North Korea - Well, someone had to start. . .

Cobra Commander · 2002-12-31 17:12:22

you assume that they cant strike first. the very threat of a nuclear attack is so great that it makes us take them seriously, especially considering their heavy development of long-range missles.

Excellent point. Now here's another one for everyone to chew over. It's going to meander a bit, so bear with me.

Korea is probably just trying to get a bribe, and they know that if they nuke us or our allies they have a very good chance of being destroyed.
Most likely, they won't do anything if we just ignore them. But that's probably not a policy we want to adopt (even though it would be a good idea at times)
Now, there's alot of opposition to action against North Korea mainly for political reasons and against building a missile defense mainly for financial reasons. Going to war without a clear justification could be bad for many elected officials and building an unproven missile defense that will cost billions of dollars and will likely never be needed will use up money that could go to other things.
Maybe the cheapest thing to do, both financially and politically, is just to take the hit. If the Norks nuke us, then we respond with the full support of the international community. Of course that results in substantial loss of life and no politician would ever suggest such a thing.

Much more complex than Iraq, isn't it. What we need to do is find a way to make it in North Korea's interests to do what we want without sending the message that we'll negotiate with every third-rate dictator that can scrape together a nuclear bomb.
When I have a clean and simple solution, I'll let you know

Incidentally, Nork is not the prefered nomenclature. North Korean communist, please

AltToWar · 2003-01-01 16:03:38

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific … 618119.stm

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20021231 … 619764.htm

soph · 2003-01-01 16:07:58

if youre gonna cite something, cite the new york times article (basically combined both at the same time). but yes, we should pull out. i dont think were there for south koreas sake though, the government wont say it, but we're there to protect japan, who as you might know, is forbidden from having a military (is it completely prohibited or limited, i dont remember exactly)

AltToWar · 2003-01-01 16:28:22

japan is allowed defensive force, as I recall.

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-01 22:44:38

COBRA COMMANDER: Maybe the cheapest thing to do, both financially and politically, is just to take the hit. If the Norks nuke us, then we respond with the full support of the international community. Of course that results in substantial loss of life and no politician would ever suggest such a thing.

You're kidding, right?

I don't see how you can just let North Korea sit there, ignoring them, and allowing the advancement of their nuclear and long-range missile capabilities. You think being able to launch a nuke at Tokyo provides some political leverage, what do you think about being able to hit Los Angeles? Or Seattle? Or San Francisco?

Let's act now, end their nuclear program (or call their bluff) and remove the threat that North Korea poses to our friends in the Orient and to peace in the Western Hemisphere.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-02 00:23:00

Any nuclear act is most likely going to go without a response for a little while at least. Back when Japan was bombed, we were the only ones with a bomb. These days, if someone bombs someone else, the world will stop, and everyone will take a deep breath, because we first must know who our allies are, and who our enemies are. Yes, this includes the US. Things can change in an instant. We wouldn't want to nuke Pakistan (because they nuked us) if we knew India was allied with them. Why? Because then we'd have this wonderful chain reaction of nation nuking nation.

Of course, any nuclear attack will most likely be terroristic, and not really claimed by any nation. Korea won't launch a nuke because Korea isn't that stupid. Korea is just trying to get some power plants and bribery seems to be the best way.

Funny how North Korea suddenly takes the spotlight when Iraq was supposedly the evil one out there.

Bill White · 2003-01-02 11:02:06

Cobra writes:

Most likely, they won't do anything if we just ignore them. But that's probably not a policy we want to adopt (even though it would be a good idea at times)
* * *
Maybe the cheapest thing to do, both financially and politically, is just to take the hit. If the Norks nuke us, then we respond with the full support of the international community. Of course that results in substantial loss of life and no politician would ever suggest such a thing.

I find myself horrified but I acknowledge that this actually makes some sense and may well be an accurate description of the strategy being pursued by some elements within our government in Washington.

Much more complex than Iraq, isn't it. What we need to do is find a way to make it in North Korea's interests to do what we want without sending the message that we'll negotiate with every third-rate dictator that can scrape together a nuclear bomb.

The problem I see is that the North Korean communists (sic) will not fire missiles at the USA or Japan - instead they will sell bombs to well financed terrorists to earn the cash needed to buy fuel oil from China - since we refuse to give them the oil.

Then some crazy terrorist will smuggle a bomb somewhere we do not like and explode it - what about in the hold of an Arab national flag passenger jet making an "emergency landing" at that giant air base in Qatar?

The terrorists then leak to Arab press information suggesting that the nuclear material was purchased/stolen from rogue Russians or the Pakistanis and not North Korea and that Iraqi agents arranged the explosion.

Now, who do we hit back at? Can we trace plutonium isotopes and learn where the material came from?

When I have a clean and simple solution, I'll let you know

Likewise!

clark · 2003-01-02 11:16:03

How likely is it that N.Korea would sell nuclear weapons to a terroist?

They currently sell balistic missles and related technology to countries we don't like, but we haven't seen them selling such information or capability to any terroists.

I would also imagine that N.Korea has a few bio or chem WMD's- are there terroists running around with N.Korean recepits for these weapons?

I understand the concern, but I haven't seen any evidence or even the suggestion of evidence that the concerns are based on any type of evidence.

I also think that our scientists can figure out where the bomb originated from. There are very few nations with the capability to make nuclear weapons- and the detonation type, and delivery type will provide clues as to the origin.

Why would N.Korea or any nation for that matter risk the possibility (even if it is remote) that they are linked to the transfer of WMD's to independant third party individuals? The price for failure is their countries complete and utter destruction.

WMD's are not good military weapons- they are good strategic weapons which can be used to influence others without actual use of power. It is a threat based weapon only, since the use of one costs to much politcally and even militarily.

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-02 14:23:05

WMD's are not good military weapons- they are good strategic weapons which can be used to influence others without actual use of power. It is a threat based weapon only, since the use of one costs to much politcally and even militarily.

Yes, exactly. Wouldn't North Korea have a TREMENDOUS amount of influence in the Western Hemisphere (aka USA) if they had the means to deliver a nuclear weapon to a west coast city? That sure puts us in a bind if we ever want to deal with the North Koreans. And we've all acknowledged that North Korea doesn't have the economy or political risk to play in the MAD arena, so they do pose a significant threat.

clark · 2003-01-02 14:42:53

No, they wouldn't.

North korea has physical assessts that are in jepordy if they pursue a belligerent attitude with nukes.

There was consideration and actual plans developed to secure nukes from Pakistan if things started going south.

What is happening in Iraq is ostenibly occuring becuase our leaders do not belive the current regime there to be responsibile enough to possess such weapons and NOT use them.

As fr "putting us in a bind" it only means we have to deal with the N.Koreans on something of an equal footing- it means multilaterlism, not unilatiralism.

US and other first world countries do not want third world countries to possess weapons that can hurt them- if third world countries posses weapons that can inflict harm and damage upon our nations, we must then address their concerns and issues- as it is, we can simply ignore the plights or complaints of most of the world becuase they are gnats- not bees.

That's why I am asking what it is that N. korea wants. They will never be a world power, and they know that. They lack the resources, education, infrastructure, and strategic importance to be anything other than what they are now.

However, that dosen't mean they want to be walked over, or not have the ability to assert their own sense of self-determination (which we exercise regularly).

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-02 14:45:57

Who wants a world filled with nuclear weapons? It's just a bunch of chances for nukes to fall into the wrong hands and end up hurting everyone. The way it is, the "Nuke Club" just protects everyone (ie Yugoslavia, Kuwait, South Korea, etc.).

clark · 2003-01-02 14:53:28

the Nuke club "protects" everyone?

Now that is laughable.

Force guareentes freedom.
The owner of force is the one most free.

If you are dependant upon another for the freedom you enjoy, you are a slave to their decisions. You have a semblance of freedom only as charity.

Read Machivilli, that'll teach you.

Who wants a world full of nuclear weapons?

Good question. Which is why I sometimes wonder why we must have enough nuclear weapons to incinerate the globe several times over...

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-02 14:56:52

Good question. Which is why I sometimes wonder why we must have enough nuclear weapons to incinerate the globe several times over...

MAD. It's why North Korea is such a threat. 2000 nuclear weapons ensures your ashes get really finely charred, but 10 nukes ensures you just get hurt really bad.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-02 16:10:41

If you are dependant upon another for the freedom you enjoy, you are a slave to their decisions. You have a semblance of freedom only as charity.

Ooh... my ideas seem to be corrupting clarky boy here...

AltToWar · 2003-01-03 01:27:47

I do believe we have seen clarck float to a new point of view, lately.

clark · 2003-01-03 10:44:42

I've always been reasonable, I think you all are now begining to understand...

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-03 11:41:04

Heheh, this is true. I tend to find that you raise my blood pressure very little, usually, clark. AltToWar is the only regular one on this forum who raises it less.

Bill White · 2003-01-03 13:14:46

This salon.com quote seems on point - IMHO -

The administration plan is to isolate this paranoid excuse for a nation, as if it isn't already the most isolated place on earth. If we can't make peace with an utterly defeated nation like North Korea, we're in trouble. From Columbine to Weimar Germany, humiliating those with nothing to lose is always a recipe for disaster.

To humiliate those with nothing to lose is a recipe for disaster.

Anyone care to disagree?

Bill White · 2003-01-03 13:24:26

Has anyone stopped to ask what North Korea wants?

If today's published reports are correct - what they "want" is formal US assurances - by public treaty - that North Korea will NOT be next on the plate for regime change after we dismantle Iraq.

If the US will not give formal treaty assurances that North Korea will not be the next target for regime change, how can anyone say their decision to build plutonium bombs is irrational - except for the obvious fact that being a meglomaniacal evil dictator is inherently irrational?

AltToWar · 2003-01-03 13:33:10

1: the president of the US declares you one of 3 "axis of evil"

2: the US prepares to smite the holy hell out of the first one on the "axis of evil" list, Iraq.

3: at least on the surface, Iraq tries to negotiate its way out of war to no avail. Iraq rolls over and lets inspectors in, invites CIA operative is, practically begs the us not to beat its ass. US does not listen, builds more troops.

4: you know you were on that list, and you might be next.

would you just sit on your hands and wait for the bombs to drop on your cities?

Cobra Commander · 2003-01-03 15:26:48

Has anyone stopped to ask what North Korea wants?
If today's published reports are correct - what they "want" is formal US assurances - by public treaty - that North Korea will NOT be next on the plate for regime change after we dismantle Iraq.

Perhaps a non-belligerance treaty of some sort is in order. We leave them to their own affairs as long as they shut down their nuclear program. The implication being that if they don't comply with the treaty, we will move against them. We simply agree to guarantee the sovereignty of North and South Korea. If nothing else, it buys some time.

clark · 2003-01-03 15:30:02

A non-belligerance treaty would only be meaningful if we de-militarized our presence on the peninsula.

Anyone want to take bets on that chance?

Echus_Chasma · 2003-01-03 16:32:20

10 bucks on not pulling out.

Bill White · 2003-01-03 17:49:54

Cobra writes

Perhaps a non-belligerance treaty of some sort is in order. We leave them to their own affairs as long as they shut down their nuclear program. The implication being that if they don't comply with the treaty, we will move against them. We simply agree to guarantee the sovereignty of North and South Korea. If nothing else, it buys some time.

Without fuel oil, more people freeze to death and maybe the regime is overthrown internally. If the West refuses to give fuel oil that is not much different than an invasion in the eyes of the NK leadership - both ways they end up dead.

Okay - so we find some way to reassure them we will not attack and we send a few million dollars in oil and food - that is million with an "m" not billion with a "b" and they agree to international monitors and a shut down of the plutonium plants.

Hey, ain't that Clinton's 1994 treaty all over again except maybe tightened up to remove the uranium loophole? Think Bush will do it?

Cobra Commander · 2003-01-03 22:51:34

Without fuel oil, more people freeze to death and maybe the regime is overthrown internally. If the West refuses to give fuel oil that is not much different than an invasion in the eyes of the NK leadership - both ways they end up dead.

I for one am completely against giving them anything outright, it gives the impression that we're acting from weakness. We can still allow fuel and food in through third parties, either working as intermediaries for us or simply letting the North Koreans buy them on the global market. We just shouldn't make a "fuel and food for cessation of weapons program" deal.

While a non-aggression pact of some type can be useful in this situation, the real key is to make the North Korean government sincerely believe that if they cooperate they'll be okay, if they resist they'll be eliminated. This doesn't have to be done in a humiliating fashion. It would be best if we could help the North Koreans save face while they backed down. The best solution is a treaty that gives them the appearance of a settlement negotiated on equal terms that benefits them, while still having the unspoken threat of massive force if its terms are not meant.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2002-12-31 17:12:22

Re: North Korea - Well, someone had to start. . .

#27 2003-01-01 16:03:38

Re: North Korea - Well, someone had to start. . .

#28 2003-01-01 16:07:58

Re: North Korea - Well, someone had to start. . .

#29 2003-01-01 16:28:22

Re: North Korea - Well, someone had to start. . .

#30 2003-01-01 22:44:38

Re: North Korea - Well, someone had to start. . .

#31 2003-01-02 00:23:00

Re: North Korea - Well, someone had to start. . .

#32 2003-01-02 11:02:06

Re: North Korea - Well, someone had to start. . .

#33 2003-01-02 11:16:03

Re: North Korea - Well, someone had to start. . .

#34 2003-01-02 14:23:05

Re: North Korea - Well, someone had to start. . .

#35 2003-01-02 14:42:53

Re: North Korea - Well, someone had to start. . .

#36 2003-01-02 14:45:57

Re: North Korea - Well, someone had to start. . .

#37 2003-01-02 14:53:28

Re: North Korea - Well, someone had to start. . .

#38 2003-01-02 14:56:52

Re: North Korea - Well, someone had to start. . .

#39 2003-01-02 16:10:41

Re: North Korea - Well, someone had to start. . .

#40 2003-01-03 01:27:47

Re: North Korea - Well, someone had to start. . .

#41 2003-01-03 10:44:42

Re: North Korea - Well, someone had to start. . .

#42 2003-01-03 11:41:04

Re: North Korea - Well, someone had to start. . .

#43 2003-01-03 13:14:46

Re: North Korea - Well, someone had to start. . .

#44 2003-01-03 13:24:26

Re: North Korea - Well, someone had to start. . .

#45 2003-01-03 13:33:10

Re: North Korea - Well, someone had to start. . .

#46 2003-01-03 15:26:48

Re: North Korea - Well, someone had to start. . .

#47 2003-01-03 15:30:02

Re: North Korea - Well, someone had to start. . .

#48 2003-01-03 16:32:20

Re: North Korea - Well, someone had to start. . .

#49 2003-01-03 17:49:54

Re: North Korea - Well, someone had to start. . .

#50 2003-01-03 22:51:34

Re: North Korea - Well, someone had to start. . .

Board footer