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

Bill White · 2002-12-30 11:08:49

What do you all think of this from the Boston Globe:

We need a new policy. Seoul, Tokyo, and Washington should propose a grand bargain to North Korea:
Pyongyang would come clean on its nuclear programs, allowing on-site inspections for its secret uranium enrichment program and resealing the unprocessed plutonium at immediate issue today.
It would stop selling missiles abroad and ban all flight testing of longer-range missiles.
It would allow all Japanese kidnap victims and their families to leave North Korea.
And it would make large (though not unilateral) cuts in conventional forces, as well as reductions in its forward-deployed military capabilities near the demilitarized zone.
In exchange, South Korea, Japan, and the United States would provide substantial economic aid (they would also keep food as well as fuel oil flowing now, on humanitarian grounds and as a show of good faith).
Japan is eventually expected to provide up to $10 billion as a form of compensation for its earlier colonization of North Korea, so much of the funding could come from Tokyo. We would sign a peace treaty and open up diplomatic relations. We could also provide technical aid to accompany the economic aid so North Korea could begin to reform.
But this offer would be tough, and Reaganesque - it would essentially be all or nothing. North Korea could not receive half the aid by making good only on nuclear and missile programs, for example, because such an approach would reaffirm its policy of blackmail. By adding conventional forces to the equation, we would be setting a good deal of the agenda, and forcing North Korea to make fundamental choices about military and economic reform.
This type of policy may well work. But the North Koreans are far too obstinate and ornery to think of it on their own. And the incoming South Korean president, Roh Moo Hyun, is not yet ready to develop a new initiative towards the North. That means there is a critical role for Washington. And the time to play it is now.

Bush advocates a legitimate cliche - don't bargain with terrorists.

Yet there is another legitimate cliche - don't corner a rat unless you are ready to pay the price needed to kill it.

Encouraging Japan to pay $10 billion to North Korea in exchange for reducing BOTH nuclear and conventional capabilities would end up being way way cheaper than watching Seoul and maybe Tokyo get nuked and watching as the US tries to evacuate 37000 US service men and women whilst one million North Korean soldiers drive south.

Not the mention the many millions of dead Koreans on both sides.

Thoughts?

clark · 2002-12-30 11:12:55

Makes sense, but it is naieve.

The military is what maintains the rule of the governing elite, who make the decisions.

Why would they voulantiarily disolve the means by which they ensure their power and position?

Bill White · 2002-12-30 12:02:51

Makes sense, but it is naieve

Isn't this the precise choice Gorbachev made when the Soviet Union collapsed? Gorby could have ended the Soviet era with a sea of mushroom clouds or a Russian tank blitz on Germany but he chose the international speakers circuit instead. :-)

But perhaps you are right and therefore fear of death is the only form of leverage we have over the North Korean leadership.

But since the starvation of their economy and their people will eventually lead to an internal revolt and the deaths of those leaders anyway - regardless of who is to "blame" for North Korean starvation - a US policy of confrontation may well assure a very nasty war once the North Korean leaders do feel entirely cornered.

Colin Powell and others loudly proclaim they do not seek war - but if you corner a rat what else can you expect to happen?

From the perspective of rational and enlightened humanity, the North Korean "strategy" is plainly insane combined with evil. From a "game theory" perspective - however - it is entirely logical and predictable that they will seek dozens of plutonium nukes unless we (a) kill them first or (b) bribe them into not doing it.

By refusing to bribe them perhaps we lock ourselves into killing them which means millions of others may well die also.

A more subtle scenario might be whether South Koreans finds a way to successfully "bribe" North Korean leadership which leads to a confederated North-South state and eventually a unifed Korean nuclear power.

soph · 2002-12-30 12:36:26

Bill, if someone breaks a treaty to build nukes, what do you do? Say, oh its ok, let me pay you to do what you said you would do, and hope they never do it again? Thats ridiculous.

We should throw out every treaty we ever signed. Legality is of no consequence, a treaty is only valid as long as the country "likes" the terms.

clark · 2002-12-30 12:43:38

North Korean actions seem to be dictated by the premise that the Western World has more to gain through appeasement than N.Korea has to lose in conflict.

Desperate people have the option of gambling everything since they have the least to lose.

Giving up their nuclear card, or even their convential threat is to reduce their country to that of Cuba. You get fed, but your nations self determination is denied. The same is happening with Iraq.

The development of nuclear weapons against any superpower is ludicrous because the industrial and economic requirement to play MAD is too much- the advent of missle shields is just another avenue to pursue the same game of status quo whereby the real nuclear club maintains the legitmate threat of MAD, and everyone else is a two bit player.

Of course the weakness here is that multiple two-bit players can devise means to deliver the WMDS- and counter-weapons become ever more complex and costly- it is a more exspensive game than even we can play.

Security must be maintained and as evident, people will continue to pay exorbanat sums for it- yet eventually the cost will spiral to a point where we disolve much like the Soviet Union did.

That's the threat posed by thrid world nuclear powers- or really, the proliferation of WMD's.

Bill White · 2002-12-30 13:47:31

Bill, if someone breaks a treaty to build nukes, what do you do? Say, oh its ok, let me pay you to do what you said you would do, and hope they never do it again? Thats ridiculous.
We should throw out every treaty we ever signed. Legality is of no consequence, a treaty is only valid as long as the country "likes" the terms.

I suggest you pay less attention to the neo-con pundits and more to genuine power strategists. Maybe like Machiavelli! US firepower is awesome but it is not limitless.

Are the Norks being ridiculous? Of course they are! But we have two choices on how to respond - bribe them or kill them. There is no middle road. If we decide to kill them we must kill them *NOW* before they deploy a dozen plutonium bombs.

Waste time in Iraq and turn to N Korea *after* they have deployed 6 or 8 plutonium bombs? Come on - now who is being ridiculous? The Norks may be crazy but they understand Machiavelli. Something we naive, idealistic "good vs evil" US-ians grasp only poorly. The North Korean leaders are betting their lives on Dubya being committed to an Iraq first policy.

And, before we US-ians ride too high on our horse about the sanctity of "treaties" let us consider how faithfully Washington followed our treaties with the native Americans - along with other examples.

Bottom line - Bush hated the 1994 agreement made by Clinton and has sought to undermine it ever since he took office. Clinton chose "bribe" rather than "kill" and Bush hates that. Fair enough - maybe Clinton should have invaded N Korea - but lets be honest about the costs and consequences of choosing the "kill" option.

And, soph, I respectfully ask you to swear on a stack of Bibles that the Republicans would have cooperated with a Clinton-ian war on North Korea back in 1994. The "bribe" option means 1 or 2 uranium bombs every few years. Bad? Well, yes but the "no bribe" option means a new plutonium bomb every month. "No bribes" combined with "no immediate regime change" is far, far worse, IMHO.

Finally - - if we are determined to "regime change" Pyongyang it will much easier to do NOW before those plutonium bombs are built rather than in six months or a year AFTER the Norks start deploying a new bomb each and every month. And, if we are not resolved to "regime change" Pyongyang we had better start sending cash as soon as possible.

soph · 2002-12-30 13:52:16

or we could strategically take out their nuclear plants.

Bill White · 2002-12-30 14:42:50

or we could strategically take out their nuclear plants.

Heh!

Does "strategically" mean a nuclear strike? A second instance of US "first use" of nuclear weapons? The "only" nation to actually use nuclear weapons, in two wars?

It might work and it might unleash a nasty chain reaction of unforeseen political and military consequences. *IF* we do that we had better make damn sure we have accounted for every Nork medium range missile first. And obtain the prior consent of China, Russia, Japan and the EU.

Anyway, I kind of doubt that any of their operational bombs are stored at convenient targeting points.

Or do you mean special forces? It would make a great video game but be prepared for 1 million soldiers blitzing S Korea seeking to capture 37000 US hostages (oops - I mean soldiers). Then we must invade North Korea, if only to rescue our troops.

soph · 2002-12-30 16:07:53

if it werent for the chinese, we would have won the Korean War.

Second, would a nuclear reactor stand up to continued bombing from normal airplanes? sure, it could stand up to a certain amount of beating, but i dont think it could stand up to sustained, deliberate bombing for very long.

third, what 2 wars? yes, they used them in ww2. when else? and the use of them in ww2 probably saved western europe from a soviet invasion post-ww2. it also showed the world the capability of nukes, and led to MAD, instead of wanton nuclear use.

AltToWar · 2002-12-30 23:33:17

You can't just take out the nuke plants.

Seoul, in S. Korea, is in Artillary range of N. Korea. IN addition, N Korea has a 1 Million man standing army.

To take out the bomb plants without some arrurance from N Korea that they will not invade or shell S Korea woul be putting the last nail in the Coffin for S Korea.

S Korea wants us to just stay out of it. N and S Korea have reciently made some big steps towards peace. (I have doubts as to N Koreas intentions, the timing of these concessions by N Korea were too convenient. I wonder if it's part of their smoke screen.)

It would be fallicy to believe that america has unlimited military might. The US has made an art-form of stratigic bmbing, but we do not have the numbers or logistic capability to fight a war with both Iraq and move in with a ground war with N Korea's 1,000,000 troops.

This is the trouble we get into for beating the war drum. If I were a third world dictator, and were just called "The Axis of Evil" by the most powerful nation in the world, I would be looking to beef up my defenses as well.

In My humble opinion, we let the nations who have the most to lose deal with the issue. Japan, Russia, China, and S Korea.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-31 01:33:01

In My humble opinion, we let the nations who have the most to lose deal with the issue. Japan, Russia, China, and S Korea.

WE DO HAVE A LOT TO LOSE! You forget that the North Koreans will have a missile capable of hitting American targets by 2005 (if they don't have it already, god forbid). Right now, those countries listed above have the most to lose, but if we don't act now, WE will be added to that list. ???

And who says we could fight another Korean war the American way? Everyone wants a strategic-bombing-then-the-tanks-drive-the-red-white-and-blue-into-Pyongyang kind of war. No. We will either have to fight the bloodiest war in years coming across the DMZ, or carpet the country with nukes. Plus, this war won't be as easy as Iraq was as far as strategic bombing goes. They have a WAY better air defense than they did, and we'd better be prepared to lose some fighters as a result.

This will be a real war, not one where we can sit back and let technology do the work. And while Israel was seperated from Iraq, South Korea is just a hop skip and a jump away...

if it werent for the chinese, we would have won the Korean War.

I'm glad somebody finally said it. China is a bigger player in this theater than anybody wants to admit.

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-31 03:58:01

China was defending themselves, of course. China played no part in the actual war, and weren't there, to address a misguided belief in this forum, ?to protect their Communist Comrades.? In fact, China warned the US that they would protect strategic points within North Korea. Today North Korea and China are not on good standing, and they never really were, this much is sure. But since this has all been said, I don't know why I'm rehashing.

As to the rest of the stuff in this thread. There's really no reason to address it. I say to do whatever we can to keep Korea from going ape with nuclear weapons. If that means bribery, so freaking be it.

Palomar · 2002-12-31 07:45:24

Bill White,Dec. 30 2002,17: Not the mention the many millions of dead Koreans on both sides.
Thoughts?

*I find it "very interesting" that all of a sudden, it seems, North Korea is pulling a Saddam-like stunt of kicking UN weapons inspectors out and behaving as though any UN treaty they signed is null and void. I can't help but strongly suspect that they're in cohoots with Saddam and/or some middle-eastern terrorist group associated with/sympathetic to Saddam; not long ago an unmarked N. Korean ship was caught near Yemen, with missiles hidden under sacks of cement.

I suspect North Korea is seeking to divert attention away from Iraq and Saddam.

As for South Korea, they've become rabidly anti-U.S. And while I know the U.S. has done some things to engender resentment and hatred, I have to agree with a political scientist who wrote, at a different forum and months ago, that these other nations worked just as hard to get themselves into a pickle (without any help from us). I say let the UN deal with North Korea and let's pull our troops out of South Korea (like they've been requesting we do)...and if it turns into one big nasty old clusterfuck between the Koreas, South Korea needn't come crying to us to help them.

I also think it's interesting that Russia issued a warning to N. Korea yesterday.

I really haven't a lot of time for debate, etc. (very busy in personal life right now); just tossing my opinion into the mix here.

--Cindy

Bill White · 2002-12-31 09:53:52

I say let the UN deal with North Korea and let's pull our troops out of South Korea (like they've been requesting we do)...and if it turns into one big nasty old clusterfuck between the Koreas, South Korea needn't come crying to us to help them.

Pull our troops out and encourage the Japanese to pay $10 billion to get the inspectors back in - - > 1 or 2 uranium bombs squirreled away and the reactors shut down is better than 1 new plutonium bomb per month.

-OR-

Big war and maybe a US carrier gets nuked while docked at Yokohama harbor. Whether before or after we take out the N Korean reactors.The poor Japanese - we fight the Norks and they get nuked again. Losing a $10 billion (plus?) US carrier and fighter wing would be a nasty loss for Uncle Sam besides the political fallout.

-OR-

a North Korean dictator way worse than Saddam acquires dozens of nuclear bombs and the reach to deliver them much farther than Saddam ever could. The resulting leverage over Tokyo means this is a bad situation whether or not we build national missile defense. Besides, there are other ways to deliver nukes other than missiles and N Korea will sell anything to anyone because they need the money.

-OR-

We wash our hands and let the Chinese and Russians deal with it - but if I am in Beijing or Moscow I like option#1 the best and I help leverage the Japanese into paying $10 billion to North Korea and reinstate the 1994 framework without US participation.

And, we find ourselves back at the proposal I quoted from in the very first post in this thread. Time to bribe the North Koreans, no?

Josh writes:

As to the rest of the stuff in this thread. There's really no reason to address it. I say to do whatever we can to keep Korea from going ape with nuclear weapons. If that means bribery, so freaking be it.

Gosh, Josh, you have been making so much sense these last few weeks - many of your posts I find to be very accurate.

Only I fear that no one in Washington will want to admit that maybe Clinton had a point back in 1994 and that treaty - however flawed - was still better than the available alternatives.

Palomar · 2002-12-31 10:02:15

I say let the UN deal with North Korea and let's pull our troops out of South Korea (like they've been requesting we do)...and if it turns into one big nasty old clusterfuck between the Koreas, South Korea needn't come crying to us to help them.
Pull our troops out and encourage the Japanese to pay $10 billion to get the inspectors back in - - > 1 or 2 uranium bombs squirreled away and the reactors shut down is better than 1 new plutonium bomb per month.
-OR-
Big war and maybe a US carrier gets nuked while docked at Yokohama harbor. Whether before or after we take out the N Korean reactors.The poor Japanese - we fight the Norks and they get nuked again. Losing a $10 billion (plus?) US carrier and fighter wing would be a nasty loss for Uncle Sam besides the political fallout.

-OR-
a North Korean dictator way worse than Saddam acquires dozens of nuclear bombs and the reach to deliver them much farther than Saddam ever could. The resulting leverage over Tokyo means this is a bad situation whether or not we build national missile defense. Besides, there are other ways to deliver nukes other than missiles and N Korea will sell anything to anyone because they need the money.
-OR-
We wash our hands and let the Chinese and Russians deal with it - but if I am in Beijing or Moscow I like option#1 the best and I help leverage the Japanese into paying $10 billion to North Korea and reinstate the 1994 framework without US participation.
And, we find ourselves back at the proposal I quoted from in the very first post in this thread. Time to bribe the North Koreans, no?

*I don't know, Bill. It seems a hopeless "damned if you do, damned if you don't." I don't have a solution, I can't say I can pick the better course for the overall scenario.

Let North Korea play their stupid little drama-queen games and let the UN deal with them. Let's pull our troops out of South Korea (like they've been demanding) and if push comes to shove between the Koreas, tough tit -- let them (the S. Koreans) and/or the UN deal with it.

North Korea's been pulling all sorts of crap lately, to get U.S. attention. I say let's ignore them (don't give them what they want) and let the UN deal with them. A good slighting is what they need, if nothing else. North Korea is simply behaving like a whining, manipulative brat; in that situation, you either give them a swat on the butt or redirect them.

That's just my attitude toward this situation.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-12-31 10:15:57

Has anyone stopped to ask what North Korea wants?

soph · 2002-12-31 10:32:24

more nuclear weapons? and oil?

clark · 2002-12-31 10:39:28

Why would it want more nuclear weapons?
What would it need more oil for?

soph · 2002-12-31 10:47:42

nuclear weapons to make itself a world power.

oil is needed for almost every major industry. why would they not need oil?

clark · 2002-12-31 10:52:53

nuclear weapons make a country a world power?

Isn't N.Korea starving? Don't they have frequent brown or black outs due to a decreped electrical grid and failing infrastructure? Why would N.Korea want to be a world power? How can they be a world power when theiur next door neighbor is China?

Oil is needed for most industry? Well, what would they do with that oil? Could they maybe run factories to produce things to sell to each other or other countries? Why would we want to prevent them from having oil?

soph · 2002-12-31 11:01:04

we want to prevent them from having oil because we want them to adhere to the treaty they signed

and youre pretty naive if you think nuclear weapons dont make a country a world power--at the very least, it gives them leverage in that they have the threat of nuclear weapons backing them. we have to take them seriously, because they dont follow our system of MAD. Why do you think the UN has gone on a crusade against any countries besides the US and Russia that have or try to develop weapons?

India and Pakistan were harshly sanctioned and reprimanded for developing nukes. Why do we want them to stop having nukes? Why should we sanction them and not North Korea?

Bill White · 2002-12-31 11:09:15

Has anyone stopped to ask what North Korea wants?

What the people of North Korea want and what their leaders what are not the same thing, IMHO.

The leaders want to remain the leaders. They want their children and grandchildren to remain leaders. They do not want to be killed like the leaders of communist Rumania. In an ideal world this is something we should not cooperate with as those leaders are BAD leaders by nearly any measure.

*IF* we can remove them at an acceptable cost we do so.

*IF* we cannot remove them at an acceptable cost we contain their ability to harm others and hope we get a better chance to remove them at some point in the future.

Containment includes paying whatever bribes are needed to pacify those leaders and should include saying and doing nothing to reveal that we desire their removal.

This is why I believe the "Axis of Evil" phrase was foolish. That phrase declares to North Korea that they are a domino we intend to push over after Iraq falls.

That is why they are rattling their cage so violently right now.

IMHO

clark · 2002-12-31 11:12:10

we want to prevent them from having oil because we want them to adhere to the treaty they signed

We signed treaties that we backed out of before. How is this different?

and youre pretty naive if you think nuclear weapons dont make a country a world power--at the very least, it gives them leverage in that they have the threat of nuclear weapons backing them. we have to take them seriously, because they dont follow our system of MAD.

I am naieve. I would postulate that North Korea would have to take us seriously becuase we could carpet bomb them back into the stone age, or slag their entire country if neccessary. It seems that history teaches us that conflicts are started with the hope of eventual victory- MAD assures this as impossible, thus, no conflicts. Why would we still have to take N. Korea seriously?

Why do you think the UN has gone on a crusade against any countries besides the US and Russia that have or try to develop weapons?

There could be several reasons, but I imagine that more people armed can lead to more opportunity for something to go wrong and a nuclear weapon is unleashed. Or, a bit more pragmatic and cynical view suggests that Russia and the US have a vested intetrest in maintining their monopoly on nukes- and they use their power in the Security council and foreign aid programs to meet this end.

Why do we want them [india & pakistan]to stop having nukes?

Actually, we are not sanctioning them anymore, and are increasing military ties with both of them- most notably Pakistan. Perhaps we should take a page from that play book and try to make north korea an ally.

Why should we sanction them and not North Korea?

What do we gain by sanctioning N. Korea?

soph · 2002-12-31 11:18:21

youre arguments are fundamentally flawed. 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.

usually when we back out of treaties, barring irrelevant references to Native American agreements centuries ago, we get the approval of the other country, such as in the ABM treaty.

India and Pakistan have only become more tied to us because of recent circumstances, namely, Al Qaeda.

We go after countries because we are frightened by the way in which these countries seek to use the weapons they develop, in the Cold War, the missle building was defensive--North Korea has nobody to defend against, thus, their missle building must be viewed as hostile.

Palomar · 2002-12-31 12:57:41

nuclear weapons make a country a world power?
Isn't N.Korea starving? Don't they have frequent brown or black outs due to a decreped electrical grid and failing infrastructure? Why would N.Korea want to be a world power? How can they be a world power when theiur next door neighbor is China?
Oil is needed for most industry? Well, what would they do with that oil? Could they maybe run factories to produce things to sell to each other or other countries? Why would we want to prevent them from having oil?

Clark: Isn't North Korea starving?

*Aren't common North Koreans starving because their ruling party prefers nuclear capability/weapons to human lives? Are the ruling party starving? I doubt it; their dictator looks like he's got an ample spare tire not due to starvation bloat. Of course, this is probably "all America's fault"...not theirs. God forbid any foreign nation take any of the blame/responsibility for the quagmire they're in.

Clark: Don't they have frequent brown or black outs due to a decreped electrical grid and failing infrastructure?

*Same reply as above.

Clark: Why would N.Korea want to be a world power?

*Sorry, I've got to be blunt: What a stupid question. Why ::wouldn't:: they want to be a world power? What nation ::would:: pass up the opportunity to become a world power? Do you know nothing about human nature and politics?

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-12-30 11:08:49

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

#2 2002-12-30 11:12:55

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

#3 2002-12-30 12:02:51

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

#4 2002-12-30 12:36:26

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

#5 2002-12-30 12:43:38

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

#6 2002-12-30 13:47:31

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

#7 2002-12-30 13:52:16

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

#8 2002-12-30 14:42:50

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

#9 2002-12-30 16:07:53

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

#10 2002-12-30 23:33:17

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

#11 2002-12-31 01:33:01

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

#12 2002-12-31 03:58:01

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

#13 2002-12-31 07:45:24

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

#14 2002-12-31 09:53:52

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

#15 2002-12-31 10:02:15

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

#16 2002-12-31 10:15:57

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

#17 2002-12-31 10:32:24

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

#18 2002-12-31 10:39:28

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

#19 2002-12-31 10:47:42

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

#20 2002-12-31 10:52:53

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

#21 2002-12-31 11:01:04

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

#22 2002-12-31 11:09:15

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

#23 2002-12-31 11:12:10

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

#24 2002-12-31 11:18:21

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

#25 2002-12-31 12:57:41

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

Board footer