Kim Jong-il must be senile after brain stroke

[Eastlamp]

Yesterday North Korea suddenly fired a barrage of artillery shell into warter areas near Northern Limit Line(country borderline) of South Korea. And today they resumed to fire them. Fortunately no casualties until now, but it made our nation very surprised.

The U.S. government also criticized the North on Wednesday for raising tension, saying the firing were "provocative actions and, as such, are not helpful."

We South Korean will not be intimidated at all by that. However I can't understand why they did that, and I don't how to deal with them. Some analysts said that they were e seedking attention or showing mussle after sacred war proclamation. That also will be true.

However, in my opinion, North Korea leader Kim Jong -il must be senile after brain stroke. His Recent behavior is not normal and irrational. If my speculation is right, it's very dangerous. He has several nuclear bombs and longl lange missile which could fly over to Hawai Island.

So we have to keep watch on him. What do you think of that?

[Volk]

The North declared "no-sail" zones (within their maritime borders) before firing shots, and none of them went over the border, from what I've read. There is nothing wrong with this, just an exercise which they warned about through the no-sail zones.

SEOUL, Jan. 27 (Xinhua) -- The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) fired Wednesday artillery shells into waters off the west coast, an official at the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Seoul said.

South Korean military fired back, but there has been no casualties or damage reported as the two sides fired into the air and not at each other, Seoul's Yonhap News Agency reported quoting government sources.

Military authorities in Seoul are still in the process of confirming whether South Korean military responded to the DPRK by firing back, the Joint Chiefs of Staff told Xinhua.

The move came a day after the DPRK declared two no-sail zones in waters south of the disputed maritime border in the Yellow Sea called the Northern Limit Line, where the latest naval skirmish between the two Koreas took place in November last year.

[Maylar]

The North declared "no-sail" zones (within their maritime borders) before firing shots, and none of them went over the border, from what I've read. There is nothing wrong with this, just an exercise which they warned about through the no-sail zones.

Perhaps, but N.Korea and S.Korea are still technically at war, and one side starting to fire missiles in the general direction of the other is a threatening move. In a time of war, you're simply trusting your enemy isn't going to fire on you is the position you seem to be taking. I can understand S.Korea's worries. After all, Russia is highly against a self-defense anti-missile shield set up by the United States. At the same time, Russia is developing more offensive weaponry. Personally, that feels like Russia is making threatening gestures while we only want to defend ourselves against a nuclear attack by a rogue nation or terrorist group.

[Volk]

Perhaps, but N.Korea and S.Korea are still technically at war, and one side starting to fire missiles in the general direction of the other is a threatening move. In a time of war, you're simply trusting your enemy isn't going to fire on you is the position you seem to be taking. I can understand S.Korea's worries. After all, Russia is highly against a self-defense anti-missile shield set up by the United States. At the same time, Russia is developing more offensive weaponry. Personally, that feels like Russia is making threatening gestures while we only want to defend ourselves against a nuclear attack by a rogue nation or terrorist group.

The proposed missile shield would have covered all of European Russia, Iran has no reason to lob a missile at central/eastern Europe, and it's missiles can't reach that far currently. Russia proposed using a radar facility in Azerbaijan, which borders Iran, but the US refused- you could have used that and the information be fed to whatever it is you're deploying by the new missile defense plan Obama is doing. I think the use of a radar that covers all of European Russia and the placement of missiles in a country that borders Russia indicates a bigger anti-Russian agenda with this than a real concern about Iran.

Iran's missile to Europe would have to overfly NATO member Turkey's airspace anyway. I really don't believe the scrapped missile shield was aimed against Iran.

[njc17]

You just figuring this out! This little twerp has been senile for years.

[Maylar]

The proposed missile shield would have covered all of European Russia, Iran has no reason to lob a missile at central/eastern Europe, and it's missiles can't reach that far currently. Russia proposed using a radar facility in Azerbaijan, which borders Iran, but the US refused- you could have used that and the information be fed to whatever it is you're deploying by the new missile defense plan Obama is doing. I think the use of a radar that covers all of European Russia and the placement of missiles in a country that borders Russia indicates a bigger anti-Russian agenda with this than a real concern about Iran.

Iran's missile to Europe would have to overfly NATO member Turkey's airspace anyway. I really don't believe the scrapped missile shield was aimed against Iran.

As I understand it, missile defense in areas of Europe is to cover our allies. Also I didn't mention Iran, you did. I said rogue nations and terrorist groups who's borders can easily use cruder missiles to attack our allies. As the United States has the most advances missile defense of any nation I am aware of (where you as Russia concentrate more on offensive weaponry...) I believe this re-enforces this is purely a self defense mechanism being put in place, and it's NOT anti-Russian. You have enough weaponry that a full scale attack by Russia would tear through our missile defense anyways. Don't play dumb, you know that. It's pretty self evident our system is designed for defense against rogue nations and terrorist groups that can't field the weaponry that you all can output against us. The fact your against such systems when you know you yourselves could overload the system we have tells me that you're more interested perhaps in a proxy attack?

[Volk]

As I understand it, missile defense in areas of Europe is to cover our allies. Also I didn't mention Iran, you did. I said rogue nations and terrorist groups who's borders can easily use cruder missiles to attack our allies. As the United States has the most advances missile defense of any nation I am aware of (where you as Russia concentrate more on offensive weaponry...) I believe this re-enforces this is purely a self defense mechanism being put in place, and it's NOT anti-Russian. You have enough weaponry that a full scale attack by Russia would tear through our missile defense anyways. Don't play dumb, you know that. It's pretty self evident our system is designed for defense against rogue nations and terrorist groups that can't field the weaponry that you all can output against us. The fact your against such systems when you know you yourselves could overload the system we have tells me that you're more interested perhaps in a proxy attack?

Actually, the president has ordered development of an anti-missile system as well, it's not all put into offense. Currently our anti-aircraft systems (S-300, S-400) which are quite sophisticated are also responsible for ballistic missile defense.

As for the second part of your post, no I don't think that Russia is interested in arming any rogues for a proxy attack. The objections to the system stem from it being American troops and bases in the former Soviet sphere of influence.

[Susanna]

They fired again today.

[Maylar]

Actually, the president has ordered development of an anti-missile system as well, it's not all put into offense. Currently our anti-aircraft systems (S-300, S-400) which are quite sophisticated are also responsible for ballistic missile defense.

As for the second part of your post, no I don't think that Russia is interested in arming any rogues for a proxy attack. The objections to the system stem from it being American troops and bases in the former Soviet sphere of influence.

in the former Soviet sphere of influence? So you have a problem with our protecting our allies in lands you no longer occupy while at the same time start building your own missile defense?



Homey don't play that game Volk.

[Volk]

in the former Soviet sphere of influence? So you have a problem with our protecting our allies in lands you no longer occupy while at the same time start building your own missile defense?



Homey don't play that game Volk.

I was stating why the government is against it, not my view. We have a rivalry; American influence will be combatted everywhere, just as the US tries to gain influence in Russian allies. That's all there really is to the opposition of this system, besides possibly worry about the radar thing, but I would think that's secondary.