etc. without China's fuel for more than a couple months.

It's not in NK's best interest to start a war. It is in their current interest to be little bitches and wait for us to capitulate and appease them. Hopefully Obama does what he says and doesn't fall for it.

:lol at "Pleasure Brigade"

I guess it really doesn't matter all that much when NK gets a missle that can reach the US. They can reach SK and Japan already and an attack on either one of them still puts us at war.

ha... wrong thread... i though this was an Iran thread.

:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

I guess it really doesn't matter all that much when NK gets a missle that can reach the US. They can reach SK and Japan already and an attack on either one of them still puts us at war.

---

Yeah, to me, if we are going to go to war with NK, thats the best possible solution, is that they attack SK soon, so we get to be the good guy, and they aren't a direct threat (with conventional weapons) to the continental US. And then China would probably even be either neutral, or on our side (hopefully).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sam1617

Yeah, to me, if we are going to go to war with NK, thats the best possible solution, is that they attack SK soon, so we get to be the good guy, and they aren't a direct threat (with conventional weapons) to the continental US. And then China would probably even be either neutral, or on our side (hopefully).

---

Best case scenario would be they attack once we're fully out of Iraq. Just so we'd be able to apply more manpower.

I wouldn't want to leave 30k US troops stranded on SK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman3000

Best case scenario would be they attack once we're fully out of Iraq. Just so we'd be able to apply more manpower.

I wouldn't want to leave 30k US troops stranded on SK.

---

If NK attacked, the troops would be out of Iraq faster than you can say Pusan Perimeter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sam1617

If NK attacked, the troops would be out of Iraq faster than you can say Pusan Perimeter.

---

I realize that. But it would still take a long time to mobilize that many forces that quickly. It would be incredibly fast... but that's relative because it would probably still be a couple of months.

Hopefully Iraq wouldn't go to complete shit once we leave. I wouldn't want to have to retake the country... especially since it wouldn't be against a standing army like it was when Iraqi Freedom went down... it would be against entrenched urban fighters on a scale much larger than now.

I just think that right now would be the worst possible time for war to break out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman3000

Hopefully Iraq wouldn't go to complete shit once we leave. I wouldn't want to have to retake the country... especially since it wouldn't be against a standing army like it was when Iraqi Freedom went down... it would be against entrenched urban fighters on a scale much larger than now.

I just think that right now would be the worst possible time for war to break out.

---

We're not going to be leaving Iraq any time soon. Even the fine print in Obama's "end the war" plan involves leaving behind tens of thousands of troops. Still, you're absolutely right that right now the U.S. isn't ready for another war.

Sure, it will take a bit of time, I think you are overestimating with a couple of months. But you can't forget that SK has 3.5 million in its standing army, with every male by the age of 35 theoretically having 2 years worth of military training.

Of course, NK is pretty similar like that too, so...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

We're not going to be leaving Iraq any time soon. Even the fine print in Obama's "end the war" plan involves leaving behind tens of thousands of troops. Still, you're absolutely right that right now the U.S. isn't ready for another war.

---

We're talking hypotheticals if NK attacked SK/Japan/us.

You're saying that if war broke out we wouldn't send the vast majority of troops from Iraq to the NK theatre?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman3000

I realize that. But it would still take a long time to mobilize that many forces that quickly. It would be incredibly fast... but that's relative because it would probably still be a couple of months.

---

No way. I don't think you realize how fast the military can mobilize troops in an emergency situation. Heck, even here at Katrina, we moved some 1,000 students or so to safe havens the day before with minimal planning.

If stuff hit the fan, we could pull out relatively quick. However, it wouldn't be 'orderly' and it probably wouldn't be very safe for those left behind having to work with a smaller crew.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman3000

We're talking hypotheticals if NK attacked SK/Japan/us.

You're saying that if war broke out we wouldn't send the vast majority of troops from Iraq to the NK theatre?

---

I'd think we have to leave some behind. JMO.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sam1617

Sure, it will take a bit of time, I think you are overestimating with a couple of months. But you can't forget that SK has 3.5 million in its standing army, with every male by the age of 35 theoretically having 2 years worth of military training.

Of course, NK is pretty similar like that too, so...

---

The logistics of transporting 130,000 troops / tanks / equipment about 2? 3 thousand miles? is pretty daunting. I'd think that 8 weeks for such a large operation is a fair assessment.

As it is now SK has a better army than NK in almost every category except for fanaticism. They could probably go toe to toe and win pretty handedly by themselves. But you never know and I wouldn't want to take the chance with so many US troops on the line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

I'd think we have to leave some behind. JMO.....

---

yeah some... but the way you worded your remark you sounded as if we wouldn't be leaving. Just because you said if we did we'd still be leaving 10's of thousands. They were 2 separate comments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

No way. I don't think you realize how fast the military can mobilize troops in an emergency situation. Heck, even here at Katrina, we moved some 1,000 students or so to safe havens the day before with minimal planning.

If stuff hit the fan, we could pull out relatively quick. However, it wouldn't be 'orderly' and it probably wouldn't be very safe for those left behind having to work with a smaller crew.

---

I'll take your word for it and rescind my 2 month guesstimate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman3000

I'll take your word for it and rescind my 2 month guesstimate.

---

I'll ask some friends to get a more accurate timeline... this thing will bug me until I get a "not somewhat pulled out of my azz due to personal deployment experience" answer. :D

:lol It'll bug me too. I don't like being wrong and it'll help bunches if I'm not :)

If you want, you can help me look for a good article here...

http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/

I've found info on aircraft readiness, and deployment capability, but not a good article on timelines for redeployment yet. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

If you want, you can help me look for a good article here...

http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/

I've found info on aircraft readiness, and deployment capability, but not a good article on timelines for redeployment yet. :)

---

Yeah, I did a search too... Couldn't find anything online. However I talked to a buddy who was a marine who claimed that his company could be ready to go in a days time, and be there in another day if they had too. Of course, thats just at a company level, and he may be given to exaggeration, and they never had to do it for real...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sam1617

Yeah, I did a search too... Couldn't find anything online. However I talked to a buddy who was a marine who claimed that his company could be ready to go in a days time, and be there in another day if they had too. Of course, thats just at a company level, and he may be given to exaggeration, and they never had to do it for real...

---

Thanks Sam. I talked with my Captain, who went through the USAF Academy, and she said that initial response should be capable within 3 to 4 days at most, and we could probably mobilize and have on the ground a full response force (whatever they would deem that to be) in two weeks, a month at the most. Sounds about right to me. (Again, my captain is comm, and not logistics or transport, so if anyone knows an officer in those fields feel free to share.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sam1617

But you can't forget that SK has 3.5 million in its standing army,

---

If push came to shove I think we could dramatically reduce that number without ever putting boots on the ground. As long as we don't get the bright idea to invade NK and set a democracy NK's military threat can be dealt with pretty easily.

Eh, we have about 50k troops there or close by, right? -- but most of the fighting on the ground in Korea would be done by the RoK once they activate their reserves.