Remember all those times when you heard that missile defense was just a right-wing American boondoggle?
Apparently not (from the Hanky):
South Korea plans to create an Army missile defense command later this year as part of its efforts to counter threats from North Korea’s missiles and long-range artillery, a government source said Sunday.
The move comes after the North launched seven missiles, one presumed to be a long-range one, over the East Sea on July 5, raising tension over regional and global security.
“In line with a military overhaul plan, the command will be established between September and October,” the source said, asking not to be named.
“It will be based in the central part of the country and is expected to boost South Korea’s anti-artillery capabilities sharply,” he said.
Of course, Korea is already receiving missile defense from US Army Patriot Missile batteries. In fact, the Korean government seems to like missile defense so much they are buying a bunch of patriots for themselves. At least the missile defense command will have some fun new toys to play with.
44 Comments
But. but? I thought that the North Koreans were their friends and they were one people… I won’t even get into how the North is protecting them and there is no threat from the North…
It is good to see that at least the military live in reality.
I wonder if the South would use them to shoot down a missile coming from Japan that was to shoot down a missile coming from the North?
Darin,
Would that be an anti-missile defense defense?
I realize that in the ’snarkiness’ of my post, I might have lost the real point, which is that there is a logic to missile defense that transends ideology.
40 anti-missiles by 2010. Woop-di-do.
What, getting 10 per year? NK have over 200 SCUDs and NoDongs.
Furthermore, it is known that these Patriot anti-missiles have somewhat questionable capabilities. Especially if the missiles are shot in a close range and have very short flight time.
This BS anti-missile unit is better than nothing but it is mostly a cosmetic job.
“Would that be an anti-missile defense defense?”
Well, that’s partially what my question is as well. The South Korean government has made that statement that it will consider any attack on the North an attack on the peninsula, or itself. So if the North was to fire a missile and Japan fired one to shoot it down, would the South then fire it’s own missile, and where/what would that missile be aimed at?
The missile defense is to protect against the Tomahawk missiles that Japan doesn’t have.
At least it shows that someone in the No Administration still has enough common sense to treat NK as a threat rather than as a misunderstood child.
Of course, Japan has been gung-ho about TMD for many, many years. Of course, there’s a good contingent of readers at this blog who would closely associate Japan with American right-wingers — but hey, you can’t blame us rightists for understanding the long view and the big picture.
the koreans better start spending some money because the US wont be here much longer!!!!
This was the funniest thing I’ve read all day.
Curzon’s right.
yeap the same right wing war mongers who brought and end communism across europe and the soviet union
Yeap! Conservatives sure have a keen grasp of ‘the longview’ It’s so keen it almost always looks like it’s attempting to control society for personal reasons to those of us not gifted with that view.
But that’s nowhere near as important as addressing the great wrong I’ve just seen: The Soviet Union and the rest of it’s domains fell pretty much on their own due to internal pressures. Laying those laurels on the American right’s head is historical revisionism, and that’s naughty.
The second-hand Patriot missiles Seoul is purchasing from Germany are PAC-2’s which are, as Dick Cheney once noted, used against aircraft, not missiles. South Koreans are aware of the PAC-2’s limitations, and their intentions have been to seek an air defense system, not necessarily missile defense.
Should South Koreans seek missile defense capabilities, they would have to go after the PAC-3’s, which allegedly have a better track record against missiles. There has been talk in Seoul about joining the US-led TMD, but no final decision yet.
Surrender is the best defense.
Mingi is correct about the buy - they are PAC2s. The last I heard the ROK was looking into upgrading the PAC2s though. The PAC2 buy was a way to 1) replace the unreliable and very very dated Nike-Hercules (whose mission was only air defense), 2) not tick off those in the Roh administration who didn’t wish to be a part of the “American Global MD System”, and 3) still have a method to upgrade later when the politics changed. A compromise. I do not know if this is still the plan. This Missile Command seems to be more in the offense mode rather than MD. The ROK Army isn’t much into the active defense pillar of MD in my opinion. They’d rather attack the source of the missiles.
Why do people keep attributing the fall of the Soviet Union to American conservatives instead of where it truly belongs? Gorbachev.
Actually, it’s revisionist to claim that Reagan’s role wasn’t one of the primary factors contributing to the Soviet Union’s fall. Of course there were internal reasons as well, but to deny the role that Reagan played in both out-arms-racing them, and kindly but firmly making all thought of Communist expansionism unrealistic, is just plain subjective story telling.
A few years after the USSR fell is when this revisionism – the Reagan-didn’t-do-it crown – got going. If liberal academia is left alone to write the history books, in fifty or a hundred years people might think the same, unless they take the time to examine the facts, budgets, etc. and see the truth of Reagan’s central role in that watershed event.
because Jing its true
Reagan brought an end to the Soviet Union primarily by outspending them. He understood that the American capitalist structure could thrive on the increased defense spending and that the socialist structure of the Soviet Union would collapse under under the same. His policies were a textbook lesson in capitalism vs. socialism. The collapse of the empire was imminent when Gorbachev took over - too little too late.
Oh, the devastating counterargument from Billy G! A link to the wikipedia entries of a London cleric and the Defense of Marriage Act!
Reality check: we’re not talking about “Liberalism” and “Conservatism” in the United States frame of political reference. (Since when does TMD in East Asia or the Cold War relate to preserving heterosexual marriage of all things?) We’re talking about cold, hard realism — as opposed to internationalism, idealism, or some other alternative theory regarding looking at relations between powers. When I say “rightists” I am being provocative in the use of that label, but I am referring to those of us who primarily consider such aspects as a robust defense for the purpose of deterring war, the darker aspects of human nature, self-interest guiding state actors, and other characteristics of “realism.” Should you need a primary, please check out this introduction.
In re the fall of the USSR, no one factor or individual brought about the fall of the Soviet regime, but any honest appraisal would greatly weigh the respective contributions made by American presidents Truman, Nixon, Reagan, and GHW Bush. GHW Bush, who had the monumental task of managing the most delicate stages of US-Russian relations during the implosion of the Soviet satellites and the chaos in Russia during the first months of his presidency is certainly the most underappreciated, if not the most important of those four.
(And while I wouldn’t underestimate Reagan, and don’t want to get into a discussion on the topic here, I would rank him at the bottom of the list of the aforementioned four presidents regarding his role in bringing about the end of the Soviet Union. I mean, c’mon guys! Truman set the stage of “fight on every front” and countering every Commie foray in the Third World — had it not been for him, US isolationist tendencies could have left the whole world Marxist. Nixon was delivered a shitty hand in foreign policy in Vietnam yet let office with a brilliant diplomatic jujitsu move in China and the Middle East that undercut Soviet influence worldwide. And GHW Bush managed the collapse without lasting rancor. Reagan just spent our tax dollars — nothing special there.)
“increased defense spending and that the socialist structure of the Soviet Union would collapse under under the same. His policies were a textbook lesson in capitalism vs. socialism” -Mr.Chips
Well, I have heard this argument so many times but what do Russians say? Do they agree with this assessment? They lived through it. Shouldn’t they know more than us?
Also give me an example where a Communist country fell because of arms spending. China didn’t. NK didn’t. Can you name one example of this?
I agree with Jing and I wrote the same argument so many times myself. Reagan took the award away from Gorbachev who opened up his own country (maybe due to his Baptist mother) and freed his people. Reagan stole the credit away.
Only thing Reagan did was to over-spend on defense contractors (his buddies) and lied to the US public about his trickle-down economics, which Bush Sr. called the Voo-Doo economics.
The Germans are selling their redundant PAC-2. The sale per se has yet to be approved by a committee. An upgrade to PAC-3 would be very costly, even the Germans refrained from such heavy investments, but let’s face it, they don’t have a mad freak like KJI and two creepy neighbours in da hood.
In cooperation with the US and Italy the Germans are right now developing an air-defense-system called MEADS, where PAC-3 Patriots will be an integral part. But due to budget restraints and parliamentary bickering about costs and usefulness, the feasibility of that project is insecure.
Back to ROK, anything is better than their outdated Nike-Hercules-air defense. Geez, it’s hardware from the 60s.
The fall of coummunism in the ex-USSR and Eastern Europe was because of the peoples over there? They had enough of a political and economical system, that was rotten from the start (without any arms race or whatsoever) and wasn’t able to provide people with essential goods for everyday life. And the universal desire of people for freedom and liberty. The democtratic upheaval started in Poland and spread like an bushfire to other countries.
Conservative right-wingers in Europe (”It was thanks to Pope John Paul II.”) and America (”It was thanks to Ronny Reagan!”)claiming to be mainly responsible for the fall of Communism make me wonder…
“Also give me an example where a Communist country fell because of arms spending. China didn’t. NK didn’t. Can you name one example of this?”
I’m assuming you mean one “more” example. and well, it isn’t necessary for the argument. Reagan realized that the Soviet Union, not China, not NK, not any other government in the world would try to maintain conventional force superiority. And the Soviets indeed tried to do so. They tried to match the US in Naval and Air Technology and raw numbers. They pumped out fighters and destroyers and nuke-powered submarines as though they had an infinite cash-cow hidden somewhere; unfortunately the cash didn’t exist. That kind of spending wasn’t necessary in the 70’s and earlier; it was only in the 80s that they felt the pressure to do so.
“Reagan…lied to the US public about his trickle-down economics…”
That’s the dumbest thing I have ever heard. One, that assumes that Reagan knew it was wrong and said it anyways and two, it means you think capitalism doesn’t work. In fact, George W’s tax cuts are a poster child for how it does work. A lower tax rate for wealthier individuals and corporations produced a larger federal tax revenue; a larger tax rate would have produced a lower federal tax revenue.
I think previous presidents had opportunities to do what Reagan did but none of them believed as Reagan did in the utter superiority of capitalist fundamentals. All the other presidents viewed the struggle between the USSR and US for political influence over the world as either conflicts between political structures or military standoffs. Reagan was the only one to associate the struggle as an Anti-Marx one. He defined the bi-polar power struggle as a competition between economic systems. He is the only president since Calvin Coolidge to sincerely believe in the fundamental laws of capitalism. I would say previous presidents did virtually nothing to curb the power of the Soviet Union; in fact theyrather enabled them in some cases by proving that they wouldn’t really fight the Soviets on all fronts. Truman, for all of his bluster, wilted under Stalin’s gaze adn wasn’t prepared for th ecoming fight with his former “ally.” He lost the war in Korea by not making China pay for its involvement and by not being more forceful with the Soviets in 1945. In fact, I would say he was an impetus for the Vietnam War and its portent failure by proving that the west could be stymied due to lack of resolve and lack of insight into regional crises.
Alas, I digress…Reagan was the only true conservative this side of Coolidge and his capitalist policies saved the day. The rest of them were just politicians who barely kept up. It’s ok though I know I’m in the minority on this and can take my lumps.
MrChips
baduk saying the dumbest thing you ever heard? NO WAY!!!!!
hahahaha
Mcnut, I think I’ve actually worn out that statement on him.
Others, whoever said Reagan defeated communism? Not I… That would be to miss the target completely. He didn’t defeat communism; he defeated a Soviet Union government that had tried to compete with him economically (and he knew they would). Comparisons to other communist countries simply don’t jive and have nothing to do with this argument. In the USSR, when there was no longer any money to pay the soldiers and police or to put food in the markets or to keep electricity on in the hospitals the people took notice. Their lives may not have been sweet rides through the 60s and 70s but at least they had security and food and shelter then. Not so in the 80s when the government had spent all of the money and then some.
The Soviet Union is gone and Russia has joined the league of free nations, a true paragon of democratic values and civil liberties, and a close ally of the United States and sharer of its ideals, a nation that would never ally itself with the likes of China in order to provide a counterweight to American power.
We should all be happy.
By the way, I do agree with whomever credited George H.W. Bush with managing the downfall of the Soviet Union. Though I think he could have done more earlier on vis-à-vis (look, a diacritic!) the split-up of Yugoslavia, things could have been much, much worse. The man does not get the credit he deserves.
By the way, have all these monsoons cut off Internet access between East Asia and North America? Would that explain the low traffic on The Hole?
The only thing important to me about Reagan presidency is that he got paid $2 million for 30 min speech given to the Japanese after he left the WhiteHouse.
Talk about kickback.
Later, he told the press, “Mama(his wife) told me to do it”. After that, he went bonkers.
Some at this discussion board are saying the same things,
Voodoo economics, David Stockman, Trickle-down lies, Smaller government by slashing (and not delivering services), Lies about budget shortfalls, astronomical deficits, recession, etc…
http://boards.historychannel.c.....1338988927
I remember the day one presidential candidate said the US government had to lay off one third to reduce the national debt. Who borrowed all these money? Everyone will say Reagan. He almost bankrupted the US government. With God’s grace, Bill Gates and computer industry started in ’80s and saved the nation.
If you have another Reagan, that will surely finish off the US. He was the FREE SPENDER! Spending the money that the US did not have on defense and giving hefty tax cuts to his rich friends.
Geez Baduk, I thought you were anti-communist and it turns out you were a closet commi all along. What you said in your last comment is close enough to communist ecomomic tendencies for me to throw you in with that bunch. Another example of someone completely missing the point of what lies at the heart of communism, the economics of it.
Forget the Kims, Maos, Hos, and other dictators of the communist world; socialist government practices (read: the idea that tax cuts for rich are bad) are the real evil behind communism. The great expenditures that might ruin America are ones begun by that other philosophical communist FDR with his social security treason. The defense output, by Reagan, as big as it was, was a pittance compared to other aspects of the budget such as welfare programs, educational programs, farm subsidies, aid to university research etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum. The only thing the government has a right to spend the people’s money on is defense…screw the rest.
“Also give me an example where a Communist country fell because of arms spending. China didn’t. NK didn’t. Can you name one example of this?”
i’m no expert but north korea is near extinction due to her arms spending. the only reason norks are able to get by is the international aid they receive. second, china, as a communist country, is only able to do well because they opened up their market. otherwise, if they were in an arms race with say the us before they opened up their market, they would still be a dirt poor country. case in point…cultural revolution, great leap forward…in her attempt to catch up with the west via the communist way, they nearing self destructed resulting in massive loss of labor and money. that should be sufficient as an example, right? but again, i’m no expert.
second, who contributed the most to the downfall of ussr is up for debate but you cannot deny reagan’s contribution.
“Also give me an example where a Communist country fell because of arms spending. China didn’t. NK didn’t. Can you name one example of this?”
Does “The Cold War” sound familiar at all?
“philosophical communist FDR”- MrChips
You just dissed my favorite president of all time. I think FDR represents the USA. He is bigger than Washington or Lincoln.
FDR made the USA. Before FDR, USA did not exist. The country was just a layway station where Europeans came to make money and left. No community at all. Not a real country. Just a name for the land. Everybody was an island. They came and left. No Americans. Just Europeans living in the same land.
Then came FDR. He made modern America. He created the American identity. People who came from different backgrounds and became one nation (under God).
Roosevelt’s four years as governor coincided with the first three and a half years of the Great Depression. More quickly than most other political leaders, he concluded that the economy would not recover on its own and “that there is a duty on the part of government to do something about this.” Roosevelt pushed for a series of modest reforms that included measures to develop public electric power, lower utilities rates, and reduce the tax burden on New York farmers. Later he also created a state agency to provide relief to the unemployed and began calling for national unemployment insurance and other government programs to assist the jobless. He was careful not to seem reckless or radical. He criticized President Hoover for failing to balance the budget and denounced excessive government intervention in the economy.
from
http://www.fdrheritage.org/fdrbio.htm
It’s not TMD but it’s a topic worth discussing…
If you ask people for their definition of the Cold War you will probably get as many answers as if you were to ask how it ended and why. From my perspective, the Cold War really got its name from the hesitance to commit to real war due to the presence of nuclear weapons on both sides. Whether or not that is an accurate description though is not important. That confrontation is not the same, in and of itself, as the economic confrontation that was taking place between the United States and the USSR. As flag bearers of their respective economic systems each genuinely thought theirs to be the better system.
Someone above said that “conversations…[of who won the cold war]…are [simplistic].” I don’t think a debate on the end of the cold war is the same as a debate on the fall of the USSR. That may be semantics but I feel the difference is crucial. One confrontation was extremely complex politically as evidenced by the genius of Nixon’s approach to China, while the other, by definition, was very simple - it was pure economics. Sometimes being simplistic means focusing on the trivial and missing the underlying details, but in some cases simplicity is more valuable than trying to siphon through the myriad of variables. People who want to downplay Reagan’s role get bogged down in a mire of academic nuances trying to cover variables that have no more relevance than a butterfly in the Amazon. Sometimes it’s better to be simple, to point out the essentials - the fundamentals. Maybe agreement would be reached if we said Reagan’s economic policies were the most salient feature that provided the pressure under which the fragile Soviet system finally collapsed?
I think a lot of people who want to put Reagan onto a pedestal for his role in the fall of the USSR do so more because of their economics philosophy than their political stands. To us, and I include me in that group, the heart of America lies in individual responsibility and economic freedom, things that were being challenged by communism. Focusing on Reagan’s economic policies as the primary cause for the Soviet collapse restores faith in traditional capitalist ideas that had begun to dwindle thanks to FDR. He was the first president to try to steer our nation away from the welfare state begun under FDR .
We can talk about the clean-up game of Bush Sr. (someone used the endgame analogy which I think is invalid- it was the post-endgame stage), and we can talk about political pressures the Soviets endured thanks to Nixon. For me though, there is only one name for which if you were to remove it from the history books would mean that the contest between American capitalism and Soviet socialism would not have ended when it did. Reagan.
Here’s an interesting series of quotes: 1. “The simplicity of these conversations always bothers me.” followed closely by 2. “discussing credit due to any particular American president ignores the biggest cause: that the Soviet system was fundamentally flawed.” So it’s simplistic….and the biggest cause can be simply stated that the Soviet system was flawed… One person, would be simplistic, yet the system was flawed somehow encapsulates everything. There’s a lot of poli-sci theory being mushed up in that but enough truth in that second quote to broach the real issue. The Soviet system was flawed. Yes. It was flawed from an economic point of view and nobody, not Truman, not Ike, not JFK, Nixon, or Ford, (and not even Bush in hindsight clearly understand the reasons for the rapid disintegration though he wisely stayed out) sought to attack the Soviets where they were the most vulnerable - only Reagan, the last true conservative president since Coolidge saw economics as the real war and capitalist fundamentals as the real weapons of efficacy.
BTW Baduk, I wasn’t dissing FDR. I was simply labeling him what he was, a socialist and a philosophical communist at heart – he sought to create a welfare state. I had an inkling that you didn’t really understand communism a few posts back when you insisted that the GOP in Korea was truly anti-communist, but I have more reason to believe now that both they and you are only anti-KIS/KJI and not truly anti-communist.
MrChips,
Yes, you were. When a man is asked a direct question, he must answer it straightforwardly. You were dissing FDR, the greatest American president of all time, IMHO.
You seem to believe in pure form of capitalism. Let me ask you something. As I quote in my post above, do you believe in public electric power? Unemployment insurance? Tax break for hard-hit industry? Government programs to assist the jobless? GI Bill?
I know you do not like welfare and social security. Let me tell you a story. I had a co-worker who made constant jokes about the disabled. He lamented the dollars wasted by the US government to care for wheel chair people.
You guessed it. One day, he got into an auto accident and now he is in wheel chair. He don’t make no jokes about the disabled.
Some balance is needed between pure form of capitalism and socialism, as America has learned through the Depression. But when I see a die-hard Republican (R stands for rich, racism, and rocking chair) like yourself insisting on the Frontier days of “everybody fending for himself”, I just wish that you stand on a bread line someday. You have to walk on someone’s moccasin for a day before you condemn the man.
baduk,
i don’t want to interept the discussion between you and mrchips but what do you mean by balance between capitalism and socialism? i mean, isn’t the capitalism practiced in the states balanced enough? do you mean like communist china, open market, with limited EVERYTHING?
as a card carrying republican korean american, if the R stands for among others racism, am i a racist? didn’t the “greatest” president FDR send japanese-AMERICANs to internment camps?
“i mean, isn’t the capitalism practiced in the states balanced enough? ”
Yes, for me, it is. But for MrChips, he likes to get rid of Social security and welfare programs. Don’t ask him about “Midnight basketball” program.
“as a card carrying republican korean american, if the R stands for among others racism, am i a racist?”
You should think about joining democratic party. Republicans excel in foreign policy but for domestic programs they do not have a clue other than taxcuts. Democrates have many good ideas like college tuition assistance, early start programs, tutors for poor neighborhood kids, etc. Democratic party is for the people; Republican party is for the rich.
“didn’t the “greatest” president FDR send japanese-AMERICANs to internment camps?”
Yes, during the war time, it is difficult to know who is a spy and who is not. If the 9/11 type of attacks were continued, would you be against locking up all Iranians in the US? I would be for it, just for their protection.
Xenophobia played a part, but internment program served its purpose at the time. There is always two sides to a coin.
About R in Republican : Former democratic presidential and vice-p candidates include IrishAmerican, GreekAmerican, Jewish Americans, etc.
Republican side, Anglo-saxon Protestants only. (I like Protestant part).
Need I say more?
Reagan was an IrishAmerican who sold out to the dark side (the rich). And, he was an actor after all.
For actors, you never know what their real personalities are. They never stops acting, never.
Just ask any Black person you know. He will tell you that R stands for Racism and Condo is just a token black.
in regards to race, i think democrats are all talk, taking the minority groups for granted. as for which party fits better for my interests, as my family owns small business back in seattle, based on experience, the republican party has done far more for the business than the democrats. starting a small business and setting foot is hard enough, and yet, the local democratic leaders just tax the crap out of us.
as for the presidential candidates, being a candidate does not justify your point. i mean, i can argue alan keyes was a candidate. if you look at the current administration, it is the most diverse cabinet since…ever.
you have argued the evils of dr. hwang and his cloning in the past. now, which party do you agree with more on this cloning issue? democrats go against your belief, if i remember correctly.
OK, I admit that I switched from being a Democrate to a Republican when I bought the house. Since I sold the house, I am back to the democratic party.
One can support a different party at a different time. I guess two parties are yin and yang, and they do balance each other.
And, you are right. I am dead set against human cloning research. The Senate just approved the funding for it and I will relish the moment when Bush vetoes it. I like pres. Bush even though he is a republican. I like his Iraq “invasion” and his stance on cloning research.
Baduk’s favorite US president is the one who started a war with Japan and locked up the ‘Japs at home. Why am I not surprised?
Start a war with Japan? What do you want FDR to have done? Form a six party talk when Jap planes were pounding Hawaii? Send a stern warning that the US would not take it any more?
My friend, when the enemy starts killing your people, there is no other action but go get’em. Bush’s 9/11 response was the correct one.
In much the same way, Japan’d better be tough on NK. When NK had kidnapped one of Japan’s citizens and locked her up to teach Japanese, then the correct response is to stop NK from doing the same ever again. Japan’s lukewarm response will bring more NK’s daring challenges.
Israel is doing it right. If the enemy hurts your people, go get’em.
Just a minor historical point. FDR didn’t lock up “all the Japanese”. He had those living within a specific distance of the West Coast rounded and sent inland. Those Japanese living in other parts of the U.S., such as Idaho, were unaffected. However mistaken this policy may have proven in hind-sight, at the time it was made, it was based upon a perceived need and in furtherance of a legitimate end. Other countries with large communities of Japanese living continguous to possible areas of conflict were accorded the same treatment.(I.e, Broome, Western Australia, and spare me the simplistic “Well, the Aussies were racist” tripe.)
An “R for racism” based upon a flawed understanding of history is … flawed thinking.
One Trackback
[...] Over at the Marmot (the only blog where I regularly comment), a discussion of theater missile defense quickly moved to the topic of who won the Cold War. The simplicity of these conversations always bothers me. Many are quick to praise or curse the name of Reagan, and discussing credit due to any particular American president ignores the biggest cause: that the Soviet system was fundamentally flawed. And don’t forget Gorby. But even so, any honest appraisal would greatly weigh the respective contributions made by four American presidents: Truman, Nixon, Reagan, and GHW Bush. [...]