Norks building mobile long range missile that can reach US

| December 6, 2011

Our buddy, Bill Gertz at the Washington Times writes that the North Koreans are developing a mobile concealable long range missile capable of hitting the US according to the Sevretary of Defense Leon Panette.

The new intelligence was discussed during a closed-door briefing in mid-November for the House Armed Services subcommittee on strategic forces and discussed in the letter to Mr. Panetta. The letter did not say specifically that the missile was North Korean, but it quoted Mr. Gates on Pyongyang’s mobile ICBM development.

We’ve been at war with North Korea and Iran for decades while acting like we’re not. Iran is advancing their nuclear program unhindered and North Korea, which already has nukes is targeting our West Coast. And Iran has one of our most secret drones. And we’re drawing down our forces and cutting defense spending in the face of these potential threats. Nice situation we find ourselves in, huh?

Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Foreign Policy, Terror War

10 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Zero Ponsdorf

BOHICA!

I’m gonna throw my considerable clout behind Ron Paul. He will take care of this.

0
2-17 AirCav

I hate to sound callous but if its only the West Coast that’s targeted, I hope we don’t do anything rash.

0
Flagwaver

Thanks, 2-17… I love you, too.

I still say that we should turn the Korean Peninsula into The island of South Korea.

0
DefiantSix

We seem to be operating under the assumption that this long range missile designed to hit the US isn’t going to eat itself 25 seconds off the pad like all the others have…

0
Doc Bailey

Gee wouldn’t it be great if we had missile defense shield. Too bad someone cut all the funding for that.

0
Eagle Keeper

Defiant,

You’re missing the point. Totally.

The mere fact that the N. Korean regime even wants such a weapon is all the reason we need to turn S. Korea into an island.

/sarcasm

0
Eagle Keeper

Throughout the Iraq debate, I’ve been struck by one persistent euphemism: weapons of mass destruction. Why not just call them weapons of mass murder?

The phrase used to refer to nuclear weapons, but has been broadened to include others that also kill indiscriminately. Since no state wants to admit that it is prepared to kill lots of innocent people, which is what modern warfare entails, our rulers prefer evasive words and pretend that the problem is to keep these dreadful weapons out of “the wrong hands.”

This implies that their own hands are “the right hands” — the hands God would entrust such weapons to, if it were up to him.

…

As long as you have a monopoly of power, however terrible, it’s easy to feel that power is in the right hands. But when you lose that monopoly, you may start thinking seriously about the nature of power itself. And by then it may be too late.

Today, as the United States is obsessed with disarming Iraq, North Korea has nuclear weapons and is capable of hitting our West Coast with a missile. Thank you, Einstein and Roosevelt. You — you two Einsteins, so to speak — made history, a lot more history than you realized. You released a genie that gave you your wish, but we are having trouble preventing him from granting others their wishes too.

That wish, in plain terms, is the capacity for mass murder. In today’s world, it’s hard to reach agreement on whose hands are the right hands. More and more countries — and private men — feel entitled to the power to kill countless people. Those who already have that power won’t renounce it, but they feel entitled to decide who else may get it.

Nobody should have gotten it in the first place. It was sheer hubris for America to believe that its hands were the right hands.

~ Joseph Sobran, “The Right Hands”

0
Doc Bailey

Well, yes. Mass murder is all well and good. But then we have used those weapons so we as a nation would have to cross our legs at that one. Now not to be a dick, but I’d far more trust those weapons in our hands.

I would take those weapons away from Pakistan, N. Korea, Iran, and France (just for shits and giggles). I don’t trust most of the nations of the world. I do trust ours.

0
Eagle Keeper

Doc: “I don’t trust most of the nations of the world. I do trust ours.”

Why?

Have American politicians as a whole shown themselves more trustworthy than those of most of the nations of the world?

As mortal men, are they not subject to the very same temptations?

0
2-17 AirCav

“… I’ve been struck by one persistent euphemism: weapons of mass destruction. Why not just call them weapons of mass murder?”

Take notes. The phrase “weapons of mass destruction” isn’t a euphemism. It aptly describes what WMDs do. Calling them a ‘pacification instrument’ or ‘neutralization tool’ or some such thing would be a euphemistic term. WMDs destroy inanimate and animate things, sometimes discriminately, sometimes not. As for murder, that’s a legal term which desribes the illicit taking of a human life. On the other hand, there’s homicide, the taking of a human life. Language matters. End of lecture.

0
«
»