The "Kang Nam" Confrontation

[jordan179]

The North Korean freighter Kang Nam is steaming toward Myanmar (Burma), cargo unknown. America suspects that she's carrying missiles with which to arm Burma's renegade military regime. The destroyer USS John McCain is shadowing the Kang Nam, and could intercept and inspect her at any time. But ... the UN sanctions which the McCain would be

Comments

[thebrettzone]

I love that it is the John McCain involved. Know they need to send the Ronald Reagan over to the Sea of Japan. :D

Another thing is the left has quietly stopped clamoring for "bilateral" talks and lined up behind multilateral talks since Obama is once again staying the course with a Bush administration foreign policy.

[headnoises]

Last I heard, the Reagan was supposed to be in the process of having Tokio as her home port.

Pretty delicate, since the s***ty Kitty is the last non-nuke carrier in the fleet.... Who knows what's up with that now.

[thebrettzone]

The Japanese like Reagan so perhaps they will make an exception for his namesake?

They will probably quietly agree to have it as long as their are no nuclear weapons aboard. The US may agree to that if it is convenient for nukes to be (unloaded) relatively close (in a strategic sense), such as Guam. But with North Korea playing the spoiled child all that may change!

[jordan179]

If I were the Japanese government, I would be far too worried about the North Korean nukes to be difficult about the American ones.

[blackhawk101]

Years ago I was part of a team doing a report on how to destroy an American city via a rogue nation/terrorism. Kim Jong-il does not necessarily have to launch a missile- in fact this may be an error to do so as it invites US retaliation

[polaris93]

You're one of the few I've seen who've thought of ways to deliver a nuclear strike not involving missiles. That's an excellent way to do it -- far more reliable, well, at least in NK's case, and very, very sneaky. You can't shoot down a friendly-seeming ship the way you can a missile, even if you do have a working ABM system. I live in Seattle, a large port city, and the thought has occurred to me many times that a freighter with an H-bomb in the hold could tie up at the docks here and . . . and then God help us, because Obama would be so hysterical with shock he wouldn't have the faintest idea of what to do in reaction.

[jordan179]

An even nastier way is to deliver the nuclear weapon by submarine, either floating it just under the surface or emplacing it on the harbor bottom.

And yes, I don't think that Obama's thought out his response in such a case. If he panics, I hope that he orders a full countervalue strike on all the Terrorist States simultaneously, but I fear his panic mode will simply be to freeze up, and make meaningless speeches.

[polaris93]

Which means he won't get out of Dodge in time to avoid going up in a fireball that takes out Washington, DC when the terrorists realize he's effectively out of play. But there's a problem with using a submarine: there's no way to effectively disguise what it is once it's sonic signature is identified by one or another detection device, or another submarine, one of ours, discovers it lurking around. Which means it could get turned back or scuttled by our Navy before it ever reaches the port it is to destroy. Whereas a big shipping tanker can hide right out in plain sight, as long as the monster in its hold isn't detected in time to take it out of play. There are ways to spot something like that at stations at harbor inlets, but what technology can do, more advanced technology can negate, and anyone's ability to spot something coming in on a tanker in time to turn it back or sink it is iffy, at best.

[pasquin]

6) Obama does something stupid, the mainstream media observes that he's Dear Leader.

[biailisha]

To the Dear Leader:

Go ahead, make my day!