Because it's the only part of America worth having?

Japanese intelligence doesn't know shite.

it sounds like Iraq & WMD deployed in 45mins.

why would N Korea provoke the worlds only superpower by firing a ballistic missile at it?

N Korea want their deterrence, nothing more.

> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> Possibly because the US response has pretty much been to lobby for tougher and tougher sanctions... not much else.  North Korea is already more isolated from the world than most tribal communities, so newer sanctions are sort of expected.  Thus, it means short of military threats, there is very little the US can do to North Korea to harm them.  And the US is already in Iraq and Afghanistan, so an invasion of NK by the US seems unlikely.>

We could always just use our air force and whipe them out.

The japanese could do it without US support.

Yeah,but paper doesn

"1: It expends resources of key air power that is currently used in Iraq and Afghanistan."

no, we have air and sea power that can bombard that is already within range to do so.

"2: Replacing lost missiles, lost aircraft, and hazard pay increases for wartime soldiers creates a short term financial burden on the US government."

in a country with the economy of the US, that financial burden for a bombardment is minimal. the financial burden to North Korea to being a victim of the bardment would be much more significant.

"3: An anti-war candidate lobbying for a preemptive war against North Korea would be extremely damaging politically."

not a preemptive war, a bombardment. no more damaging then Clinton bombing Iraq; which wasnt damaging at all.

"4: Best case scenario, there would be disruption of trade with a key trade partner, South Korea.  Worst case scenario, South Korea could be devastated in the conflict."

best case scenario, and most likely scenario, no disruption with South Korea. If North Korea did invade South Korea or attack them, because of an american bombardment, the US would have an international coalition against North Korea.

"5: Didn't Vietnam show you that air power is useless without ground support?  Unless you can take control of the weakened territory, structures can be rebuilt, borders can be fortified again, and supply lines can be redrawn."

in a war, absolutely its useless. but financially, its devastating to the country being bombed. you think that the costs of the bombardment id devastating for the US, with its huge economy, and not being the target of the bombardment, with North Korea's tiny economy, its 100 times worse for them. gonna have a hard time affording nuclear research when they're spending all their resources repairing the damage the bombardment has done.

"6: You can't secretly mobilize large-scale forces.  The US wouldn't be able to hide its military movements from the Press, let alone North Korea.  It's just impossible for us to say, "Oh, by the way, remember that aircraft carrier we said yesterday was parked in the Persian Gulf?  April fools!  It's actually just short of North Korea!  Just got there, and now we're gonna blow up the place!  GG, Kim!"

the US already has a carrier group in the region.... so you fail once again.

naval bomardment would be better imo. i bet North Korea has decent anti-aircraft, and naval bombardment would elimninate chance of POW's, which North Korea could use as bargaining chips.

> EmperorHez wrote:

> anyone remember Pearl Harbor?

the Americans wont fight?

lol thats BS.

Americans are the mostly likely to retaliate.

the only thing the N Koreans would achieve by attacking the USA is bringing about their own destruction. and the world wont bat an eyelid as they'll all rightly side with America.

I'm not saying we wouldn't respond to a missile HITTING the US.  Nobody is arguing that North Korea is going to go and nuke Hawaii.  Read the article.  It says they're going to launch a missile in the direction of Hawaii, but that the missile won't have the range to get to Hawaii.  The whole story changes if that missile were to actually result in the death of even one American.

I'm going to fire a candle at my garden. Casualties will be minimal but it provides a clear sign.

> yeah but why would N Korea which is like 5' 0" tall take a swing at the USA which is like 6' 5" ?

Ball sack shot.

The U.S. falls to its knees, only to be kicked in the head by North Korea.

North Korea has taken half a dozen swings at the US, both figurative and literal.
A: A nuclear test on the 4th of July, three years ago, shortly after new threats were released against thme.
B: The missile test, after consistent demands to not conduct the tests, and shortly after a new round of sanctions following the previous sanctions that followed the nuclear test.
C: The second nuclear test.
D: Screwing the US on the no-nuke treaty the US originally agreed to.
E: Reversing the second disarmament agreement negotiated during Bush Jr.
F: Unending threats, including threatening to destroy the US and CONSTANT threats of invading South Korea, including the massive mobilization at the border.
G: Sales of nuclear material and missiles across the world, including intercepted material in Libya and Syria, in blatant disregard for the fact that the US has a declared attribution policy with regard to North Korean nuclear material (If North Korea assists proliferation outside its borders, they are responsible for the results of that proliferation).

That means two things:

1: Empirically, the US won't respond militarily to actions that don't cause collateral damage to the US.
2: North Korea empirically is willing to saber-rattle, and play a good deal of brinksmanship, against the US.

There's a simple reason as to why North Korea would take a swing at the US: They think we'll crack.  Look, the US already has military commitments outside the Korean Peninsula, and possibly another flare-up in Iran.  Each troop commitment reduces US resources to respond to North Korea, whether it be manpower, military hardware, or simply economic power.

The US has already negotiated two different agreements with North Korea, while at the same time, North Korea, has been trying its hardest to piss us off.  The result?  They get a better deal each time.

Consider it like a hostage situation.  A dozen terrorists holding 100 prisoners are almost guaranteed to get their asses kicked if they fought against the police.  However, if they don't retain a tough stance against the police, the terrorists look like wimps, and the prisoners aren't considered to be in danger immediate enough to warrant serious concessions in negotiation.  Thus, the terrorists need to engage in brinkmanship: The threat to cross a line, without actually crossing the line.

Maybe that was the plan.  Build up this giant hype about North Korea launching a missile six feet away from Hawaii.  Then when we're all ready to nuke them if they launch a long range missile, they instead launch a couple crappy Scuds into the water.  The world says, "okay, that wasn't as bad as we expected," and walks away.