A human Mars mission?

Michael Walsh wrote:
[...]
I want the recognition that we have no control over the North Korean
nuclear weapons and the realization that the U.S. might have to react
militarily in order to prevent them from using the weapons.

We have no control over the North Korean, Chinese, Russian,
Indian, Pakistani, Israeli, or French nuclear weapons programs,
and we might have to react militarily some day to prevent them
from using those weapons. We have moderate control over the
British nuclear weapons program, in that it has evolved into
being codependent on US technology, but that might not last,
and the current very friendly US/UK relations might not last
either, so they could possibly end up on that list too.

The odds of that happening with North Korea probably exceed that
of all the others combined, several times over, in the current
climate, sure.

Diplomacy is the appropriate starting point. Realistically we must
be ready to act if it fails.

Of course. We have Pentagon planners; we have had warplans for
dealing with hypothetical actions of North Korea since... well,
since they invaded South Korea over 50 years ago. They don't
even need to dust them off, the Pentagon planners are all
aware of NK as a major threat and the forces we've had deployed
over there have been on high readyness pretty continuously.

If someone determines that such things have to happen,
I would be amazingly suprised if we aren't already fairly
prepared to execute on those plans.

Making any sort of public reference to that, however,
would be counterproductive. North Korea has made a
large diplomatic point of being afraid of US military
action, and if they perceive we're threatening them by
publically reviewing those warplans in detail, then they
are likely to react rather badly.

I have been wondering if the current crisis is an attempt
by North Korea to resolve this in their best favor possible
before the US NMD systems go online next year. Other than
that nothing has fundamentally changed much on our side in
the last decade.


-george william herbert

On 3 Sep 2003 01:41:41 -0700, in a place far, far away,
(George William Herbert) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

I have been wondering if the current crisis is an attempt
by North Korea to resolve this in their best favor possible
before the US NMD systems go online next year. Other than
that nothing has fundamentally changed much on our side in
the last decade.

Possibly, but I think it's more likely what's changing on their side.
Their economy continues to deteriorate, and their list of allies has
shrunk down to, essentially, China, who now holds all the cards. The
regime is in serious danger of imploding, and I think that this is a
last desperate attempt at blackmail in return for food and fuel aid to
keep the army alive, which is the only thing keeping it in power.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

Scott Lowther wrote:

We are technically still at war with North Korea.

Which means that they have not signed a surrender treay, and are
consequently not under the same "no WMD" stipulation as Iraq.

It is not likely that they ever would sign a surrender treaty - the
no WMD stipulation didn't come from a surrender treaty either.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..
On 1 Sep 2003 20:19:07 -0700, in a place far, far away,
(Art Class) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

(Derek Lyons) wrote in message ...

It was bound up in the issue of WMD. Had the Iraqi's complied with
the treaty, no invasion. But they didn't comply with the treaty, or
with multiple UN resolutions.

So non compliance with treaties or UN resolutions means automatic
unilateral invasion and occupation by the US without the consent of
the UN?

No, just the kind that Saddam was in violation of.

Somebody better warn Israel.

Which UNSCR resolutions is Israel in violation of?

Israel has been in violation of scores of resolutions. Try google.
The point is that suggesting that Iraq (or Israel) *had* to be invaded
and occupied because of UN resolutions is silly.

You simply can't say that "The UN resolutions meant Iraq had to be
invaded....whether the UN supported the invasion or not."

rest of idiocy snipped

Sure, attempt to head off on a tangent, then refuse to address
reality. Typical.

The point is that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was not the only
response to a situation that was already being addressed. The point
is that Iraq was already being contained, sanctioned, scrutinized and
isolated.

Due to the actions the US and rest of world was taking, Iraq was no
threat to the US or it's neighbors. Iraq's military did not have the
ability to take and hold a Circle K in Kuwait, let alone threaten the
United States.

Those courses of actions certainly could have been continued and
intensified without a full scale invasion and occupation that is
currently costing the loss of US lives and is being waged in most part
on US taxpayer's dollars.

Call it idiocy and snip it if you want, but those are facts. More and
more people are realizing it.

On 3 Sep 2003 11:22:04 -0700, in a place far, far away,
(Art Class) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

(Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..
On 1 Sep 2003 20:19:07 -0700, in a place far, far away,
(Art Class) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

(Derek Lyons) wrote in message ...

It was bound up in the issue of WMD. Had the Iraqi's complied with
the treaty, no invasion. But they didn't comply with the treaty, or
with multiple UN resolutions.

So non compliance with treaties or UN resolutions means automatic
unilateral invasion and occupation by the US without the consent of
the UN?

No, just the kind that Saddam was in violation of.

Somebody better warn Israel.

Which UNSCR resolutions is Israel in violation of?

Israel has been in violation of scores of resolutions.

I repeat the question. Name a UNSCR resolution that Israel is in
violation of, as Saddam was.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

Michael Walsh writes:

John Schilling wrote:

Michael Walsh writes:

Another question that could be, in my opinion, reasonably
debated is whether the U.S. invasion of Iraq without specific
authorization from the U.N. and absent the support of some
key allies was a wise move. I voted no (and posted it) before
the invasion of Iraq began.

Right now we have what I consider an extremely serious
confrontation with North Korea. North Korea claims that
they really do have atomic weapons and may very well conduct
a demonstration test. The U.S. reaction? We are going to
stop them using diplomacy.

Well, yes.

The North Koreans have stated that their desired outcome for this
situation is that the North Koreans don't starve to death, that
the North Koreans don't freeze to death, that North Korea is not
bombed or invaded, and that North Korea not have a working nuclear
weapons program.

The desired outcome for the United States is, well, pretty much
exactly the same thing. Likewise the South Koreans, the Japanese,
the Russians, and the Chinese. There may be some quibbling about
how much of the North Korean nuclear program goes into mothballs
and how much is outright destroyed, but aside from that absolutely
everybody involved, on *both* sides, wants the same thing.

This is precisely the sort of situation that calls for diplomacy.
The only reason it hasn't been diplomatically resolved long ago
is that North Korea's initial ham-handed moves looked on the surface
like nuclear blackmail, such that the simple and direct solution on
our part would look on the surface like appeasement and submission.
So now we have to put some diplomatic camoflage on it, arrange for
everybody to save face, and probably launder the real solution thru
China.

Takes time, but the outcome is not seriously in doubt.

Sure. We can all count on Kim being reasonable.

We probably can, yes. This is Kim Jong-Il we're talking about here;
Kim Il-Sung is safely dead. Jong-Il's made some missteps, but his
track record isn't too bad overall.

But, we don't need to count on KJI being reasonable. It suffices
that *either* KJI or the Chinese Government are reasonable; the latter
very reasonably does not want a nuclear war on the penninsula and is
quite capable of making KJI an Offer He Can't Refuse if he turns out
to be otherwise incorrigible.


We can certainly hope that the situation will be resolved diplomatically,
but the U.S. had better be prepared to take military action if
North Korea makes a military move and perhaps even uses nuclear
weapons.

If North Korea uses nuclear weapons, the forces we will need to respond
with are in no way related to the forces committed to Iraq. If North
Korea takes military action without using nuclear weapons, the South
Korean army can stop them dead in their tracks with very little in
the way of American help.


The situation is seriously in doubt.


Precisely the opposite of Iraq, where there were mutually incompatible
goals on all sides. Iraq wanted WMD, or at least the plausible appearance
of WMD, everybody else demanded the unambiguous elimination of WMD. We
wanted Hussein gone for many reasons, of which the WMD shell game was
only the one with the greatest international legitimacy. Hussein of
course did not want to be gone. The Europeans mostly wanted Hussein
to stay but the WMD to go. And the neighboring states all had their
own agendas for what was going to happen.

That one, no diplomatic solution was possible, though we had to at
least pretend we were trying.

There was a quite possible diplomatic solution available. Something
called keeping the pressure on Saddam and continuing inspections.


No; that inevitably leaves some players seriously dissatisfied. Even
if it were just about the WMD, which it wasn't, there's a mismatch.
Hussein's objective in that area was, if not an actual WMD arsenal,
at least the plausible threat of such to strike fear into his neighbors
and his subjects. The US objective in that area was absolute confirmation
that there were no certainty. The various European nations had their own
thresholds, so it was possible to come up with an inspection regime that
would satisfy Iraq and most of Europe *or* an inspection regime that would
satisfy the US and most of Europe, there was no inspection regime that
would satisfy everyone.

There was going to be a conflict over WMD that was not going to be
resolved diplomatically. The US and Iraq were going to be on opposite
sides, if the Iraqi diplomats were at all competent Europe would not
be united behind the US, and if the US diplomats were at all competent
Europe would not be united behind Iraq. And nothing Hans Blix did was
ever going to change that.


and to not have a large segment of U.S. strike forces engaged in
Iraq.

Who did you imagine we were striking at in Iraq? Our *strike* forces
are mostly back at home, where they are supposed to be. It is our
*occupation* forces that are in Iraq. Since there is about zero
possibility of our trying to occupy North Korea, this doesn't seem
like a big problem.

OK, changing the title doesn't reconstitute the military. Does this
mean you believe we did it with special forces and air power alone?

Did *what*?

We haven't *done* anything in Korea yet, it's all been just talk.
And almost certainly will remain so, but if it doesn't then the sort
of military problems we face in Korea are of the special forces and
air power sort, yes.

Again, the US has no need or desire to remove the Kim Jong-Il regime
from power in North Korea, we have no need or desire to invade or
conquer or occupy that nation, and we aren't going to. He may be
afraid that we secretly plan to do so, and you may be afraid that
he secretly plans to start launching nukes for no good reason, but
you're both wrong.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

George William Herbert wrote:

Michael Walsh wrote:
[...]
I want the recognition that we have no control over the North Korean
nuclear weapons and the realization that the U.S. might have to react
militarily in order to prevent them from using the weapons.

We have no control over the North Korean, Chinese, Russian,
Indian, Pakistani, Israeli, or French nuclear weapons programs,
and we might have to react militarily some day to prevent them
from using those weapons. We have moderate control over the
British nuclear weapons program, in that it has evolved into
being codependent on US technology, but that might not last,
and the current very friendly US/UK relations might not last
either, so they could possibly end up on that list too.

The odds of that happening with North Korea probably exceed that
of all the others combined, several times over, in the current
climate, sure.

Diplomacy is the appropriate starting point. Realistically we must
be ready to act if it fails.

Of course. We have Pentagon planners; we have had warplans for
dealing with hypothetical actions of North Korea since... well,
since they invaded South Korea over 50 years ago. They don't
even need to dust them off, the Pentagon planners are all
aware of NK as a major threat and the forces we've had deployed
over there have been on high readyness pretty continuously.

If someone determines that such things have to happen,
I would be amazingly suprised if we aren't already fairly
prepared to execute on those plans.

Making any sort of public reference to that, however,
would be counterproductive. North Korea has made a
large diplomatic point of being afraid of US military
action, and if they perceive we're threatening them by
publically reviewing those warplans in detail, then they
are likely to react rather badly.

I have been wondering if the current crisis is an attempt
by North Korea to resolve this in their best favor possible
before the US NMD systems go online next year. Other than
that nothing has fundamentally changed much on our side in
the last decade.

-george william herbert


Perhaps it would be appropriate to snip something, but I will leave
it all up because I don't see anything I particularly disagree with. I
could raise some concerns about the potential danger of the
India-Pakistan conflict going nuclear and also the possibility of
someone like Al Queda getting nuclear weapons, but that is just
something we have to live with.

One thing that makes North Korea a special case is that the
U.S. government is on record as saying that North Korea having
nuclear weapons is unacceptable. North Korea has, of course,
taken note of that and it hasn't reduced their paranoia one bit.

We don't have any options for going back in time. My thesis
was that we would have been better off not having invaded
Iraq and fostering closer cooperation with our allies in
containing Saddat Hussein. My other complaint was expressed
in my expressed belief that President Bush lied when he claimed
we invaded Iraq because they had WMD, and specifically
ready-to-use chemical weapons. My complaint is not based on
international law or UN resolutions, but that the invasion was
sold to Congress and the American people under false pretenses.

Since we cannot un-invade Iraq and I believe a pullout would be
a disaster then we must do the best job we can, under the
circumstances. I note that one possibility now being pushed is
cooperation with the UN and our allies to try to get them to pick
up some of the load.

As for President Bush lying or having extremely bad intelligence,
he isn't the first President to lie for policy reasons. Usually it gets
excused if there is a successful result or the end is seen as justifying
the means.

The finally irony might be if the one thing I do have, control of my
vote for President that I am now thinking I will not cast for
President Bush in 2004, might end up being cast for him because
the Democrats might nominate someone I dislike even more.

Could happen.

Mike Walsh

George William Herbert wrote:

The UNSCOM and UNMOVIC discoveries make it *very* clear
that Iraq was, in fact, hiding a lot of stuff in the
early-mid 90s that it was supposed to have disarmed.

The fact that the regime had lied repeatedly to inspectors before finally
kicking them out is really all the evidence that's needed. Whether large
stocks of operational WMD existed or not, the intention of the regime to
pursue such weapons as soon as it though it could get away with it was
established beyond a reasonable doubt. Nobody who had been paying even the
slightest amount of attention to Iraq between 1991 and 2003 could possibly
come to the conclusion that Saddam wasn't *at*minimum* actively making
plans to resume WMD manufacture as soon as possible. The Bush
administration overstated the strength of evidence for existing stockpiles
of WMD, but even if exactly zero weaponized WMD are discovered, there is
already sufficient evidence to conclude that WMD production would have
restarted as soon as sanctions were lifted.

The point that opponents of the war refuse to engage is this: The
sanctions regime was simply immoral. It punished civilians without
serious discomfort to the regime and its supporters. The only people
seriously hurt by the sanctions were people Saddam *wanted* to see
suffer. For the Baath loyalists, sanctions were an inconvenience. There
was a moral imperative to lift the sanctions, which forces a choice
between accepting a newly empowered Saddam with WMD within a year, or
invasion.

I've no great love for President Bush, and I think his handling of the
postwar situation in Iraq has been terrible, but his willingness to tackle
the problem rather than letting it fester is a major point in his
favor.

.......Andrew
--
--
Andrew Case |
|

Andrew Case wrote:

I've no great love for President Bush, and I think his handling of the
postwar situation in Iraq has been terrible, but his willingness to tackle
the problem rather than letting it fester is a major point in his
favor.

Agreed. And now that the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the
American Muslim Council, the American Muslim Alliance and the Muslim
Public Affairs Council have come out against President Bush, he'll stop
being a dumbass and will quit pandering to them. That's the biggest
problem I've had with Bush... his constantly tryign to be buddy-buddy
with people who think the 12th century was the pinnacle of human
achievement, just to try to smooth things over. Bah.

--
Scott Lowther, Engineer

"Any statement by Edward Wright that starts with 'You seem to think
that...' is wrong. Always. It's a law of Usenet, like Godwin's."
- Jorge R. Frank, 11 Nov 2002

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 4 Sep 2003 15:32:40 -0400, in a place far, far away,
(Andrew Case) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

The point that opponents of the war refuse to engage is this: The
sanctions regime was simply immoral. It punished civilians without
serious discomfort to the regime and its supporters. The only people
seriously hurt by the sanctions were people Saddam *wanted* to see
suffer. For the Baath loyalists, sanctions were an inconvenience. There
was a moral imperative to lift the sanctions, which forces a choice
between accepting a newly empowered Saddam with WMD within a year, or
invasion.

Not to mention the fact that ending his regime had the additional
virtue (except to certain French presidents) of, well, ending his
regime, arguably one of the very worst that the planet had to offer...


So has the US handed Kissinger over to Chile yet?

---
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++