Author Topic: North Korea  (Read 3429 times)

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
North Korea
« on: April 16, 2017, 10:02:12 AM »
Why are we letting them get away with this *censored*?

The concentration camps are literally there to be seen on Google maps. Okay, they're not attacking a religious or racial minority, but millions have been killed and will be killed.

Let me put it it this way. When the regime is overthrown, the massive death camps and graves dug up, how will you explain to your grandkids that you just looked the other way?

Grant

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: North Korea
« Reply #1 on: April 16, 2017, 11:03:52 AM »
As I wrote earlier; there is not much to do about it without risking tens of millions of South Korean, Japanese, and American civilians on the west coast to nuclear and chemical attack, and risking war with China.  You're basically going to end up killing many more people then you're going to save.   

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: North Korea
« Reply #2 on: April 16, 2017, 12:01:01 PM »
DJQuag,

we know that there are prison camps, but the problem is we don't have any reliable witnesses regarding crimes.

North Korean defectors are willing to spin whatever tales US media and intelligence want to hear.

https://www.policyforum.net/unreliable-witnesses/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/13/why-do-north-korean-defector-testimonies-so-often-fall-apart

N. Korea has a large prison population - comparable to the US (N. Korea estimated 813 per million with large error bars; US 730 per million), but rather than many small prisons they have a few large prisons.

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2013/jan/14/hank-johnson/does-us-have-highest-percentage-people-prison/

They do have a larger death rate, their whole country is starving.

They have *censored*ty treatment of prisoners, but it appears to be the same *censored*ty treatment as in most non western and non first world countries.

linuxfreakus

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: North Korea
« Reply #3 on: April 16, 2017, 12:01:17 PM »
Why are we letting them get away with this *censored*?

Because they don't have vast oil riches or prime location for a pipeline worth trillions.  There are a lot of evil dictators and oppressive regimes around the world.  We tend to focus on the ones who have something we want... Iraq, Afganistan, Somolia, Libya, Syria, etc, etc.

If NK, ever finds a whole bunch of oil and starts pumping it out of the ground that might be the beginning of the end for them.

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: North Korea
« Reply #4 on: April 16, 2017, 12:11:56 PM »
DJQuag,

we know that there are prison camps, but the problem is we don't have any reliable witnesses regarding crimes.

North Korean defectors are willing to spin whatever tales US media and intelligence want to hear.

https://www.policyforum.net/unreliable-witnesses/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/13/why-do-north-korean-defector-testimonies-so-often-fall-apart

N. Korea has a large prison population - comparable to the US (N. Korea estimated 813 per million with large error bars; US 730 per million), but rather than many small prisons they have a few large prisons.

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2013/jan/14/hank-johnson/does-us-have-highest-percentage-people-prison/

They do have a larger death rate, their whole country is starving.

They have *censored*ty treatment of prisoners, but it appears to be the same *censored*ty treatment as in most non western and non first world countries.

Naw fam, don't play that. Western nations don't do what NK does, and it ain't even close. They have literal concentration camps running this second.

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: North Korea
« Reply #5 on: April 16, 2017, 12:17:45 PM »
Why are we letting them get away with this *censored*?

Because they don't have vast oil riches or prime location for a pipeline worth trillions.  There are a lot of evil dictators and oppressive regimes around the world.  We tend to focus on the ones who have something we want... Iraq, Afganistan, Somolia, Libya, Syria, etc, etc.

If NK, ever finds a whole bunch of oil and starts pumping it out of the ground that might be the beginning of the end for them.

Yeah. All they will have to do is protest. Lmao.

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: North Korea
« Reply #6 on: April 16, 2017, 12:40:37 PM »
DJQuag,

reread - I said 'non western' and 'non first world' nations.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: North Korea
« Reply #7 on: April 16, 2017, 04:59:07 PM »
We let them get away with this because China can hit us with nukes thanks to Clinton.

No way in hell China lets us invade NOKO. Last time we did we went toe to toe with China and it nearly went nuclear.

China probably provoked all this to get off Trump's poop list. He can't label them a currency manipulator if they play our partner vs NoKo.

linuxfreakus

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: North Korea
« Reply #8 on: April 17, 2017, 11:37:00 AM »
China has backed NK, that is true.  I'm pretty sure they'd be nuclear with or without Clinton though.  Nuclear weapons are not exactly a big secret anymore, the cat is out of the bag and the tests are only for show, everything can be simulated there is no reason to set anything off.  Wouldn't doubt if there are a list of other places too that have decent sized scientific community who have nukes but haven't advertised (Taiwan I'm looking at you).

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: North Korea
« Reply #9 on: April 18, 2017, 12:41:32 PM »
I'm pretty sure they'd be nuclear with or without Clinton though.  Nuclear weapons are not exactly a big secret anymore, the cat is out of the bag and the tests are only for show, everything can be simulated there is no reason to set anything off. 
Bill Clinton (via his emissary Jimmy Carter) cut a deal with North Korea in 1994.  North Korea promised to halt nuclear development (but never did) and Clinton gave them more than $4 billion in aid.  Essentially, Clinton financed the last part of the puzzle in North Korea's attempt to acquire nuclear weapons.

What it takes to make a nuclear weapon is not hard to find out, true.  But the actual skill, technology, and materials to actually build one is not so easy to come by. North Korea may have become a nuclear power eventually without Clinton's aid but it sure helped accelerate it to the point we are now.

Grant is correct, military action against North Korea is "risking tens of millions of South Korean, Japanese, and American civilians on the west coast to nuclear and chemical attack, and risking war with China."  North Korea is reported to have thousands of tons of chemical and biological agents with effective delivery mechanisms.  Within hours of hostility, we could easily see entire cities on the Korean peninsula and nearby countries become graveyards as Kim Jong-un is truly threat to use them. 

Add in the economic impact of a military effort in Asia.  The entire western world depends on goods being built and shipped from Asian countries.  This would get severely disrupted for some time and in our "just in time" economy could have far reaching economic implications.  After 8 years of malaise in the United States and relatively poor economic growth world wide, I'm not sure we're ready to risk another massive disruption of the scale this could represent.

The only options I see are getting China to force Kim out or some other internal coup.  Those a pretty long shot solutions.  The time for the Western world to deal with North Korea has passed, no putting this genie back in the bottle.


DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: North Korea
« Reply #10 on: April 18, 2017, 03:34:47 PM »
Jews had their chance to get out of Europe.

At least be honest about what you're endorsing here. Again. The concentration camps are visible from space. We have the same trickle of escapees telling us what is happening and the same deaf ears turned to them.

Is that honestly going to be all ya'll excuse when the regime falls and we have mass graves and indisputable testimony to work with? It's all China's fault?

*People made these same arguments to say we had to live with German policies.*

NobleHunter

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: North Korea
« Reply #11 on: April 18, 2017, 03:45:40 PM »
Jews had their chance to get out of Europe.

At least be honest about what you're endorsing here. Again. The concentration camps are visible from space. We have the same trickle of escapees telling us what is happening and the same deaf ears turned to them.

Is that honestly going to be all ya'll excuse when the regime falls and we have mass graves and indisputable testimony to work with? It's all China's fault?

*People made these same arguments to say we had to live with German policies.*
The chance to be told, "one is too many"?

By the time the Nazis went from somewhat extreme anti-Semitic *censored* to genocide, anyone who would have cared was already at war with them.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: North Korea
« Reply #12 on: April 18, 2017, 03:57:48 PM »
By the time the Nazis went from somewhat extreme anti-Semitic *censored* to genocide, anyone who would have cared was already at war with them.

...except the United States, and its hard to say how that would have played out over here.

Pearl Harbor made for a much "cleaner" entry into the war all around, as bad as it was. Because it shut up the Nazi supporters/appeasers in the US practically overnight, they literally had no way to "spin" the Germans backing up Japan immediately after that attack.

NobleHunter

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: North Korea
« Reply #13 on: April 18, 2017, 04:14:26 PM »
I'm fuzzy on the timelines, but I think the US got in before the Nazis went wholesale.

I wonder if FDR could have still pulled the US into the European theatre if Germany hadn't declared war.

linuxfreakus

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: North Korea
« Reply #14 on: April 18, 2017, 06:10:31 PM »
Bill Clinton (via his emissary Jimmy Carter) cut a deal with North Korea in 1994.  North Korea promised to halt nuclear development (but never did) and Clinton gave them more than $4 billion in aid.  Essentially, Clinton financed the last part of the puzzle in North Korea's attempt to acquire nuclear weapons.

Not exactly true.  You can make a nuclear reactor out of materials from a landfill.  The money can help pull in highly paid scientists, but it shouldn't take anywhere near 4 billion.... 4 billion could make highly advanced weapons many times more powerful than "simple nukes" but I'll say again, I'm pretty sure that a lot more countries have the capability than are officially acknowledged.  I'm sure NK was glad to get all the free money (I wonder what they gave Bill in return that we don't know about), but it wasn't necessary for the program.  They just needed time.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2017, 06:15:41 PM by linuxfreakus »

NobleHunter

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: North Korea
« Reply #15 on: April 18, 2017, 06:21:35 PM »
Not exactly true.  You can make a nuclear reactor out of materials from a landfill.  The money can help pull in highly paid scientists, but it shouldn't take anywhere near 4 billion.... 4 billion could make highly advanced weapons many times more powerful than "simple nukes" but I'll say again, I'm pretty sure that a lot more countries have the capability than are officially acknowledged.
I think anyone with a substantial civilian nuclear industry could make bombs in a relatively short time frame. So I think the official list of countries with nukes is pretty accurate. The list of countries that could have them by the end of next year or the year after is substantially longer. I don't know about delivery systems though. Subs are an obvious short-list, missiles are harder than they look and off-the-shelf bombers big enough to carry a nuke probably have a survivability problem.

linuxfreakus

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: North Korea
« Reply #16 on: April 18, 2017, 06:25:22 PM »
Not exactly true.  You can make a nuclear reactor out of materials from a landfill.  The money can help pull in highly paid scientists, but it shouldn't take anywhere near 4 billion.... 4 billion could make highly advanced weapons many times more powerful than "simple nukes" but I'll say again, I'm pretty sure that a lot more countries have the capability than are officially acknowledged.
I think anyone with a substantial civilian nuclear industry could make bombs in a relatively short time frame. So I think the official list of countries with nukes is pretty accurate. The list of countries that could have them by the end of next year or the year after is substantially longer. I don't know about delivery systems though. Subs are an obvious short-list, missiles are harder than they look and off-the-shelf bombers big enough to carry a nuke probably have a survivability problem.

Delivery is a clear issue yes.  Subs are currently going to be the cheapest and easiest path, especially if they are slowly moved into position and kept there quietly.  Chances of discovery are pretty low.  Long range ICBM type missiles can work, but they are too easy to detect and shoot down... bombers even more so.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2017, 06:32:07 PM by linuxfreakus »

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: North Korea
« Reply #17 on: April 19, 2017, 09:39:23 AM »
Bill Clinton (via his emissary Jimmy Carter) cut a deal with North Korea in 1994.  North Korea promised to halt nuclear development (but never did) and Clinton gave them more than $4 billion in aid.  Essentially, Clinton financed the last part of the puzzle in North Korea's attempt to acquire nuclear weapons.

Not exactly true.  You can make a nuclear reactor out of materials from a landfill.  The money can help pull in highly paid scientists, but it shouldn't take anywhere near 4 billion.... 4 billion could make highly advanced weapons many times more powerful than "simple nukes" but I'll say again, I'm pretty sure that a lot more countries have the capability than are officially acknowledged.  I'm sure NK was glad to get all the free money (I wonder what they gave Bill in return that we don't know about), but it wasn't necessary for the program.  They just needed time.
I don't know about building reactors out of used coffee grounds and old newspapers.  I think it's quite  bit more complex but I take your point that building reactors are easier than weapons. Clinton handed over the $4 billion in the mid 1990's, when North Korea was just trying to get started with the program.  They had a lot to buy. It's not just centrifuges and uranium but the delivery systems that had to be developed, which they appear to be still struggling with. I'm not saying the entire amount went to this one program but, as you point out, it was at least enough to fund a lot of it.

Add into all this, North Korea successfully placed 2 satellites in polar orbit in, one in 2012 and the other in 2016. R. James Woolsey,  former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and Peter Vincent Fry, executive director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security as well as director of the Nuclear Strategy Forum, both congressional advisory boards, warned:
Quote
Both satellites now are in south polar orbits, evading many U.S. missile defense radars and flying over the United States from the south, where our defenses are limited. Both satellites -- if nuclear armed -- could make an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack that could blackout the U.S. electric grid for months or years, thereby killing millions.
Dealing with those satellites during launch or before they achieved orbit would have been fortunate.  They're obviously a significant threat.

linuxfreakus

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: North Korea
« Reply #18 on: April 19, 2017, 11:23:57 AM »
You can definitely make a reactor from a landfill.  People throw away lots of things that if collected in large numbers would be enough radioactive material to make a reactor.... granted a lot of it is stuff that has shorter half life and wouldn't last as long... but it would work.  To actually make nuclear weapons you'd need some specific elements that would be harder to find in a landfill.

I don't know about building reactors out of used coffee grounds and old newspapers.  I think it's quite  bit more complex.

True, satellite launched nukes could be hard to stop too since they could drop payload much closer to the target.  That said, I find it hard to believe that they haven't used some of our secret DARPA space tech to have a closer look at those things and cause them to "have an accident" if deemed a threat.  I still think subs are the greater threat.  Despite all the public statements about how easy they would be to track because they are old and diesel, I don't buy it. We've consistently had old diesel subs get through some of the densest and most sophisticated sub monitoring networks during various war games.  I don't think they can track them nearly as well as they claim.  They do have some rather belated underwater drone projects in the works that might help though.

Add into all this, North Korea successfully placed 2 satellites in polar orbit in, one in 2012 and the other in 2016. R. James Woolsey,  former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and Peter Vincent Fry, executive director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security as well as director of the Nuclear Strategy Forum, both congressional advisory boards, warned:
Quote
Both satellites now are in south polar orbits, evading many U.S. missile defense radars and flying over the United States from the south, where our defenses are limited. Both satellites -- if nuclear armed -- could make an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack that could blackout the U.S. electric grid for months or years, thereby killing millions.
Dealing with those satellites during launch or before they achieved orbit would have been fortunate.  They're obviously a significant threat.

linuxfreakus

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: North Korea
« Reply #19 on: April 19, 2017, 11:45:22 AM »
And I'm sure someone will point out that yes even stuff in a landfill *could* make a weapon... but the problem is you'd need so much of it you'd probably never get enough.  Uranium and plutonium can get it done with much less material.... you can probably find uranium in some older landfills, but would have to be in the US or another place that was doing stuff with it in the WW II era and shortly thereafter....

Waste of time anyway since NK has uranium mines already :P
« Last Edit: April 19, 2017, 11:47:33 AM by linuxfreakus »

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: North Korea
« Reply #20 on: April 19, 2017, 12:46:15 PM »

Bill Clinton (via his emissary Jimmy Carter) cut a deal with North Korea in 1994.  North Korea promised to halt nuclear development (but never did) and Clinton gave them more than $4 billion in aid.  Essentially, Clinton financed the last part of the puzzle in North Korea's attempt to acquire nuclear weapons.


Not exactly.

Quote
The consortium was called the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO). KEDO’s final annual report, issued in 2006, shows that 30 or so countries funding the project spent about $2.5 billion before it was shut down after the Bush administration accused North Korea of cheating on the Agreed Framework. (Most of the funds, about $2 billion, were contributed by South Korea and Japan alone.)

But this money did not go to North Korea. According to Joel S. Wit, who was in charge of implementing the Agreed Framework during the Clinton administration, it went to the companies that were building the reactors in South Korea, Japan and the European Union.

Between 1995 and 2003, the United States did spend about $500 million supplying the fuel oil that was required under the deal. (Another $100 million in fuel oil was supplied between 2007 and 2009, during Bush’s ill-fated deal.) But North Korea did not get those funds either; it just got the oil.

“The ‘billions’ went to Japanese and South Korean (and U.S.) firms,” said Robert Carlin, a former State Department analyst who was senior policy adviser to KEDO.  “The North Koreans got peanuts (payments for phone lines, incidental fees, some transportation fees, etc). They got some food from the international community (U.S. contributed), and heavy fuel oil.”

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: North Korea
« Reply #21 on: April 19, 2017, 04:48:21 PM »
Delivery is a clear issue yes.  Subs are currently going to be the cheapest and easiest path, especially if they are slowly moved into position and kept there quietly.  Chances of discovery are pretty low.  Long range ICBM type missiles can work, but they are too easy to detect and shoot down... bombers even more so.

I think it takes a nuclear sub - which is harder to develop - to keep it on station for any length of time.  Other subs could be snuck into place but they couldn't be held on station underwater.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: North Korea
« Reply #22 on: April 19, 2017, 05:08:45 PM »
Delivery is a clear issue yes.  Subs are currently going to be the cheapest and easiest path, especially if they are slowly moved into position and kept there quietly.  Chances of discovery are pretty low.  Long range ICBM type missiles can work, but they are too easy to detect and shoot down... bombers even more so.

I think it takes a nuclear sub - which is harder to develop - to keep it on station for any length of time.  Other subs could be snuck into place but they couldn't be held on station underwater.

They have snorkels they can use to prevent needing to resurface, but when the snorkel is out, they're going to be very close to the surface all the same(within 50 feet) and they're going to be loud, as they'll be running their diesel generators in order to recharge their batteries before returning to deeper waters.

But yeah, while they're on battery power, they can be harder to detect than a nuke. Once they're off the batteries however, that becomes a question of how quiet their diesels are, and what other sound dampening they may have. In that case, the nuke usually wins out hands down, it's both quieter, and isn't depth constrained as it doesn't need air to run the engines.

linuxfreakus

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: North Korea
« Reply #23 on: April 19, 2017, 05:31:46 PM »
They would need to surface (or come relatively near surface at least) maybe once a week-ish  perhaps longer depending on how much battery power is actually used and how many people on board...  but IMO the only really viable detection mechanism they currently have as long as the enemy has some idea where sound monitoring occurs is satellite.... and that isn't really reliable, especially at night despite various infrared possibilities.

In some ways the nukes are actually easier because the reactors are not silent.  But again, it depends on how much they've figured out about where listening stations are, and magnetic resonance too (newer subs use titanium or carbon / polymer).

Last barrier for diesel is refueling... but I think it could likely be disguised somehow.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2017, 05:43:04 PM by linuxfreakus »

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: North Korea
« Reply #24 on: April 20, 2017, 02:52:28 PM »
Looks like currently known tech for Diesel Subs employs AIP(Air-independent propulsion) for long duration dives, and allows them to do without a snorkel.

Of course, they "cheat" a little bit. The "air" they use comes in the form of stored liquid oxygen they carry onboard which is then used to allow the engine to "breath" while submerged. Current dive durations are held to be about 24 days.

That said, North Korea is not known to have any submarines with such capabilities.

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: North Korea
« Reply #25 on: April 20, 2017, 07:04:15 PM »
Jews had their chance to get out of Europe.

At least be honest about what you're endorsing here. Again. The concentration camps are visible from space. We have the same trickle of escapees telling us what is happening and the same deaf ears turned to them.

Is that honestly going to be all ya'll excuse when the regime falls and we have mass graves and indisputable testimony to work with? It's all China's fault?

*People made these same arguments to say we had to live with German policies.*
The chance to be told, "one is too many"?

By the time the Nazis went from somewhat extreme anti-Semitic *censored* to genocide, anyone who would have cared was already at war with them.

I've got my own frigging problems and I'm drunk more often then not when I post(obviously to most of you), but debate club details aside North Korea has killed and is killing millions of people. We don't even have the excuse of claiming not to know; the Internet gives you a view of their concentration camps and the stories of those who escaped. Think of how you feel about people in the 40's and acknowledge that we won't even have that thin layer of excuse.

We all know what has and is going on in North Korea. In the heyday of our grand or great grandchildren it will be seen as a massive moral defecit. Except they'll transfer that moral defecit to those who were present. And those people are us.

China wI'll probably and deservedly take the greater moral blame, but it is April 2017 and everyone of us knows what is going on in NK and we calmly look aside so long as they're not capable of launching nukes at the west coast.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: North Korea
« Reply #26 on: April 20, 2017, 07:36:25 PM »
China has backed NK, that is true.  I'm pretty sure they'd be nuclear with or without Clinton though.  Nuclear weapons are not exactly a big secret anymore, the cat is out of the bag and the tests are only for show, everything can be simulated there is no reason to set anything off.  Wouldn't doubt if there are a

To clarify: I said that CHINA can hit the US with nukes (via icbm) thanks to Clinton (who gave China the tech to make their icbms work)

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: North Korea
« Reply #27 on: April 20, 2017, 07:55:06 PM »
China has backed NK, that is true.  I'm pretty sure they'd be nuclear with or without Clinton though.  Nuclear weapons are not exactly a big secret anymore, the cat is out of the bag and the tests are only for show, everything can be simulated there is no reason to set anything off.  Wouldn't doubt if there are a

To clarify: I said that CHINA can hit the US with nukes (via icbm) thanks to Clinton (who gave China the tech to make their icbms work)

Yeah man wasn't about you. Don't give a *censored* what China can do. There is absolutely a modern day holocaust going on and we all ignore it because the reasons to ignore it aren't what we learned in our history books. For those of us who get to be grandparent's,  and when you're remembering NK to your grandkids, remember this.;

Gaoics79

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: North Korea
« Reply #28 on: April 21, 2017, 08:50:05 AM »
Quote
We all know what has and is going on in North Korea. In the heyday of our grand or great grandchildren it will be seen as a massive moral defecit. Except they'll transfer that moral defecit to those who were present. And those people are us.

What solution would you propose for the problem that does not have a high probability of turning the Korean peninsula (and possibly the region) into a flaming holocaust?

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: North Korea
« Reply #29 on: April 21, 2017, 11:17:58 AM »
China has backed NK, that is true.  I'm pretty sure they'd be nuclear with or without Clinton though.  Nuclear weapons are not exactly a big secret anymore, the cat is out of the bag and the tests are only for show, everything can be simulated there is no reason to set anything off.  Wouldn't doubt if there are a

To clarify: I said that CHINA can hit the US with nukes (via icbm) thanks to Clinton (who gave China the tech to make their icbms work)

Yeah man wasn't about you. Don't give a *censored* what China can do. There is absolutely a modern day holocaust going on and we all ignore it because the reasons to ignore it aren't what we learned in our history books. For those of us who get to be grandparent's,  and when you're remembering NK to your grandkids, remember this.;

What China can do matters if we go into North Korea. Last time we hit NoKo they hit us with all they has and massacred thousands of US troops.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: North Korea
« Reply #30 on: April 21, 2017, 11:21:05 AM »
As for what our grandkids will say, they will say whatever they are brainwashed to say, depending on which set of liars wins the culture wars. Free speech won't endure 3 more generations.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: North Korea
« Reply #31 on: April 21, 2017, 12:43:11 PM »
As for what our grandkids will say, they will say whatever they are brainwashed to say, depending on which set of liars wins the culture wars. Free speech won't endure 3 more generations.

I would amend this to say that independent thought will be very difficult in 3 generations. I think there will be legal free speech, but that it won't be exercised without being called "crazy" by the majority.

Greg Davidson

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: North Korea
« Reply #32 on: April 22, 2017, 12:03:29 PM »
Quote
I said that CHINA can hit the US with nukes (via icbm) thanks to Clinton (who gave China the tech to make their icbms work)

I am unfamiliar with Clinton giving the Chinese technology to make their ICBMs work. Can you elaborate?

There was a very flawed NYT story late in the Clinton Administration about China stealing aerospace technology from Hughes satellites that were being launched on the Long March vehicles. That led to a panicked Congressional response that resulted in the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR) law that both included some reasonable provisions but also some unreasonable ones. And some of the basic premises of the original article were later debunked.  Is that what you mean, or is there a different example of Clinton aid to the Chinese ICBM program?

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: North Korea
« Reply #33 on: April 22, 2017, 12:28:10 PM »
Quote
I said that CHINA can hit the US with nukes (via icbm) thanks to Clinton (who gave China the tech to make their icbms work)

I am unfamiliar with Clinton giving the Chinese technology to make their ICBMs work. Can you elaborate?

There was a very flawed NYT story late in the Clinton Administration about China stealing aerospace technology from Hughes satellites that were being launched on the Long March vehicles. That led to a panicked Congressional response that resulted in the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR) law that both included some reasonable provisions but also some unreasonable ones. And some of the basic premises of the original article were later debunked.  Is that what you mean, or is there a different example of Clinton aid to the Chinese ICBM program?

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/11/world/clinton-approves-technology-transfer-to-china.html

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: North Korea
« Reply #34 on: April 22, 2017, 09:55:06 PM »
There is also the MIT/Cal Tech trained, director of the jet propulsion lab that was deported during McCarthy scare.  He basically designed all the Chinese rockets that could get to space or launch ICBMs.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-02-06/us-trained-scientist-was-deported-then-became-father-chinese-rocketry