WritersBeat.com
 

Go Back   WritersBeat.com > General Discussion > Writers' Cafe

Writers' Cafe Get a drink, sit down to relax, and chit-chat with other writers.


Aloha To The Aloha State?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 03-08-2006, 09:32 AM
starrwriter's Avatar
starrwriter (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Posts: 4,280
Thanks: 0
Thanks 4
Aloha To The Aloha State?


TOKYO (AP) -- North Korea fired two missiles near its border with China on Wednesday, a Japanese news agency reported, raising concerns about the reclusive regime's potential to create instability in the region.

American and Japanese military spokesmen said they couldn't immediately reconcile conflicting reports on where the missiles landed and the exact time of their launch was not known.

Last year regional governments and Washington played down the significance of the short-range rocket launch in early May and said the real concern would come from longer-range missiles. Analysts say North Korea is developing ballistic missiles capable of reaching Hawaii and Alaska.

Pyongyang shocked Tokyo when it test-fired a ballistic missile over northern Japan in 1998. Japan and the United States have started to develop a joint ballistic missile defense system and Tokyo has said it will launch two spy satellites this month to monitor North Korea.


YIKES!

North Korea has nuclear bombs and a lunatic for a leader. If the U.S. ever invades North Korea to impose a regime change like we did in Iraq, the first nuclear-tipped ballistic missile will be fired at Hawaii (where I happen to live!) North Korea will target Hawaii over Alaska because there are 800,000 people crowded on one island (as opposed to one resident per 100 square miles in Alaska) and because two very important military targets are located here -- the command centers of the Pacific Air Force and the Pacific Naval Fleet.

It would probably be a relatively short war and the U.S. would definitely win, but not before Honolulu was turned into America's first radioactive city. I don't want to glow in the dark and have my hair fall out in clumps when I comb it.

What really unnerves me is the fact that the U.S. military didn't know when the latest North Korean missile was launched and will depend on Japanese satellites to monitor future launches. Huh? Whatever happened to OUR OWN missile defense system? A North Korean nuclear missile would only take half an hour to reach Honolulu and the U.S. military would have to know the minute it left the launch pad to be able to shoot it down before it detonated here.

Do I want us to depend on Japan for such vital information? I don't think so. Sixty-four years ago, when the U.S. depended on Japan to keep its word, the attack on Pearl Harbor happened. The Japanese government will concentrate on defending its own territory as it did then and we should do the same now.

__________________
"The earth was made round so we can't see too far down the road and know what is coming." -- Isak Dinesen, Out of Africa
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-09-2006, 04:54 AM
Panthere Noir's Avatar
Panthere Noir (Offline)
Eloquent Troll
Official Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Alien Feline in Tokyo ;)
Posts: 211
Thanks: 0
Thanks 0
Default

I'll get back to you on this in depth later, if you like. For now, just a few "instant reaction" comments.

First and foremost, there is still no proof that NK actually HAS nukes (though I'm sure that if not, Kim's* doing his best to get them and on, from his point of view, entirely reasonable grounds, too - after all, Iraq, that didn't have them, got invaded; Iran, which might or might not have them, is being tip-toe-ep around).

Secondly, I wouldn't bet on it being a short war, unless you assume your leaders are willing to nuke all of NK - with certain leakages to SK, Japan and, even more than to Japan, China - neither of which would take kindly to the proposal and even less kindly to its execution.

Now on purely range issues for NK missiles, it might be a consolation to you to know that by now, Honolulu quite likely won't be the only city nuked - California has recently come within range as well. So, SF and LA would certainly be scheduled to join you. In fact, given Kim's mind set, LA as first target and SF as second, both being mainland USA, would far outrank Honolulu on his priorty list.

On a historical note, you obviously need to read up on history: Yes, Japan did attack Pearl Harbour - an undertaking that their most senior fleet admiral, Yamamoto Isoroku, disapproved off - but that was only after the USA, much in the same vein they are still behaving now - declined to re-sign the Pacific Fleet treaty that granted parity to the forces of the USA, the UK and Japan AND announced it's plan to develope a force EQUAL OR SUPERIOR to any two other Pacific fleets and then put an embargo, particularly of energy sources, on Japan because they refused to sign over absolute military supremacy on the Pacific to the USA.

To get back to Kim, personally, I consider him much less a threat to world peace than your own "we need more effective nukes" (such as bunker busters etc) "war time commader" - and in any case, if Kim becomes a problem, he's a US made one: under Clinton, who offered reasonable assurances of communication, energy supply and non interference, Kim was a pussy cat. It was being called part of the "Axis of Evil" by a certain you ought to know who that rekindled his "nucular" aspirations.

With Love from Tokyo - just so you won't feel so lonely on the target list. Though funnily, people here are far less worried than the physically if not neccesarily politically left edge of the USA . . .

Saraba.

*Addendum: To me, it's still much of an open question who is the greater lunatic: one who tries to get what he, with reason, might think of the only likely deterrent to invasion or someone who attacks another country on what, in the end, amounts to a whim: ideological reasons without foundation in reality, and without even following the forms of conflict, such as offically declaring war and giving the oppoent a chance to surrender.
__________________
A work of art is the unique result of a unique temperament. - Oscar Wilde
Saite yuku, Higansakura ya, Chi no shizuku; Shiroi suhada ni, Makana hanataba . . .

Last edited by Panthere Noir; 03-09-2006 at 05:06 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-09-2006, 05:31 AM
starrwriter's Avatar
starrwriter (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Posts: 4,280
Thanks: 0
Thanks 4
Default

Originally Posted by Panthere Noir
I'll get back to you on this in depth later, if you like. For now, just a few "instant reaction" comments ...
I still don't want the U.S. to depend on Japan or any other foreign country for its missile defense system. That's just plain stupid.

I'm well aware of the history of the Japanese imperial government. They sent "peace" envoys to Washington while they were making final preparations to attack Pearl Harbor. If they weren't planning to take over the entire Pacific and Asia, they could have negotiated a way around the U.S. oil embargo. After what they did in Korea, Manchuria and China, the U.S. government was 100% right to oppose any further expansion. We simply shouldn't have put our entire Pacific fleet in one port.

BTW, I was against the Iraq war from Day 1 and I think we should pull out immediately. But Bush's rhetoric that included North Korea in his axis of evil is no excuse for Kim's lunacy. Up to 1 million North Koreans starved to death a few years ago while Kim continued to spend his country's resources on the military. He's a dangerous megalomaniac who makes Bush look like a Girl Scout by comparison.
__________________
"The earth was made round so we can't see too far down the road and know what is coming." -- Isak Dinesen, Out of Africa
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-09-2006, 11:37 AM
solecistic (Offline)
Scribbling Master
Official Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 577
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

Arguably, we have people dying in the United States of America because of the amount of money spent on the military.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  WritersBeat.com > General Discussion > Writers' Cafe


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Reverse of Aloha starrwriter Non-Fiction 4 05-21-2006 09:07 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:32 AM.

vBulletin, Copyright 2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.