Video: Is that a launch pad or is Pyongyang just happy to see us?

posted at 1:51 pm on November 30, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

No, it’s a launch pad, which North Korea will use to either (a) test its potential nuclear-weapon platform, (b) launch a satellite, or (c) deploy the millions of troops necessary to make the recent Red Dawn remake come to life.  I mentioned this development earlier in the week, but at that time the satellite images weren’t part of the story.  CNN’s report this morning makes it clear that Pyongyang wants to at least threaten to launch a missile, but oddly doesn’t do much analysis on why:

North Korea has moved another step closer to the unusual and provocative move of launching a long-range rocket in wintertime, according to an analysis of satellite images by a U.S. academic website.

Using commercial satellite imagery, the website 38 North says that trailers carrying the first two stages of one of the North’s Unha rockets can be seen near the main missile assembly building at the Sohae Satellite Launch Station on the country’s west coast.

The analysis published Thursday by 38 North, which is run by the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, follows the release of an image earlier this week by the satellite imagery company DigitalGlobe that showed increased activity at the launch station.

The developments shown in the images suggest North Korea could carry out a rocket launch as soon as “the latter half of the first week of December, weather permitting,” 38 North said.

There are two reasons why the Kim regime — if Kim Jong-un is really running things at all — might have chosen this odd timing for a provocation.  First, winter is fast approaching, and the missile launch last April blew up a deal on food aid.  The regime might be worried about a panic over food, and may see a missile-test threat as a good way to cut an aid deal from as much strength as North Korea can muster.

Second, South Korea will hold national elections on December 19th.  The timing of the missile launch window seems pretty coincidental if not related to sending a message to voters south of the 38th Parallel.  The regime may be attempting to flex its muscles as a way to get voters to elect a more pliable government, although if so, that effort may end up backfiring worse than … well, worse than North Korea missile tests in general, including the effort in April.

Either way, a threatened launch of missiles — especially long-range missiles — will put the peninsula back on the front burners of diplomats throughout the Pacific Rim.  And that might be the real reason why attention-starved Pyongyang is making the threat.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

One of these times they’ll get that thing to work. Then what?

LoganSix on November 30, 2012 at 1:53 PM

I’m not worried, 0bama is in charge. Look at how well he handled the Benghazi situation.

jukin3 on November 30, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Maybe we can contract with them to launch a man into space. Since we have dismantled NASA, we can outsource our space program to NK and the Muslim world who contributed so much to the space technology according to Dear Leader.

they lie on November 30, 2012 at 1:56 PM

Maybe they just built the thing and have people wandering around looking busy in order to give the appearance that they can do something.

Or not.

Either way, Obama will do nothing about it and ignore it.

kim roy on November 30, 2012 at 1:58 PM

I’m not worried, 0bama is in charge. Look at how well he handled the Benghazi situation.

jukin3 on November 30, 2012 at 1:55 PM

A nuke will land on us and Susan Rice will blame “Red Dawn.”

Rixon on November 30, 2012 at 1:59 PM

(c) deploy the millions of troops necessary to make the recent Red Dawn remake come to life.

Here’s hoping for c. If for no other reason than to laugh at the WH/MSM talk of how the invasion is a result of that horrid movie sparking such outrage in North Korea. Spontaneously of course.

Gatsu on November 30, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Doesn’t the US have a nifty ABM system shoehorned into a 747 called the ATL (Advanced Tactical Laser)? It seems like a golden opportunity to do a live test of the thing.

suburbanite on November 30, 2012 at 2:02 PM

No, it’s a launch pad, which North Korea will use to either (a) test its potential nuclear-weapon platform, (b) launch a satellite, or (c) deploy the millions of troops necessary to make the recent Red Dawn remake come to life.

Don’t be ridicules Ed, that is just Pyongyang’s newest advanced marijuana delivery system for when California legalizes pot next year…. o_O

SWalker on November 30, 2012 at 2:04 PM

“It’s only a model.”

“Shhh!”

CurtZHP on November 30, 2012 at 2:06 PM

A nuke will land on us and Susan Rice will blame “Red Dawn.”

Rixon on November 30, 2012 at 1:59 PM

They should arrest the producer of Red Dawn NOW!

It’s the banana republic thing to do.

“The future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of North Korea Kim Jong-un.”

the_nile on November 30, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Looks like a bathhouse to me.

faraway on November 30, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Did we help them build it? You know, as a good will measure?

JellyToast on November 30, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Doesn’t the US have a nifty ABM system shoehorned into a 747 called the ATL (Advanced Tactical Laser)? It seems like a golden opportunity to do a live test of the thing.

suburbanite on November 30, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Umm, that would be a big “no”. ABL (Airborne Laser Program) was killed several years ago and the project’s components are being parted out.

AZfederalist on November 30, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Did we help them build it? You know, as a good will measure?

JellyToast on November 30, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Well, we do know, “They didn’t build that. There was someone there to help them”

AZfederalist on November 30, 2012 at 2:10 PM

You are STILL worthress Arec Bardwin!

Roy Rogers on November 30, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Now, if we had a real American president instead of the Jugeared marxist trying to destroy the country from within, this would be a good opportunity to do an end to end test of our anti-ballistic missile system such as the SM-3 without the expense of having to put up our own target. Golden opportunity to test the whole warning through intercept system with a target being launched from a known location at an unknown time and trajectory.

Unfortunately, all we have is the jugeared keynesian, so this will be an opportunity lost.

AZfederalist on November 30, 2012 at 2:13 PM

You are STILL worthress Arec Bardwin!

Roy Rogers on November 30, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Ah, but Arec Bardwin is still alive and Kim Jong Il is not.

AZfederalist on November 30, 2012 at 2:14 PM

A nuke will land on us and Susan Rice will blame “Red Dawn.”

Rixon on November 30, 2012 at 1:59 PM

No, we’ll be told not to jump to conclusions. That this might have been a simple mistake on North Korea’s part.

Then five days later, Susan Rice will be out there on all the Sunday talk shows telling us that it’s America’s fault for being to arrogant. That North Korea was only “acting out” because the US wasn’t showing them the love and respect they need to be self-confident members of the international community.

Happy Nomad on November 30, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Umm, that would be a big “no”. ABL (Airborne Laser Program) was killed several years ago and the project’s components are being parted out.

AZfederalist on November 30, 2012 at 2:09 PM

I guess they didn’t bundle enough campaign cash for the rat-eared wonder.

Happy Nomad on November 30, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Alcohol is more harmful than north korean missiles. They should be decriminalized and taxed.

rw on November 30, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Doesn’t the US have a nifty ABM system shoehorned into a 747 called the ATL (Advanced Tactical Laser)? It seems like a golden opportunity to do a live test of the thing.

suburbanite

I’ll give you 3 guesses who canceled this proven technology.

jdpaz on November 30, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Guess the little nk worm wasn’t thrilled being called out by the Onion? A sexy, round face, etc. guy was funny and nk press has egg on their face!
L

letget on November 30, 2012 at 2:23 PM

One of these times they’ll get that thing to work. Then what?

LoganSix on November 30, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Then our only hope is that, among all the secrets that our government has been keeping from us, they have some secret weapon that can shoot it down.

With O-Zero in charge, well, I don’t expect much of a response. You better just have a really big, strong umbrella when the Korean missiles come raining down.

UltimateBob on November 30, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Umm, that would be a big “no”. ABL (Airborne Laser Program) was killed several years ago and the project’s components are being parted out.

AZfederalist on November 30, 2012 at 2:09 PM

One more example of smart power. The bayonets are next.

tommer74 on November 30, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Doesn’t the US have a nifty ABM system shoehorned into a 747 called the ATL (Advanced Tactical Laser)? It seems like a golden opportunity to do a live test of the thing.

suburbanite

I’ll give you 3 guesses who canceled this proven technology.

jdpaz on November 30, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Wasn’t there another one, some floating platform in the Pacific with an ABM system mounted to it that was pretty much foolproof, that he mothballed early in his first term?

Smart power.

UltimateBob on November 30, 2012 at 2:28 PM

+1 rixon @1:59

cmsinaz on November 30, 2012 at 2:28 PM

This is just a cement factory.

portlandon on November 30, 2012 at 2:30 PM

We should have seen this coming.

Capitalist Hog on November 30, 2012 at 2:30 PM

With O-Zero in charge, well, I don’t expect much of a response. You better just have a really big, strong umbrella when the Korean missiles come raining down.

UltimateBob on November 30, 2012 at 2:25 PM

It wouldn’t be fair to use all of our nukes against North Korea after they’ve fired their only one. /

Happy Nomad on November 30, 2012 at 2:31 PM

This is just a cement factory.

portlandon on November 30, 2012 at 2:30 PM

No, it’s a launch pad factory.

Happy Nomad on November 30, 2012 at 2:32 PM

ObamaMan will just fly over there and blow it up with his FocusedLikeALaserSmartPower rays.

Once that’s done, he’ll take a well-deserved HawayCay on the way back.

Or more likely, he’ll just skip the first part and go directly to the HawayCay.

Marcola on November 30, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Starve ‘em out!

GarandFan on November 30, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Cult of Personality Showdown: Dear Leader vs. Dear Reader

Christien on November 30, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Cult of Personality Showdown: Dear Leader vs. Dear Reader

Christien on November 30, 2012 at 2:37 PM

What could possibly go wrong????

SWalker on November 30, 2012 at 2:41 PM

No worries of a sequester in the DPRK.

Jabberwock on November 30, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Which West Coast Blue city will be the destination for NK’s missile?

goatweed on November 30, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Oppa Pyongyang stle!

Ars Moriendi on November 30, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Screw you.

Sorry, just trying to keep with the ‘refernece all other recent posts in this one’ theme.

Midas on November 30, 2012 at 2:54 PM

“There are two reasons why the Kim regime — if Kim Jong-un is really running things at all — might have chosen this odd timing for a provocation. ”

In what way is this provocation? Explain, Ed.

Dante on November 30, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Which West Coast Blue city will be the destination for NK’s missile?

goatweed on November 30, 2012 at 2:53 PM

For the love of “Our Lord and Savior” Barack Insane Obama, please let it be San Fransicko…

SWalker on November 30, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Then our only hope is that, among all the secrets that our government has been keeping from us, they have some secret weapon that can shoot it down.

UltimateBob on November 30, 2012 at 2:25 PM

They’re loading small-business owners on to the catapults as we speak.

Midas on November 30, 2012 at 2:58 PM

In what way is this provocation? Explain, Ed.

Dante on November 30, 2012 at 2:57 PM

I believe this is where a textbook would state, “the proof is left to the reader” and a college professor during a lecture would make the statement, “… based upon this, the conclusion is obvious”

/Let’s see, a launch pad for a missile that can strike South Korea, Japan, or the West Coast of the United States being built by a country that has enslaved its own people and routinely attempts to infiltrate its neighbor to the south. Nope, nothing to worry about there.

AZfederalist on November 30, 2012 at 3:01 PM

For the love of “Our Lord and Savior” Barack Insane Obama, please let it be San Fransicko…

SWalker on November 30, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Well, if their inertial guidance technology is as reliable as the rest of their rocket technology, they could aim for SF and have a CEP (cicular error probable) of somewhere from San Deigo to Seattle.

AZfederalist on November 30, 2012 at 3:04 PM

I believe this is where a textbook would state, “the proof is left to the reader” and a college professor during a lecture would make the statement, “… based upon this, the conclusion is obvious”

/Let’s see, a launch pad for a missile that can strike South Korea, Japan, or the West Coast of the United States being built by a country that has enslaved its own people and routinely attempts to infiltrate its neighbor to the south. Nope, nothing to worry about there.

AZfederalist on November 30, 2012 at 3:01 PM

So in other words, begging the question. Well, I guess that’s one way to avoid answering the question.

Dante on November 30, 2012 at 3:13 PM

So in other words, begging the question. Well, I guess that’s one way to avoid answering the question.

Dante on November 30, 2012 at 3:13 PM

No, in other words, “yer an idiot if you can’t see an existential threat from North Korea having ICBM’s”

AZfederalist on November 30, 2012 at 3:16 PM

If they do launch a nuke, I don’t really care which blue state it lands in. I believe in equal opportunity.

Old Country Boy on November 30, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Video proof that North Korea’s space program is now more advanced then USA’s, thanks Obama

DANEgerus on November 30, 2012 at 3:20 PM

I’m not worried, 0bama is in charge.

It’s a good thing we made those cuts to missile defense and have that sequestration thing coming!
Oh, wait…

Dexter_Alarius on November 30, 2012 at 3:23 PM

No, in other words, “yer an idiot if you can’t see an existential threat from North Korea having ICBM’s”

AZfederalist on November 30, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Another dodge. North Korea, in any capacity, is no existential threat to the United States.

So when we launch weapons and missle tests, are we guilty of provocation?

Dante on November 30, 2012 at 3:26 PM

So in other words, begging the question. Well, I guess that’s one way to avoid answering the question.

Dante on November 30, 2012 at 3:13 PM

You think they’re building launching pads and trying (?) to make weapons in order to hang Christmas lights from?

Or a make work project?

So they can say they have full employment?

Or just because they have extra money to spend and Kim #1 liked shiny metals?

And no, they don’t have to have them in order to defend themselves. If someone were so inclined they could have turned NK into a parking lot decades ago.

But you go ahead thinking there’s no problem. I’ve been told it’s quiet with the sand running through your ears.

kim roy on November 30, 2012 at 3:29 PM

You think they’re building launching pads and trying (?) to make weapons in order to hang Christmas lights from?

Or a make work project?

So they can say they have full employment?

Or just because they have extra money to spend and Kim #1 liked shiny metals?

And no, they don’t have to have them in order to defend themselves. If someone were so inclined they could have turned NK into a parking lot decades ago.

But you go ahead thinking there’s no problem. I’ve been told it’s quiet with the sand running through your ears.

kim roy on November 30, 2012 at 3:29 PM

They’re a sovereign nation. They have every right to build launching pads and make weapons. They have every right to create the means with which to defend themselves.

You’re just presenting neocon, interventionist hysteria.

Dante on November 30, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Another dodge. North Korea, in any capacity, is no existential threat to the United States.

So when we launch weapons and missle tests, are we guilty of provocation?

Dante on November 30, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Oh good grief. Here’s another isolationist.

Of course not. Our sole purpose to have weapons is not to demolish a neighbor. If it was, then we would have. You know that, but it doesn’t fit into your isolationist mind-set.

You honestly think that if loons like Iran and NK get nukes that they’ll be satisfied cratering Israel and Japan only? Really?

kim roy on November 30, 2012 at 3:32 PM

They’re a sovereign nation. They have every right to build launching pads and make weapons. They have every right to create the means with which to defend themselves.

You’re just presenting neocon, interventionist hysteria.

Dante on November 30, 2012 at 3:32 PM

And you are a braindead isolationist. NYAH NYAH NYAH.

They are a little late to the invisible invasion that occurred. Defend themselves from what? Who? Like I said, they could have been turned into a parking lot eons ago if someone were so inclined and could have done nothing about it.

You are not presenting a logical argument.

kim roy on November 30, 2012 at 3:34 PM

And you are a braindead isolationist. NYAH NYAH NYAH.

They are a little late to the invisible invasion that occurred. Defend themselves from what? Who? Like I said, they could have been turned into a parking lot eons ago if someone were so inclined and could have done nothing about it.

You are not presenting a logical argument.

kim roy on November 30, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Non-interventionism is not the same as isolationism.

You aren’t presenting any argument at all, so try to: in what way is this an example of provocation?

Of course not. Our sole purpose to have weapons is not to demolish a neighbor. If it was, then we would have. You know that, but it doesn’t fit into your isolationist mind-set.

You honestly think that if loons like Iran and NK get nukes that they’ll be satisfied cratering Israel and Japan only? Really?

kim roy on November 30, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Oh, really? So our openly saying that “all options are on the table” or engaging in warfare and war activities against a nation isn’t provocative? Of course it isn’t. It’s only provocative when they build weapons and test them. You have swallowed the war machine’s propaganda whole.

Dante on November 30, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Oh good grief. Here’s another isolationist.

kim roy on November 30, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Believe it or not, Dante is one of those pudding-headed fools who supported Ron Paul for his moronic isolationist views and not the pot thing.

What I find most disturbing is his idea that we’re no better than North Korea. That they and their “form” of government is equally justifiable as our own. Frankly, I think he admires North Korea for their committment to isolationism. You won’t see the North Korean Army get involved in the Middle East no siree. And why? Because they have an isolationist policy.

Happy Nomad on November 30, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Do NOT, I repeat, do NOT launch the missile until AFTER December 10th.

I’m flying into Korea at that time…I don’t want my flight to be delayed because the NORKOS are launching a FRIGGIN’ MISSILE!

UODuckMan on November 30, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Yeah but, will this missile run on biofuel?

Akzed on November 30, 2012 at 3:41 PM

A source tells me some high up in the CoC think North Korea may try and incite the war of all wars to end the world as the Mayans predicted. There are serious concerns about this and the timing of these movements.

TheAudacityofNOPE on November 30, 2012 at 3:41 PM

It’s only provocative when they build weapons and test them. You have swallowed the war machine’s propaganda whole.

Dante on November 30, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Yeah, in the absence of the “war machine” the world would be at peace. Right? You’re an naive idiot if you think that peace would break out without a “war machine” which I assume is your pudding-headed way of referring to the Military-Industrial complex

Happy Nomad on November 30, 2012 at 3:43 PM

What I find most disturbing is his idea that we’re no better than North Korea. That they and their “form” of government is equally justifiable as our own. Frankly, I think he admires North Korea for their committment to isolationism. You won’t see the North Korean Army get involved in the Middle East no siree. And why? Because they have an isolationist policy.

Happy Nomad on November 30, 2012 at 3:39 PM

That’s your idea, not mine. Try to not put words in people’s mouths.

Dante on November 30, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Non-interventionism is not the same as isolationism.

Dante on November 30, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Tell that to the European Jews who were ignored by FDR back in the 1930s. I’m sure they’d appreciate the distinctions between the two.

Happy Nomad on November 30, 2012 at 3:45 PM

A source tells me some high up in the CoC think North Korea may try and incite the war of all wars to end the world as the Mayans predicted. There are serious concerns about this and the timing of these movements. TheAudacityofNOPE on November 30, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Well the yoke’s on them because, since the Mayans didn’t factor in leap years, their calendar ended 460 days or so ago.

Akzed on November 30, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Yeah, in the absence of the “war machine” the world would be at peace. Right? You’re an naive idiot if you think that peace would break out without a “war machine” which I assume is your pudding-headed way of referring to the Military-Industrial complex

Happy Nomad on November 30, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Interesting words. Your argument reminds me of this:

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Dante on November 30, 2012 at 3:45 PM

You won’t see the North Korean Army get involved in the Middle East no siree. And why? Because they have an isolationist policy.

Happy Nomad on November 30, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Well except toward South Korea. Do you think that if they were confident they could overwhelm the south in a conflict that they would not have already deployed the tanks? It’s not so much that they are isolationist as that they have a single-minded objective — re-conquering South Korea and subjugating its citizens to the same utopia as the north now enjoys (who needs those city lights or food anyway?). To that end, they are more than happy to support Middle Eastern terrorists by supplying arms as best they can in exchange for currency.

AZfederalist on November 30, 2012 at 3:46 PM

That’s your idea, not mine. Try to not put words in people’s mouths.

Dante on November 30, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Ha! Nice try but your own words betray you. You are saying that North Korea is no better or worse than our own nation.

Happy Nomad on November 30, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Given the track record of other countries that launch ICBMs, what CEP could we expect from a first, successful crossing of the Pacific by a NK missile? Ten miles? How long before they successfully put a nuclear warhead on it?

Oh, aren’t we still in a state of war with NK?

goatweed on November 30, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Tell that to the European Jews who were ignored by FDR back in the 1930s. I’m sure they’d appreciate the distinctions between the two.

Happy Nomad on November 30, 2012 at 3:45 PM

FDR desired war. He was, after all, a progressive, and interventionism is the foreign policy of progressivism. That was a swing and a miss for an example.

Dante on November 30, 2012 at 3:46 PM

It’s the Gates of the Unicorn Lair

Akzed on November 30, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Ha! Nice try but your own words betray you. You are saying that North Korea is no better or worse than our own nation.

Happy Nomad on November 30, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Provide the direct quote with the timestamp, then.

Dante on November 30, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Dante wouldn’t care if NK invaded Canada, set the missile launcher up on the Canadian side of Niagara Falls, tipped it on its side, pointed it into New York and had soldiers standing there with their thumbs on the button.

cptacek on November 30, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Do you think that if they were confident they could overwhelm the south in a conflict that they would not have already deployed the tanks? It’s not so much that they are isolationist as that they have a single-minded objective — re-conquering South Korea and subjugating its citizens to the same utopia as the north now enjoys (who needs those city lights or food anyway?). To that end, they are more than happy to support Middle Eastern terrorists by supplying arms as best they can in exchange for currency.

AZfederalist on November 30, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Were it not for the US’s continued presence in South Korea, the North would be over the border in a heartbeat. They know that the minute they cross over, they will find their own nation reduced to a smoldering heap of debris. But, of course, this is the kind of war-like action that Dante finds distasteful. He’s have us sit at home and watch real-time in much the way he supported the idea that our ambassador could get killed at Benghazi without a single attempt at rescue during the twelve-hour battle.

Happy Nomad on November 30, 2012 at 3:49 PM

That was a swing and a miss for an example.

Dante on November 30, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Not from the perspective of the European Jews.

Happy Nomad on November 30, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Were it not for the US’s continued presence in South Korea, the North would be over the border in a heartbeat. They know that the minute they cross over, they will find their own nation reduced to a smoldering heap of debris. But, of course, this is the kind of war-like action that Dante finds distasteful. He’s have us sit at home and watch real-time in much the way he supported the idea that our ambassador could get killed at Benghazi without a single attempt at rescue during the twelve-hour battle.

Happy Nomad on November 30, 2012 at 3:49 PM

All you ever post on this site are lies.

Can you find for me in the Constitution where the common defense refers to defending other sovereign nations?

Dante on November 30, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Provide the direct quote with the timestamp, then. Dante on November 30, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Why don’t you take your jacks and go home?

Akzed on November 30, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Can you find for me in the Constitution where the common defense refers to defending other sovereign nations?

Dante on November 30, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Can you find for me in the Constitution there is a prohibition on turning a clearly hostile nation into a parking lot made of molten basalt?

Archivarix on November 30, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Can you find for me in the Constitution there is a prohibition on turning a clearly hostile nation into a parking lot made of molten basalt?

Archivarix on November 30, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Oh, another straw man. How cute.

Dante on November 30, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Can you find for me in the Constitution where the common defense refers to defending other sovereign nations? Dante on November 30, 2012 at 3:53 PM

“The Congress shall have Power to define and punish… Offenses against the Law of Nations…” -Art. I Sec. 8

Akzed on November 30, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Oh, another straw man. How cute.

Dante on November 30, 2012 at 3:56 PM

That was plain stupid. I really don’t see a problem in US unilaterally solve the North Korean problem the way they did in 1945. I used to have moral standards, you know, but I cannot afford them these days, and nukes are much cheaper than military bases abroad. Smaller military, y’know.

Archivarix on November 30, 2012 at 3:59 PM

“The Congress shall have Power to define and punish… Offenses against the Law of Nations…” -Art. I Sec. 8

Akzed on November 30, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Here’s the full bit of text: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations

I’ll take that as a no.

Dante on November 30, 2012 at 4:00 PM

That was plain stupid. I really don’t see a problem in US unilaterally solve the North Korean problem the way they did in 1945. I used to have moral standards, you know, but I cannot afford them these days, and nukes are much cheaper than military bases abroad. Smaller military, y’know.

Archivarix on November 30, 2012 at 3:59 PM

The problem isn’t ours to solve.

Still, no one has explained why this is (or would be) a provocative act by NK.

Dante on November 30, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Dante on November 30, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Apparently Jefferson, Adams, Washington, and other founders felt that protection of American interests, even to the extent of invading foreign lands such as the taking of Tripoli were certainly well within the established constitutional powers of the US. Oh, by the way, they did that only with an authorization for the use of force, not a direct declaration of war.

Let’s see, Ron Paul, Founding Fathers — Yeah, I’m going with the founders on this one.

It’s in the interests of the US that the Korean Peninsula not fall to the communists.

AZfederalist on November 30, 2012 at 4:04 PM

The problem isn’t ours to solve.

Still, no one has explained why this is (or would be) a provocative act by NK.

Dante on November 30, 2012 at 4:01 PM

I played chess in my youth, and there was a rule drilled into our heads: one who has an advantage must, or the advantage will eventually be lost. So, to answer your question – no, not because of the platform. Just because they don’t like us, we don’t like them, they don’t have anything we need or want, and most importantly, while we still can.

Archivarix on November 30, 2012 at 4:06 PM

God must look down on us and just shake his head. Also, the Mission Control part of that video looks really amatuerish. It takes my son and I more resources just to launch a bottle rocket!

Deano1952 on November 30, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Here’s the full bit of text: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations I’ll take that as a no. Dante on November 30, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Huh, so what stance are we allowed to take against offenses against the law of nations then?

May we define and punish them, or is “offenses against the law of nations” a meaningless appendage that doesn’t belong to the rest of the sentence?

If my quotation differs from the actual meaning please parse this sentence for me to make sense of it, I’m interested in seeing you tie yourself in knots ignoring its plain meaning.

Akzed on November 30, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Of course not. Our sole purpose to have weapons is not to demolish a neighbor. If it was, then we would have. You know that, but it doesn’t fit into your isolationist mind-set.

You honestly think that if loons like Iran and NK get nukes that they’ll be satisfied cratering Israel and Japan only? Really?

kim roy on November 30, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Oh, really? So our openly saying that “all options are on the table” or engaging in warfare and war activities against a nation isn’t provocative? Of course it isn’t. It’s only provocative when they build weapons and test them. You have swallowed the war machine’s propaganda whole.

Dante on November 30, 2012 at 3:38 PM

What in the world are you babbling about? I’m talking about what is happening and has happened. FACTS. Things you can actually see. We’ve had nukes for how long and HAVE NOT used them for decades. FACT.

Can you say the same about NK? That they’d just build them and have them sit there? Of course not. And you’d be stupid to make that assertion.

It’s obvious you cannot handle linear thought.

kim roy on November 30, 2012 at 4:08 PM

It’s in the interests of the US that the Korean Peninsula not fall to the communists.

AZfederalist on November 30, 2012 at 4:04 PM

I don’t mind the Korean Peninsula fall to the communists, really, as long as there is nothing alive there. Let them chisel the next platform with flint axes and sharpened bones.

Archivarix on November 30, 2012 at 4:09 PM

AZfederalist on November 30, 2012 at 4:04 PM

I’ll take that as a no as well.

Dante on November 30, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Archivarix on November 30, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Must what?!

Akzed on November 30, 2012 at 4:11 PM

What in the world are you babbling about? I’m talking about what is happening and has happened. FACTS. Things you can actually see. We’ve had nukes for how long and HAVE NOT used them for decades. FACT.

Can you say the same about NK? That they’d just build them and have them sit there? Of course not. And you’d be stupid to make that assertion.

It’s obvious you cannot handle linear thought.

kim roy on November 30, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Nuclear weapons are beside the point. I’m talking about the U.S. engaging for years in warfare against Iran as an example. We openly discuss bombing Iran and the administration has said “all options are on the table,” in referring to bombing Iran. Yet when Iran responds to these acts and threats, it’s labeled “provocation.”

Same thing with NK. How is this test, or upcoming test, an act of provocation?

Dante on November 30, 2012 at 4:13 PM

The problem isn’t ours to solve.

Still, no one has explained why this is (or would be) a provocative act by NK.

Dante on November 30, 2012 at 4:01 PM

I already did you silly isolationist. I said that no reasonable, thoughtful person (which I see is where the problem started) would think that NK is building them to look at them or to put Christmas lights on them. They’ve pretty much shown what they intend to do with their actions against SK.

Of course, these subtleties are lost on you.

If you want blatant, how about Iran? They have unequivocally stated that they wish to crater Israel. Or is that not clear enough for you?

It would take you to be linear and thoughtful for you to move onto the next step to realize that psychotic mass murderers that want to wipe out an entire race/country would not be satisfied to stop there and perhaps aim at other countries they are displeased with. In the case of Iran and NK, the list is long.

I’ll leave you with this as history (yet another pesky fact) shows that once these people start, they don’t stop:

“First they came for the communists,and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist. Then they came for the socialists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.”
- Niemoller

kim roy on November 30, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Huh, so what stance are we allowed to take against offenses against the law of nations then?

May we define and punish them, or is “offenses against the law of nations” a meaningless appendage that doesn’t belong to the rest of the sentence?

If my quotation differs from the actual meaning please parse this sentence for me to make sense of it, I’m interested in seeing you tie yourself in knots ignoring its plain meaning.

Akzed on November 30, 2012 at 4:08 PM

This is a red herring argument. I asked where in the Constitution the common defense refers to the defense of other sovereign nations. You have, so far, been unable to show it; and you will continue to be unable to find it because it doesn’t exist.

The defense of any other sovereign nation is not our responsibility. Their affairs and problems are theirs alone.

Dante on November 30, 2012 at 4:17 PM

Same thing with NK. How is this test, or upcoming test, an act of provocation? Dante on November 30, 2012 at 4:13 PM

North Korea started a war in 1950, and no peace treaty has been executed.

Iran started a war and has attacked us many times.

So in both cases, whenever either nation does anything we don’t like, it is a provocation.

Here’s the full bit of text: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations I’ll take that as a no. Dante on November 30, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Huh, so what stance are we allowed to take against offenses against the law of nations then?

May we define and punish them, or is “offenses against the law of nations” a meaningless appendage that doesn’t belong to the rest of the sentence?

If my quotation differs from the actual meaning please parse this sentence for me to make sense of it, I’m interested in seeing you tie yourself in knots ignoring its plain meaning. Akzed on November 30, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Akzed on November 30, 2012 at 4:17 PM

I already did you silly isolationist. I said that no reasonable, thoughtful person (which I see is where the problem started) would think that NK is building them to look at them or to put Christmas lights on them. They’ve pretty much shown what they intend to do with their actions against SK.

kim roy on November 30, 2012 at 4:15 PM

You did no such thing other than provide a logical fallacy. We’ve already had someone else beg the question, you didn’t need to do it again.

Dante on November 30, 2012 at 4:19 PM

So in both cases, whenever either nation does anything we don’t like, it is a provocation.

Akzed on November 30, 2012 at 4:17 PM

Finally, an honest statement.

Dante on November 30, 2012 at 4:20 PM

The defense of any other sovereign nation is not our responsibility. Their affairs and problems are theirs alone. Dante on November 30, 2012 at 4:17 PM

The term “common defense” is from the preamble, where it is a generalization.

The enumerated powers of Art 1 Sec 8 empower congress inter alia to raise an army, declare war, and defend other nations.

I strongly suspect that you understand this, but won’t admit to it due to deep-seated emotional problems.

Akzed on November 30, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Finally, an honest statement. Dante on November 30, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Yes, we are allowed to define for ourselves what constitutes a provocation from nations at war with us. That is true.

Akzed on November 30, 2012 at 4:24 PM

You did no such thing other than provide a logical fallacy. We’ve already had someone else beg the question, you didn’t need to do it again.

Dante on November 30, 2012 at 4:19 PM

Just because you don’t like the answer doesn’t mean the question hasn’t been answered, Time Sink.

Why don’t you tell us why they need launch pads? They have a population that has no electricity and food needs. No one is bothering them and they run really no risk of any kind of military action against them if they keep to themselves (right, isolationist?).

So why then? Again, the logical, linear, thoughtful and history based answer would result in they want to use them elsewhere.

This isn’t “Let’s Make a Deal” where you get to ignore answers until you get one you like. Sometimes you end up with the goat, which in your case is an answer you don’t like.

kim roy on November 30, 2012 at 4:25 PM

The enumerated powers of Art 1 Sec 8 empower congress inter alia to raise an army, declare war, and defend other nations.

I strongly suspect that you understand this, but won’t admit to it due to deep-seated emotional problems.

Akzed on November 30, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Quote the Constitution, then. No, on second thought, since you keep dodging and trying to argue something that doesn’t exist in order to justify the War Party machine and the progressivists’ foreign policy, I’ll do it for you:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Yeah, nothing in there about defending other nations.

Dante on November 30, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Must what?!

Akzed on November 30, 2012 at 4:11 PM

One who has an advantage must attack, or the advantage will eventually be lost.

Clumsy fingers and Friday afternoon exhaustion. Sorry.

Archivarix on November 30, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Just because you don’t like the answer doesn’t mean the question hasn’t been answered, Time Sink.

Why don’t you tell us why they need launch pads? They have a population that has no electricity and food needs. No one is bothering them and they run really no risk of any kind of military action against them if they keep to themselves (right, isolationist?).

So why then? Again, the logical, linear, thoughtful and history based answer would result in they want to use them elsewhere.

This isn’t “Let’s Make a Deal” where you get to ignore answers until you get one you like. Sometimes you end up with the goat, which in your case is an answer you don’t like.

kim roy on November 30, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Presenting a logical fallacy is not an answer. I do love the liberal tack you’re taking, though, as evidenced in your use of the word “need”. Again, they are a sovereign nation. If they desire launch pads, that’s their prerogative. The fact that they are building them is not provocative. The fact that they would build weapons and missiles is not provocative. Testing weapons and missiles is not provocative.

Why do you subscribe to and defend progressive policy?

Dante on November 30, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Comment pages: 1 2