Sorry to go off-topic, but does anyone see George Soros and his gang of hedgers playing the crude oil spot market for profit and propaganda purposes, or should I just take a xanex?

[S]parking off an arms race ??

Wouldn't that imply that North Korea has an ability to produce more weapons, faster, an ability which everyone knows that North Korea doesn't possess ?

Yeah, the Asian missile defense system has the ultimate goal of containing Russia. Uh-huh. I'm sure that the Russians are shaking in their (hobnailed) boots.

I should hope that Soros is making money speculating in oil, or else his reputation is based entirely on myth. With this much volatility, over the past couple of months one could have made money whether one believed that prices were heading higher, or lower.

Michael:

The Soviets didn't have the capacity either, which is why they folded.

North Korea can't play the game of nuclear 'chicken' it has been doing for the past 2 decades any more if retaliation is immediate and at its doorstep. If we can convince the Japanese to go nuclear and arm their navy with nukes, then the jig is up, and the Dear Leader will really have a reason for his hair to stand on end.

The norks aren't the only goal of this - China. Consider the 7 carriers that are headed that way come summer. Since China more or less props up North Korea, along with South Korea, this is the country we should pull the ol' try-to-match-our- military-strength-without-bursting-at-the-seams trick.

Ed

Oil Speculators are doing a wonderful public service.

To the PRC, North Korea is far more an irritant than an ally. But like the South, they are concerned that its collapse would result in a disaster which would undo their fragile system.

Bart -

Which is why it's so critical to maintain the multiparty talks, to insure NK properly remains China's problem and not ours.

No question that, over the long haul, high oil prices encourage advances in alternative energy technology, but they also give the MSM yet another scenario with which to castigate the President. ABC Business News reported this morning that oldsters would surely freeze (and die) this winter because of high fuel prices and Republican efforts to hold down increases in spending on the "Aid to Poor Homwowners' Heating program," or whatever it's called.

mike:

Why talk at all? Topple the North and let the South and China deal with the aftermath.

OJ -

Well, that's the threat, of course, but we can give the Chinese a chance to offer us an easier scenario if they don't like it.

To the Chinese, 25 million dead North Koreans is like, you know, 4% of their own. No big deal.

mike:

Why talk to the Chinese?

OJ:

If they don't like our solution to the NK problem, they may feel compelled to offer us a better one, and may be in a position to do so.

They should chill out. Aegis doesn't work

mike:

fine, let them do so. We don't need to chat about it do we? The longer we talk the less likely they act.

harry:

But your guys in the Soviet never figured that out--largely due to one of the great counter-intelligence schemes of all time--why do you think the commies in North Korea are any smarter?

When did the USSR ever shy away from Aegis?

I consulted with my physics adviser this afternoon about out antiaircraft defenses.

(He developed the guidance systems for several of them.)

He confirms that we have nothing that will shoot down anything from the ground up.

"We can shoot them down from above easily," was his verdict

Thus, the inevitability of space-based weapons systems.

Yes, but they don't work yet and it's going to be quite a while before they do.

The AEOS telescope here on Maui is a remarkable machine, which can acquire and track unexpected objects in low-angle passes.

One at a time, unless the Air Force is holding out on me.

Now, make that an order of magnitude better, and teach it to discriminate between nuclear and non-nuclear contents, and you're almost ready to start building your attack vehicle.

Launch a first strike and catch the one or two they might get off--seems easy enough.

Well, sure.Unless they have one in a warehouse in San Pedro already.

You're the one who told me we couldn't fight World War II over again. Believe it.

Yes, if there's ever another real war we'll use our nuclear arsenal--we're casualty averse.

My county passed an antinuclear ordinance.

Not understanding that the important point with regard to nukes is not where they're launched but where they land.

We'll never use nukes against any enemy that we think also has them, because we are, indeed, casualty averse

Harry:

Sure we will. The Chinese and Nork nukes won't kill us, but conventional wars would cost a few casualties.