North Korea claims to possess nuclear weapons

[Republic]

From the BBC News Service:
N Korea suspends nuclear talks
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4252481.stm

North Korea will stay away from talks on its nuclear programme for an "indefinite period", according to the nation's foreign ministry.

Pyongyang said there was no point in the talks since the US had termed North Korea an "outpost of tyranny".

The North also repeated a claim to have built nuclear weapons for self-defence.

But US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the communist state would only deepen its international isolation if it pulled out of the talks.

"The world has given them a way out and we hope they will take that way out," she said at a news conference with European Union leaders.

Washington and Pyongyang have been locked in a diplomatic standoff since October 2002, when the US accused North Korea of operating an illegal uranium programme.

Since then three rounds of talks have been held - including China, Japan, Russia and South Korea - but little progress has been made.

The North Korean foreign ministry's statement, which was reported by state news agency KCNA, said: "We have wanted the six-party talks but we are compelled to suspend our participation... for an indefinite period".

It added that Pyongyang had "manufactured nukes for self-defence" and would take "a measure to bolster its nuclear weapons arsenal" in order to "protect its ideology, system, freedom and democracy".

This is North Korea's most explicit public assertion that it possesses nuclear weapons. Senior members of the regime have privately spoken about its nuclear capability on several occasions in the past.

US and other intelligence agencies believe the North could already have built a small number of weapons, variously estimated at between two and ten.

North Korea's anger appears to be directed at several keynote speeches made by US President George Bush and other senior members of his administration as they started their new terms in office.

"The second-term Bush administration's intention to antagonise the DPRK (North Korea) and isolate and stifle it at any cost has become quite clear," the statement said, citing the president's inaugural address and his State of the Union speech.

Condoleezza Rice's description of the isolated nation as an "outpost of tyranny" was also singled out for criticism.

"There is no justification for us to participate in the six-party talks again, given that the Bush administration termed the DPRK, a dialogue partner, an 'outpost of tyranny'," the statement said.

Some observers had hoped that Mr Bush's State of the Union speech would actually increase the chance of the stalled nuclear talks going ahead, because the president refrained from direct criticism of North Korea.

In a past speech, in 2002, he famously described Iraq, Iran and North Korea as part of an "axis of evil".

In Thursday's statement, Pyongyang also had strong words to say about Japan, which it described as "persistently pursuing its hostile policy toward the DPRK, toeing the US line".

It accused Tokyo of trying to prevent normalised relations by making false claims over the "abduction issue" - an ongoing row about missing Japanese nationals which North Korea admits to having kidnapped in the 1970s and 80s.

Pyongyang claims the issue has now been "settled".

Just hours before North Korea's statement was released, John Bolton, the US undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, said that Washington believed Pyongyang was still continuing to produce nuclear weapons.

"To whatever extent the North Koreans are proceeding with their programme, and we believe they are, the absence of progress in six-party talks means they are making further progress toward their increased capability," Mr Bolton told reporters during a visit to Tokyo.

"Time is not on our side," he added.

[e1618978]

This shows you how useless diplomacy is. I think that military action against North Korea is a lot more important that a war with Iran.

Probably air strikes against Iran to knock out their nuclear labs, without a ground invasion, would be enough - that way we could team up with China and crush North Korea.

It seems that preserving the current Iranian society would be a lot better than post-war chaos. We just need to knock out the nuclear stuff and (if we can somehow) tip the balance of power to the secular government.

[running with scissors]

Originally posted by e1618978
North Korea claims to possess nuclear weapons

no shit? let's see, over here we have a two bit has-been of a dictator running most of a country that possesses little to no threat to us, or a hardline dictator that controls every aspect of his country and poses a significant threat in a conventional, biological, and nuclear sense while making threats to export those same capabilities to others for economic and political gain. nice to know our government has it's priorities straight.

[iPoster]

'We begin bombing in five minutes'

:wow:

[Common Man]

This one will be a real test for the Bush Administration. The military option is not a good one. If they have the weapons they claim to have, it will be messy. Especially for South Korea. This is a time for solid leadership, solid diplomacy and being tuff without showing disrespect. No time for name calling and clueless tough guy talk. The NK leadership is dangerous, desparate and perhaps a head case. We will see if W and company are up to it. I hope so.

[e1618978]

This is a time for solid leadership, solid diplomacy and being tuff without showing disrespect.

That is a steaming load. Kim Jong Il keeps on bringing things to a head, and in order to get him to promise to stop, we send him a boadload of money (as Clinton did). He renegs on his promise, and the situation repeats itself.

Diplomacy is what got us into this mess - bombing is what is required here, if we can get the Chineese to agree.

[Common Man]

" if we can get the Chineese to agree."

I'm sure they will be on board. We have such a good relationship with them, after all.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Common Man
" if we can get the Chineese to agree."

I'm sure they will be on board. We have such a good relationship with them, after all.

Actually, we do have a good relationship with them - the business relationship between the US and China is very strong, and very important to both countries. And why would they want a neighbor like North Korea? They cut off the North Korean oil for a few days not too long ago, in order to try and send them a message.

China could invade, remove all nuclear materials, remove Kim Jong Il from power, and then withdraw and let South Korea handle the reconstruction and peace as they re-combine the two countries.

[dmz]

I wonder if we could trade Taiwan for N. Korea.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by dmz
I wonder if we could trade Taiwan for N. Korea.

haha. A rare point of humor in my day

[Ra]

We should go in there NOW. We invaded Iraq because _some_ people thought they _might_ have WMD. Well, North Korea now _has_ WMD. They are a threat to our freedom and will probably attack us if we don't attack them first. Preemptive action is a must.


:rolleyes:

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by Ra
We should go in there NOW. We invaded Iraq because _some_ people thought they _might_ have WMD. Well, North Korea now _has_ WMD. They are a threat to our freedom and will probably attack us if we don't attack them first. Preemptive action is a must.


How are they are a threat your 'freedom' exactly?

[applenut]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
How are they are a threat your 'freedom' exactly?

he's being sarcastic



I really don't see the logic in people's fears. Apparently no one can have defense systems and military except for Americans anymore.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
How are they are a threat your 'freedom' exactly?

Lets see - we have a crazy isolated society that hates America, and is crushed by poverty. They bring out the Nuclear weapons and missle tests periodically to try and blackmail the rest of the world into giving them money, and the rest of the world has given them protection money in the past. They have the capibility to launch a nuclear weapon which could hit South Korea or Japan, and they have threatened to do so.

The poverty, isolation, and twisted dictator are the root causes. By invading, we can get rid of all three (North Korea can be as rich as South Korea in 40 years if we open things up).

[applenut]

Originally posted by e1618978

The poverty, isolation, and twisted dictator are the root causes. By invading, we can get rid of all three (North Korea can be as rich as South Korea in 40 years if we open things up).

we can do that without them launching a nuke?

[Common Man]

Did I once make posts like that? Yeesh

[e1618978]

Originally posted by applenut
we can do that without them launching a nuke?

Maybe we can shoot it down. I doubt that their missle technology is a match for ours. If we wait, then it will only get worse.

[Common Man]

The South will sure hope we can shoot it down. What happens to it when we shoot it down? I really don't know.

[applenut]

Originally posted by e1618978
Maybe we can shoot it down. I doubt that their missle technology is a match for ours. If we wait, then it will only get worse.

wow, that's something to bank on:rolleyes:

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Common Man
The South will sure hope we can shoot it down. What happens to it when we shoot it down? I really don't know.

Suppose the north gets a shot off and a million people are killed in South Korea by a nuclear blast - I submit that the country will still be better off with North Korea defeated and re-integrated into a united Korea. Which would you rather have - a madman with a gun at your head or a missing finger?

Would you rather wait until they have better missle technology and 100 warheads?

[applenut]

Originally posted by e1618978
Suppose the north gets a shot off and a million people are killed in South Korea by a nuclear blast - I submit that the country will still be better off with North Korea defeated and re-integrated into a united Korea. Which would you rather have - a madman with a gun at your head or a missing finger?

Would you rather wait until they have better missle technology and 100 warheads?

1 million people = 1 finger


interesting (and scary) logic

[e1618978]

Originally posted by applenut
1 million people = 1 finger
interesting (and scary) logic

When you consider that two entire countries full of people (South Korea and Japan) are at risk, you can see that my logic holds water. It it the same scale of decision as the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (do I bomb these cities, or lose millions of troops in a land invasion?)

South Korea can help things, because it would most likely evacuate its cities during the danger period. I would be surprised if plans for this are not already in place, along with country bunkers and food supplies already stored.

[Common Man]

e1618978 that is why we need the kind of leadership I talked about in my first post. We need to avoid military action unless it is the absolute last resort.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Common Man
e1618978 that is why we need the kind of leadership I talked about in my first post. We need to avoid military action unless it is the absolute last resort.

How would that be any different than Clinton avoiding military action by paying them to dismantle their nuclear facilities in the past (i.e. the plan that got us into this situation in the first place).

I think that Madaline Albright (or however you spell her name) is a pretty smart diplomat, and she failed to prevent this via diplomacy. Why do you think that current diplomats will do a better job?

[iPoster]

We don't want to start a nuclear war unless we really have to, now do we e1618978?



(apologies to Peter Sellers)

[e1618978]

We don't want to start a nuclear war unless we really have to, now do we e1618978?

But what if the alternatives are a small nuclear war now or a big one later? I still haven't heard any compelling counter-arguments.

[bborofka]

How about no nuclear war at all? Is USA the only country allowed to have nuclear weapons?

[Common Man]

If we had only nuked them Russians in the 50s and gotten it over with instead of that drawn out cold war!

A small nuclear war? Like Nagasaki and Hiroshima? That was 2 bombs of 1940s strength. No, we don't want a small nuclear war . I dont think that the Bush admin does either.

[dmz]

Originally posted by iPoster
We don't want to start a nuclear war unless we really have to, now do we e1618978?



(apologies to Peter Sellers)

that movie cracks me up every time I watch it.


Muffley:

Hello? Hello, Dimitri? Listen, I can't hear too well, do you suppose you could turn the music down just a little? Oh, that's much better. Yes. Fine, I can hear you now, Dimitri. Clear and plain and coming through fine. I'm coming through fine too, eh? Good, then. Well then as you say we're both coming through fine. Good. Well it's good that you're fine and I'm fine. I agree with you. It's great to be fine. laughs Now then Dimitri. You know how we've always talked about the possibility of something going wrong with the bomb. The bomb, Dimitri. The hydrogen bomb. Well now what happened is, one of our base commanders, he had a sort of, well he went a little funny in the head. You know. Just a little... funny. And uh, he went and did a silly thing. Well, I'll tell you what he did, he ordered his planes... to attack your country. Well let me finish, Dimitri. Let me finish, Dimitri. Well, listen, how do you think I feel about it? Can you imagine how I feel about it, Dimitri? Why do you think I'm calling you? Just to say hello? Of course I like to speak to you. Of course I like to say hello. Not now, but any time, Dimitri. I'm just calling up to tell you something terrible has happened. It's a friendly call. Of course it's a friendly call. Listen, if it wasn't friendly, ... you probably wouldn't have even got it. They will not reach their targets for at least another hour. I am... I am positive, Dimitri. Listen, I've been all over this with your ambassador. It is not a trick. Well I'll tell you. We'd like to give your air staff a complete run down on the targets, the flight plans, and the defensive systems of the planes. Yes! I mean, if we're unable to recall the planes, then I'd say that, uh, well, we're just going to have to help you destroy them, Dimitri. I know they're our boys. Alright, well, listen... who should we call? Who should we call, Dimitri? The people...? Sorry, you faded away there. The People's Central Air Defense Headquarters. Where is that, Dimitri? In Omsk. Right. Yes. Oh, you'll call them first, will you? Uh huh. Listen, do you happen to have the phone number on you, Dimitri? What? I see, just ask for Omsk Information. I'm sorry too, Dimitri. I'm very sorry. Alright! You're sorrier than I am! But I am sorry as well. I am as sorry as you are, Dimitri. Don't say that you are more sorry than I am, because I am capable of being just as sorry as you are. So we're both sorry, alright? Alright. Yes he's right here. Yes, he wants to talk to you. Just a second.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by bborofka
How about no nuclear war at all? Is USA the only country allowed to have nuclear weapons?

How about all those little countries in Africa - why don't we let them have Nuclear weapons, also - in fact, why don't we sell them nuclear weapons?

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Common Man
Did I once make posts like that? Yeesh

Just like that.

[timmy o'tool]

glad to see W's little middle east demonstration in Iraq was effective in showing the "axis of evil" what seeking nuclear weapons would bring them....oh wait.....never mind.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by e1618978
How about all those little countries in Africa - why don't we let them have Nuclear weapons, also - in fact, why don't we sell them nuclear weapons?

because no one has given two shits about anything in Africa since the end of the cold war.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by timmy o'tool
glad to see W's little middle east demonstration in Iraq was effective in showing the "axis of evil" what seeking nuclear weapons would bring them....oh wait.....never mind.

That is even more reason to stomp NK, to show future problem countries that we can handle two wars at once, and that owning a nuclear weapon will not save you from the storm.
We need to be able to handle two wars at once, because otherwise everyone will misbehave once we start the first war (as KJI is doing right now).

[midwinter]

Originally posted by e1618978
That is even more reason to stomp NK, to show future problem countries that we can handle two wars at once

Three wars at once.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by midwinter
because no one has given two shits about anything in Africa since the end of the cold war.

I was being sarcastic. My point did not relate to the importance of Africa, just the stability of Africa and the wisdom of having unstable countries own nuclear weapons.

[Towel]

Originally posted by e1618978
Suppose the north gets a shot off and a million people are killed in South Korea by a nuclear blast - I submit that the country will still be better off with North Korea defeated and re-integrated into a united Korea.
...
Suth Korea can help things, because it would most likely evacuate its cities during the danger period. I would be surprised if plans for this are not already in place, along with country bunkers and food supplies already stored. I mean this in the most respectful way possible: Are you fucking nuts?

NK has tens of thousands of artillery tubes in hardened emplacements within range of Seoul. In the words of Tom Clancy, they don't fucking need nukes. The US military estimates that even a conventional attack would result in hundreds of thousands, if not a million, civilian casualties.

The city of Seoul alone includes almost a quarter of SK's population, over ten million people. Probably another 10 million live in the outlying districts. SK is very much a one-city nation, and that city is Seoul. Evacuation? Are you kidding? It would be like trying to evacuate NYC into Long Island. No fucking way. There's nowhere for them to go and no way to get them there.

The net result is that we don't do shit without the approval of SK's government and people. They don't care what you think is better for them. Because they know, we know, and the NK's know, that they'll reap the shitstorm of whatever we stir up.

[And yes, I have a personal interest here - my gf's family lives well within artillery range of the DMZ. Such a connection helps establish perspective that not starting a war that will almost certainly kill over a million innocent people is vastly preferable to almost all imaginable, not to mention probable, alternatives.]

[pierr_alex]

Originally posted by e1618978
...the wisdom of having unstable countries own nuclear weapons. Any stable country can become unstable.
There's no exception. Remember Europe, with Hitler in 1933 and what followed after WWII, Franco in Spain, Tito in Tchecoslovaquia, etc… The US had its own instability with the secession war.

[Gon]

Originally posted by bborofka
How about no nuclear war at all? Is USA the only country allowed to have nuclear weapons? I also wonder how this fits in the picture of a country where a big part of the population thinks it is their unalienable right to carry weapons to defend themselves. When someone thinks the opposite - that people have no right to defend themselves from violence using violence - they usually make the claim that police exists for that purpose. That's false, of course, but I note that there is no equivalent of "police" or "government" on the global scale, so there is no way to even attempt the same argument.

[iPoster]

Originally posted by e1618978
small nuclear war

You obviously didn't grow up during the Cold War. There is no such thing as a small or survivable nuclear war. :rolleyes:

Some good reading about the effects of a nuclear bomb here. (http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/effects.htm)

A nuclear detonation creates a severe environment including blast, thermal pulse, neutrons, x- and gamma-rays, radiation, electromagnetic pulse (EMP), and ionization of the upper atmosphere. Depending upon the environment in which the nuclear de-vice is detonated, blast effects are manifested as ground shock, water shock, “blueout,” cratering, and large amounts of dust and radioactive fallout. All pose problems for the survival of friendly systems and can lead to the destruction or neutralization of hostile assets.

Nuclear effects on electromagnetic signal propagation, which affects command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence (C 4 I), are of concern to countries expected to use nuclear weapons, particularly those which intend to explode a weapon at great altitudes or those which expect to have to defend against such a nuclear attack. C3I technology is primarily affected by high-altitude nuclear effects that could interrupt satellite-to-satellite communications, satellite-to-aircraft links, or satellite-to-ground links. Most nations will hope that signals from Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites and ground-based differential GPS transmitters will be usable shortly after a nuclear explosion, as well as traditional communications channels which must be protected.

The electromagnetic pulse generated by the detonation of a single nuclear weapon at high altitudes can be a threat to military systems located as much as a thousand miles away. HEMP can disable communications systems and even power grids at enormous distances from the burst. This type of threat could be used by a third world country that has the capability to launch a rocket carrying a high-yield device (about 1 megaton or more) a few hundred kilometers into the upper atmosphere and a few thousand kilometers from its own territory (to avoid damaging its own systems).

[Gon]

Originally posted by iPoster
There is no such thing as a small or survivable nuclear war.If the amount of weapons used was small, why not. Nuclear tests have been done for a long time and none of them magically split Earth in two.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by Gon
If the amount of weapons used was small, why not. Nuclear tests have been done for a long time and none of them magically split Earth in two.
Radioactive meat, water, and grain even in the continents that aren't reduced to smoking rubble. Catastrophic climate change. A 'small' nuclear war is a very different thing to a nuclear test.

I remember when the reactor at Chernobyl melted down they had to destroy lambs in Wales.

[pierr_alex]

The principle of nukes is dissuasion.
If this law is broken, I mean by a responsible country not a terrorist organization, then we're on for total self destruction and we will thank Donald (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/science/07bomb.html?ei=5094&en=99ccd003d8dd07db&hp=&ex=1107838800&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print&position=)

[e1618978]

... gun enplacements

So we carpet bomb the gun emplacements. I'm sure that if we have to do this, it has already been planned out and war gamed to death.

... any country can become unstable

That is an argument for *every* country being nuclear free, not an argument for *any* country being a nuclear power.

... nuclear weapons are destructive

I don't see any way that North Korea, with a scanty 12 warheads, could destroy the human race.

I still say that we wack them. It will have to be done skillfully, though.

[dmz]

Just hope NK hasn't figured out the suitcase Bomb.

Plutonium is forever.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by e1618978
... gun enplacements

So we carpet bomb the gun emplacements. I'm sure that if we have to do this, it has already been planned out and war gamed to death.

... any country can become unstable

That is an argument for *every* country being nuclear free, not an argument for *any* country being a nuclear power.

... nuclear weapons are destructive

I don't see any way that North Korea, with a scanty 12 warheads, could destroy the human race.

I still say that we wack them. It will have to be done skillfully, though.

yeeeeeehaaaaaaaaaa!!!! Pax Ameriwhatsits!

[Gon]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Radioactive meat, water, and grain even in the continents that aren't reduced to smoking rubble. Catastrophic climate change. A 'small' nuclear war is a very different thing to a nuclear test.

I remember when the reactor at Chernobyl melted down they had to destroy lambs in Wales. I am no physicist, but I understand they now have bombs that are very "clean" in that the amount of leftover radiation is small. Logic says the less energy (radiation) is left over, the more has been put towards the initial kaboom. No one designed Chernobyl to go off, so no wonder it kept spewing fumes for a long time.

If another side uses a couple of tactical nukes, does that make the war a nuclear war? What if the another side then shoots an ICBM with a strategic nuclear warhead, but only one? These are clearly not total destruction scenarios, yet I think they are clearly possible in today's fragmented world. You can have multiple reactions going off exactly as intended and yet a combined energy discharge orders of magnitude smaller than in single nuclear tests of the 60's.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Gon
I am no physicist, but I understand they now have bombs that are very "clean" in that the amount of leftover radiation is small.

Atomic weapons have always been very clean. Come to Utah, and I'll give you a tour of some of the old testing grounds and the communities downwind (http://www.downwinders.org/) of them.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by midwinter
yeeeeeehaaaaaaaaaa!!!! Pax Ameriwhatsits!

No, we don't want to rule the world. In fact, we want them to become rich so that buy a bunch of our goods, and also so they demand clean air and water.

North Korea is going to be the hostile begger of the world, though, for the rest of time unless we kick them back onto the track.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by e1618978
[B]No, we don't want to rule the world. In fact, we want them to become rich so that buy a bunch of our goods, and also so they demand clean air and water.

No. That is most decidedly not what we want. The moment that the people in China who make the clothes you're wearing right now make more than a few cents an hour, the American standard of living goes down the tubes. We want to preserve our standard of living. We want people to buy our goods. We want our goods to be cheap. If that means some slave labor out there, so be it.

Little Eichmanns, indeed.

North Korea is going to be the hostile begger of the world, though, for the rest of time unless we kick them back onto the track.

Or unless we continue to apply sanctions and otherwise ignore them and anyone who will play with them until they are either rendered utterly, utterly irrelevant or utterly, utterly isolated.

[e1618978]

Or unless we continue to apply sanctions and otherwise ignore them and anyone who will play with them until they are either rendered utterly, utterly irrelevant or utterly, utterly isolated. [/B]

And then the Democrats blame the Republicans for the sanctions, just like Iraq - demonstrations showing millions of starving and dead children ('and it is Bush's fault!'). Sorry - war plays alot better in America - it is exciting, it is over quickly, and in the end it kills fewer people.

Also, isolation would just make them more crazy and more desparate, and they would fall off the cliff with a much bigger basket of warheads.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by e1618978
And then the Democrats blame the Republicans for the sanctions, just like Iraq - demonstrations showing millions of starving and dead children ('and it is Bush's fault!'). Sorry - war plays alot better in America - it is exciting, it is over quickly, and in the end it kills fewer people.

That is an incredibly disturbing argument, and reveals a great deal about the way that modern media has worked to package modern warfare. It's funny, too, that you're making arguments that Groverat did when he was the AO überhawk. Ooh. It should be Gröverat.

Oh, how I long for a war without a special graphic.

Also, isolation would just make them more crazy and more desparate, and they would fall off the cliff with a much bigger basket of warheads. [/B]

Yeah! Just like Iraq! Oh. Wait.

[e1618978]

CNN has a graphic up with the details on the NK military - according to them only 300 artillery pieces are within range of Soeul. They do have quite a bit of chemical and biological weapons, though.

[e1618978]

Yeah! Just like Iraq! Oh. Wait. [/B]

You are forgetting that the invasion of Iraq went very well, it was afterwards that things went south (and have recently come back to "going well" again). Keeping the peace will be easier, also, because South Korea has 600,000 troops, and they will probably be the ones policing the newly combined country.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by e1618978
You are forgetting that the invasion of Iraq went very well, it was afterwards that things went south (and have recently come back to "going well" again). Keeping the peace will be easier, also, because South Korea has 600,000 troops, and they will probably be the ones policing the newly combined country.

My, you got a mighty dose of the Kool-aid, didn't you!

[e1618978]

Originally posted by midwinter
My, you got a mighty dose of the Kool-aid, didn't you!

I have an open mind, its just that your arguments are not convincing. Talking about how we should not invade because NK is dangerous is BS - that is like telling a woman to stay with her abusive husband because he is really big and mean.

Diplomacy obviously does not work in this situation. If the NK people rose up, killed their "Dear Leader", and handed over the WMDs, then I would agree that we should not invade. But that is not going to happen.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by e1618978
I have an open mind, its just that your arguments are not convincing.

I've been making an argument? News to me.

Talking about how we should not invade because NK is dangerous is BS - that is like telling a woman to stay with her abusive husband because he is really big and mean.

Let's not reason by analogy, since it's inevitably a distraction. And I said nothing about not invading because it was dangerous. I implied that it was stupid.

Diplomacy obviously does not work in this situation.

Brass tacks: define the Bush administration's attempts at diplomacy. Define "does not work," and then, please, explain what a diplomacy that "works" might look like or accomplish. Finally, define "this situation."

If the NK people rose up, killed their "Dear Leader", and handed over the WMDs, then I would agree that we should not invade.

We keep wishing this will happen and yet, strangely, it rarely does. And then when it does, the Republicans go batshit over nation building....

But that is not going to happen. [/B]

No. It's likely not.

[Gon]

Originally posted by midwinter
Atomic weapons have always been very clean. Come to Utah, and I'll give you a tour of some of the old testing grounds and the communities downwind (http://www.downwinders.org/) of them. Ooh, so nuclear weapons can harm people? Fascinating. Wouldn't have expected that, no sir.

Really, I'm interested in what is the minimum fallout that can currently be achieved with a nuclear weapon. I am certain there is a big difference with what can be done today, and what could be done fifty years ago.

Regarding the amount of nuclear weapons, I don't understand what the US needs a ten thousand bombs for.. isn't it all just a big unnecessary maintenance expense and a security risk? If a hundred nuclear weapons is not enough to win a war, it seems bloody likely the war can not be won.

[Gon]

Originally posted by e1618978
Diplomacy obviously does not work in this situation. If the NK people rose up, killed their "Dear Leader", and handed over the WMDs, then I would agree that we should not invade. But that is not going to happen. If I'm reading this correctly, you are saying that if the North Koreans imprisoned their leadership overnight, put up a nice happy democracy and minded their own business, the US should invade and take their weapons. :err:

What's the defining factor that, in your opinion, gives you the right to go to war against another country? Surely not possession of weapons alone.

[e1618978]

If I'm reading this correctly, you are saying that if the North Koreans imprisoned their leadership overnight, put up a nice happy democracy and minded their own business, the US should invade and take their weapons. :err:

smart ass!

What's the defining factor that, in your opinion, gives you the right to go to war against another country? Surely not possession of weapons alone.

Danger to their neighbours. Danger to the global safety and economy. I think that NK safely meet this criteria.

[midwinter] when I said that diplomacy had failed, I was talking about Çlinton's diplomacy. Diplomacy had failed before Bush got into office - paying them to stop nuclear efforts was obviously worth a try, but it also obviously failed.

[tonton]

Gee... what would be more immediately dangerous to South Korea?

US invading NK, or US continuing to pursue diplomacy?

Hmm...

[e1618978]

Originally posted by tonton
Gee... what would be more immediately dangerous to South Korea?

US invading NK, or US continuing to pursue diplomacy?

Hmm...

At what point would you discontinue diplomacy? It seems to me that you all would continue to talk while Rome burns. I think that even Clinton, were he in office, would take a serious look at stepping on NK at this point.

[THT]

I think North Korea is bluffing. They don't have an actual nuclear weapon yet, just the materials. Why? No testing has been detected.

But like I've said before, give them what they want. Give them fuel oil and lift the sanctions. Then corrupt the North Korean public with wealth like sending a Nike, Samsung, LG factories et al there. Ideas of self-rule will arise because people like money. It'll take a generation, but a better course because the current grandstanding is volatile.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by THT
I think North Korea is bluffing. They don't have an actual nuclear weapon yet, just the materials. Why? No testing has been detected.

But like I've said before, give them what they want. Give them fuel oil and lift the sanctions. Then corrupt the North Korean public with wealth like sending a Nike, Samsung, LG factories et al there. Ideas of self-rule will arise because people like money. It'll take a generation, but a better course because the current grandstanding is volatile.

The NK government will re-route any money that you send them into the military, and they don't want foreign factories. In order to get foreign factories there, you would have to invade them first.

One of the problems with NK is that they will stay poor forever with the current leadership. The current situation is unstable, because the spend so much money on the military that their population starves. Since their population is starving, they have to threaten their neighbors in order to get food money.

[Gene Clean]

There are serious levels of brainwashing in this topic.

[tonton]

If the US attacks NK from any direction, by any means, Seoul will be destroyed.

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Radioactive meat, water, and grain even in the continents that aren't reduced to smoking rubble. Catastrophic climate change. A 'small' nuclear war is a very different thing to a nuclear test.

I remember when the reactor at Chernobyl melted down they had to destroy lambs in Wales.

Chernobyl was a graphite reactor and was a demonstration of Classic Soviet design (i.e. human life is cheap). You can't compare Chernobyl to a small nuclear war because Chernobyl dumped tons of radioactive material into the athmosphere. Each nuke only contains at most a dozen or so pounds of Uranium or Plutonium.

Now on the other hand, Plutonium is far more toxic than Uranium/radioactive grpahite.

The real danger is from radioactive isotopes that the body absorbes, particularly radioactive iodine which does damage to your thyroid.

I'm not saying that we should light of nukes, just that a snall nuclear war wouldn't result in global ecological destruction. Nonetheless i'm sure that I sound like a madman to fellow English speakers across the Atlantic.

[Yevgeny]

Well my thoughts are that if there was any leader on earth that I could bomb into nonexistence, that it would be Kim Jong Il. Personally, if I could strap a bomb on my back and take the guy out, I would wish my girlfriend and family goodbye and do it. The guy is evil plain and simple on the level of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Hitler.

Having said that, we can not start a war with North Korea. To do so would just be too destructive and would likely result in the deaths of many Koreans, Japanese, and Americans.

We cannot enter into a bilateral negotiations with the DPRK because we did this before (in 1994, headed up by the gullible Jimmy Carter) and Kim just broke his word by refining Uranium. We'd be rewarding some seriously bad behavior. People seem to forget that the DPRK has already demonstrated that they will just use a treaty to gain time and to do whatever they wanted to do. Treatys only mean something if the other party is willing to actually hold to the treaty, otherwise diplomacy is a weapon that can be used against you.

We need six way negotiations so that if the DPRK breaks its work, it is breaking its word to all of its neighbors (esp China who helps to keep the DPRK afloat with fuel and food). The theory here is that the DPRK won't piss off all of its neighbors. I hope this works, although I think that the prudent thing to do would be to continue planning for war since Kim isn't that reasonable a man.


In the meantime, when I read that the DPRK said out loud what everyone has known for a while, the first things I checked up on were:
THEL (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/systems/THEL.html)
and
ABL (http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/abl/flash.html)
and
TBMD (http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/nssrm/initiatives/ntwd.htm)

Nice to see my tax dollars funding useful acronyms.

[Yevgeny]

Oh, for those of you who dislike the US our diplomacy/ leader/ whatever, I am curious to know how you think that this situation with North Korea should be resolved. Please forward what you consider to be a good solution.

[e1618978]

We cannot enter into a bilateral negotiations with the DPRK because we did this before (in 1994, headed up by the gullible Jimmy Carter) and Kim just broke his word by refining Uranium. We'd be rewarding some seriously bad behavior. People seem to forget that the DPRK has already demonstrated that they will just use a treaty to gain time and to do whatever they wanted to do. Treatys only mean something if the other party is willing to actually hold to the treaty, otherwise diplomacy is a weapon that can be used against you.[\QUOTE]

Exactly

[QUOTE]We need six way negotiations so that if the DPRK breaks its work, it is breaking its word to all of its neighbors (esp China who helps to keep the DPRK afloat with fuel and food). The theory here is that the DPRK won't piss off all of its neighbors. I hope this works, although I think that the prudent thing to do would be to continue planning for war since Kim isn't that reasonable a man.


In the meantime, when I read that the DPRK said out loud what everyone has known for a while, the first things I checked up on were:
THEL (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/systems/THEL.html)
and
ABL (http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/abl/flash.html)
and
TBMD (http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/nssrm/initiatives/ntwd.htm)

Nice to see my tax dollars funding useful acronyms. [/B]

That is the first post that convinced me that it is prudent to wait and negotiate. The US weapons programs develop new hardware much more quickly than NK - at some point it will be easy and safe to go in and kill them, because their weapons will be so obsolete.

The trick is preventing them from getting any technology transfer from other countries.

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by e1618978
That is the first post that convinced me that it is prudent to wait and negotiate. The US weapons programs develop new hardware much more quickly than NK - at some point it will be easy and safe to go in and kill them, because their weapons will be so obsolete.

The trick is preventing them from getting any technology transfer from other countries.

Well I wouldn't want to trust my life to these systems quite yet. I seem to recall that ABL should have its first combat ready plane in 06.

THEL is good for shooting down short range rockets, mortar rounds, and artillery shells.

Ideally, we could settle this without having to resort to these weapons because a second war on the Korean peninsula would be immensely bloody. It would be everything that we feared the Iraq war could be because we know that the DPRK has NBC weaponry.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Yevgeny
Well I wouldn't want to trust my life to these systems quite yet. I seem to recall that ABL should have its first combat ready plane in 06.

THEL is good for shooting down short range rockets, mortar rounds, and artillery shells.

Ideally, we could settle this without having to resort to these weapons because a second war on the Korean peninsula would be immensely bloody. It would be everything that we feared the Iraq war could be because we know that the DPRK has NBC weaponry.

You could start the war with a EMF blast from a pair of neutron bombs on either side of the peninsula, and knock out their electronics - it would be hard to launch even an artilery attack if the computers are dead.

Even if we want to use diplomacy, we need to figure out how to destroy them, because diplomacy without the threat of force will not work. If they have dug themselves in enough to make it impossible to destroy them, then they can thumb their noses at us indefinately.

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by e1618978
You could start the war with a EMF blast from a pair of neutron bombs on either side of the peninsula, and knock out their electronics - it would be hard to launch even an artilery attack if the computers are dead.

Even if we want to use diplomacy, we need to figure out how to destroy them, because diplomacy without the threat of force will not work. If they have dug themselves in enough to make it impossible to destroy them, then they can thumb their noses at us indefinately.

I don't think that DPRK artillery uses computers... they aren't that advanced.

However, you could use the oft mentoined EMP weaponry to destroy their communication infrastructure to cover the fact that the cruise missiles are on the way.

Neutron bombs would certainly do the trick, but knocking out electrical systems are secondary to their true purpose: killing people with low radioactive after effects and little collateral damage (apart from lives). No, we'll never use such weapons unless the other guy does so first.

Oh, and we've been playing the second Korean war game for the last 50 years. We know that we will win. We know that South Korea will have a hard time. We don't continue the war (note: we never ceased hostilities) because too many people would die. So we look for another way: diplomacy.

[dfiler]

It scares me how eager e1618978 is to kill people. :???:

If everyone thought that way... the US would be the first country nuked. After all, we're the country invading, bombing, and destroying at whim.

North Korea's nuclear weapons are a reasonable defense against the United States threats. It is attitudes like those of e1618978's that motivate nations to develop nuclear defenses.

(Time to stop reading this thread as it depresses me that people are so eager to kill. :( )

[e1618978]

Originally posted by dfiler
It scares me how eager e1618978 is to kill people. :???:

If everyone thought that way... the US would be the first country nuked. After all, we're the country invading, bombing, and destroying at whim.

North Korea's nuclear weapons are a reasonable defense against the United States threats. It is attitudes like those of e1618978's that motivate nations to develop nuclear defenses.

(Time to stop reading this thread as it depresses me that people are so eager to kill. :( )

It scares me how eager we are to negotiate this same issue over and over without doing anyting. It is attitudes like this that make the world a dangerous place, because there is no accountibility.

It is not attitudes like mine that cause nations to develop nuclear weapons - if NK knew that there was a guarenteed invasion if they developed a nuclear weapon, then they would not have developed one. The problem is that they think there will be an endless cycle of diplomacy ("we will send you a very angry letter!") - so it is attitudes like yours that give NK the leeway to develop nuclear weapons.

[Common Man]

Any talk of using these weapons is very misguided.

[Gon]

If the whole place is shut down, no food or fuel or other aid, either they'll make major changes like China has done and sustain themselves, or the whole system will collapse.

Anything wrong with that plan?

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Gon
If the whole place is shut down, no food or fuel or other aid, either they'll make major changes like China has done and sustain themselves, or the whole system will collapse.

Anything wrong with that plan?

It depends on how they react. They could just say "lift the blocade or we kill 100,000 people in SK".

[THT]

Originally posted by e1618978
The NK government will re-route any money that you send them into the military, and they don't want foreign factories. In order to get foreign factories there, you would have to invade them first.

There is a wide gulf between what you think NK would do and what NK would really do. It is the job of the State department to find out. I think they would rather have the economic benifits of foreigners doing business in the country. If they don't want any, leave them alone until they actually do something, but the economic offer should always stand.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by THT
There is a wide gulf between what you think NK would do and what NK would really do. It is the job of the State department to find out. I think they would rather have the economic benifits of foreigners doing business in the country. If they don't want any, leave them alone until they actually do something, but the economic offer should always stand.

So just leave them alone, while fire test missles at Japan? While they are working on an ICBM that can reach the west coast of the US? While they perfect their nuclear warheads? While they stockpile more chemical and biological weapons?

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by dfiler
It scares me how eager e1618978 is to kill people. :???:

If everyone thought that way... the US would be the first country nuked. After all, we're the country invading, bombing, and destroying at whim.

North Korea's nuclear weapons are a reasonable defense against the United States threats. It is attitudes like those of e1618978's that motivate nations to develop nuclear defenses.

(Time to stop reading this thread as it depresses me that people are so eager to kill. :( )


Bzzzt wrong. North Korea's weapons are NOT a reasonable defense. e1618978's attitude is NOT why the DPRK decided to develop nukes.

North Korea negotiated a treaty in 94 to not develop nuclear weapons. North Korea received fuel oil at extremely discounted prices, and South Korea started building some nuclear reactors for power. Things were peaceful and the North and South started moving towards reunification.

North Korea and the US haven't ceased hostilities for 50 years, so clearly, they had other reasonable defenses against American aggression, specifically the ability to wage a bloody war on the Korean peninsula (unless we were willing to use nukes, which we really aren't).

So the DPRK didn't need nukes to forestall American invasion as evidenced by the fact that we've hated them for 50 years and yet didn't invade them. So why did they develop nukes?

The answer is really simple: nukes give them a larger chip to bargain with. Also a nuclear power gains respect in the eyes of the world and in a sense becomes an equal with the most developed nations. If you are a nuclear power then you can get more by way of concessions from other nations. Also, you can sell the technology for quite a bit of money (and the DPRK is short on hard cash).

The DPRK's nukes are a byproduct of a calculated desire to get more than they previously had. This is why we won't just return to the negotiating table with them- because we've played that game before under Clinton and it turns out that we were had.

Again, what would you do in this situation? You're long on criticism and short on constructive input. Please put forward your own solution.

[Gon]

Originally posted by e1618978
It depends on how they react. They could just say "lift the blocade or we kill 100,000 people in SK". And then you say "if you do that, we kill all of you".

To blackmail, you have to be able to cause more damage than the target can cause you. That condition doesn't exist in this case.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Gon
And then you say "if you do that, we kill all of you".

To blackmail, you have to be able to cause more damage than the target can cause you. That condition doesn't exist in this case.

As you can see, by most of the posts on this thread - most of the people are not willing to "kill all of you". The North Koreans know this - they can kill the South Koreans 100K at a time until we give in.

There would always be people saying "sure they killed 100K people, but if we get them mad they will kill 20 million people".

The blackmail is *currently* working, they know for sure that it will work in the future as well.

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by Gon
And then you say "if you do that, we kill all of you".

To blackmail, you have to be able to cause more damage than the target can cause you. That condition doesn't exist in this case.

And this is where we have to trust that Kim Jong Il is what we would consider to be sane and rational. Lets see here, he is starving his own people to death and runs the largest gulags on the planet, so why would he care if we bomb for mass casualties? Of course, we would never bomb the gulags or villages, but Kim doesn't give a damn about his own people aside from those who keep him in power.

Is Kim sane? Maybe. Go rent the documentary The Fog of War about Robert Macnamara. One of the things he learned about the cuban missile crisis is that rationality won't save us because people aren't rational.

Also, I seem to recall that Kim's plans for a war involve bombing Japanese nuclear power plants with ballistic missiles. So Kim could cause more deaths than we could inflict.

Of course, In four years or so, Japan will be an unreachable target as Kim would have to get his Taepodong missiles past ABL, TMBD, THADD, and PAC3- a four fold level of interception.

Of course, he may by then have a minaturized bomb and a Taepodong missile that can reach the US mainland :) Now you know why The current administration is crazy for missile intercept capabilities.

[e1618978]

Go rent the documentary The Fog of War about Robert Macnamara.

Amazing movie - I need to watch it again.

[Gon]

Originally posted by Yevgeny
And this is where we have to trust that Kim Jong Il is what we would consider to be sane and rational. Lets see here, he is starving his own people to death and runs the largest gulags on the planet, so why would he care if we bomb for mass casualties? Of course, we would never bomb the gulags or villages, but Kim doesn't give a damn about his own people aside from those who keep him in power.I never said he's gonna count how many of his own fall and make decisions based on that. My point is that he has absolutely nothing to gain by going into war, only by threatening it. Even assuming he has a good enough bunker not to get incinerated in the first hour, he has nothing to rule when he comes out. So if you say "no" and stick with it, he's out of options.

[dfiler]

It is obvious that such a small country can't win a nuclear war. The weapons are for defense!

NK isn't threatening war but it seems the US is on the verge of it. No matter how insane the man is, defending himself against a hostile world is not a sign of evil or insanity.

We spend far more on arms development than NK. If anything, we're the proliferating war mongers.

[hardhead]

When the President said "axis of evil...", he was right. Particularly in the case of North Korea. However, knowing full well that little pompador head Kim is nuts, don't say it. We all know Kim is crazy. That's where diplomacy has it's use. Why get that jackass all riled up? Makes no sense. Do we think the people of NK are going to overthrow Kim's regime? Get real... Kim KNOWS a war with the US is fruitless. The real victums will be South Korea and especially Japan. As is well known, Kim wont need Nukes to erase Seoul from the map.

So when Americans talk about a pinpoint-accuracy nuclear dump on NK, the people of SK and Japan have plenty to worry about. You think China is going to allow or even join the US on a strike against NK? Wake the hell up...

Kim wants a one on one talk with the US. Dammit, give it to him! That's diplomacy! The US has taken a stand that it's not a US/NK issue. It's a "regional" issue. BULLSH*T! This is how we show the world wisdom and leadership. Sometimes you have to bend a little bit. If this is what it takes to get Kim off of a nuclear build up, then this is what we need to do. Very simple. Our administration has taken a "tough guy" stand. F**k that! That's utter bullsh*t. We KNOW we have the biggest bat on the planet. This is the time to "Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick,". World peace demands it.

Do I think Kimmy boy can be reasoned with? Probably not. I agree that he pulled the wool over Clinton's half assed efforts. However, there has to be an attempt, if possible, to get under that craziness and influence NK's direction. If sh*t hits the fan, sh*t hits the fan. We_have_to_try_diplomacy first. If that means one on one, lets try it.

Yev, NK wont have to "launch" missiles against Japan. Someone will "boat/walk/drive" the bombs in... They may already be in place.

[iPoster]

Originally posted by e1618978
You could start the war with a EMF blast from a pair of neutron bombs on either side of the peninsula, and knock out their electronics - it would be hard to launch even an artilery attack if the computers are dead.

:no: :rolleyes:
I'm sure South Korea, China and Japan would love your reasoning! EMP effects don't stop on borders, you know. And what about all the computers in our own equipment in South Korea? Our forces are far more susceptible to EMP than NK, much more computerized. (And BTW, I am in the US Military, and our nuclear war response training is basically BOAKYAG! Well, not really, but it would not be very pretty...)

A high-altitude nuclear detonation produces an immediate flux of gamma rays from the nuclear reactions within the device. These photons in turn produce high energy free electrons by Compton scattering at altitudes between (roughly) 20 and 40 km. These electrons are then trapped in the Earth’s magnetic field, giving rise to an oscillating electric current. This current is asymmetric in general and gives rise to a rapidly rising radiated electromagnetic field called an electromagnetic pulse (EMP). Because the electrons are trapped essentially simultaneously, a very large electromagnetic source radiates coherently.

The pulse can easily span continent-sized areas, and this radiation can affect systems on land, sea, and air. The first recorded EMP incident accompanied a high-altitude nuclear test over the South Pacific and resulted in power system failures as far away as Hawaii. A large device detonated at 400–500 km over Kansas would affect all of CONUS. The signal from such an event extends to the visual horizon as seen from the burst point.


IRT those who think nuclear weapons are "clean", read on...(and yes, nuclear blasts cause much more fallout than a reactor accident, not to mention activation through neutron flux)

COLUMBIA—The long-term, generational effects of exposure to low-level radiation could be more dramatic than previously thought, new research by a University of South Carolina evolutionary biologist suggests.


Professor Timothy Mousseau and a French colleague recently completed a five-year study that compared two populations of Ukrainian barn swallows: one from an unaffected area, the other from areas around Chernobyl, site of a 1986 reactor disaster.


Radioactive contamination in and around the old reactor continues to measure thousands of times higher than normal. "Only five to 10 miles away do we get any significant populations of birds," Mousseau said. Even in the outlying areas, residents are exposed to 10 to 100 times the normal dose of radiation.


The study found a variety of differences between the two populations: Chernobyl swallows suffered more genetic abnormalities, showed half the annual survival rate of the control group and produced lower antioxidant levels. Antioxidants play a role in the body's ability to repair damage to its DNA.


While the effects of intense nuclear radiation have been studied extensively, much less has been done with the genetic effects of exposure to low-level radioactivity. Swallows made good test subjects because they reproduce and mature rapidly. While there has been only one human generation since the Chernobyl disaster, 18 generations of barn swallows have come and gone.


"The more generations you have, the more chances you have for these mutations to be compounded," Mousseau said.


Their article on the study was published this week in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London.

[e1618978]

You think China is going to allow or even join the US on a strike against NK? Wake the hell up...

Kim wants a one on one talk with the US. Dammit, give it to him! That's diplomacy!

Why don't you think that China would support an attack on NK?

Also, agreeing to 1-1 talks with NK is not diplomacy, it is foolishness that we have already gone through. What do you think that previous American 1-1 dialogs have achieved?

[dfiler]

Originally posted by Yevgeny
...
the DPRK didn't need nukes to forestall American invasion as evidenced by the fact that we've hated them for 50 years and yet didn't invade them. So why did they develop nukes?

...

Again, what would you do in this situation? You're long on criticism and short on constructive input. Please put forward your own solution. The reason he needs nukes is because America has recently displayed a tendancy to invade and occupy countries which might pose a threat.

My solution?
No invasion, no bombing, no war!

Treat them like we treat other nuclear powers and hope for the best. Inaction, in my opinion, will lead to a better outcome.

I simply am not eager to start a war. If they attack someone, that is when we blow the fuck out of NK. That should be our foreign policy. Not, bomb now and ask questions later.

[Gon]

Originally posted by e1618978
As you can see, by most of the posts on this thread - most of the people are not willing to "kill all of you". The North Koreans know this - they can kill the South Koreans 100K at a time until we give in.

There would always be people saying "sure they killed 100K people, but if we get them mad they will kill 20 million people".

The blackmail is *currently* working, they know for sure that it will work in the future as well. Then the problem is the people who want to give in to the blackmail. I'm all for leaving NK in peace, and avoiding war to the last. But you don't give in to blackmail, you give 'em the finger because otherwise they are back tomorrow and want more, that will never end. If they are stupid enough to attack and kill 100K people, you kill 200K people from their side to prove you're serious, and promise that from there on anything they do will come back fivefold. Up to their total destruction, if they insist.

Talking, on the other hand, is not giving in to anything IMO. You can always go and talk, if it makes them happy. That's what politicians are for, yapping. If politics was just negotiation, they'd send in engineers and economists not politicians. Just be ready to walk away from the table the moment it ceases to be a trade and turns into blackmail. I don't see why there is a hurry for any results or "resolution" at all, in fact I think if there's a chance to stall things, it should be used. NK will fall apart on its own sooner or later, and the less trouble you take to deal with them before that, the better. I think they have nothing to trade so negotiations are useless.

edit: I see we agree with dfiler.

[dfiler]

Originally posted by Gon
I don't see why there is a hurry for any results or "resolution" at all, in fact I think if there's a chance to stall things, it should be used. NK will fall apart on its own sooner or later, and the less trouble you take to deal with them before that, the better.I agree, negotiation and military inaction is the best course of action.

What would have happened if we'd followed war mongering suggestions during the cold war and attacked the soviets?

Instead, we settled for containment and waited for the USSR to fall apart. I think this worked out better than if we'd done something like what others here have suggested... and started a war with a nuclear power.

EDIT: fixed tense

[THT]

Originally posted by e1618978
So just leave them alone, while fire test missles at Japan? While they are working on an ICBM that can reach the west coast of the US? While they perfect their nuclear warheads? While they stockpile more chemical and biological weapons?

Yes, we should not attack unless they attack us our allies. If they want to have a nuclear arms race, let them. I'm sure we'll win that race. The economic offer should always stand though.

As far as chemical and biological weapons, they can have all they want. They are useless in today's military. If they were actually useful, we would actually have them in our military arsenal.

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by dfiler
The reason he needs nukes is because America has recently displayed a tendancy to invade and occupy countries which might pose a threat.

My solution?
No invasion, no bombing, no war!

Treat them like we treat other nuclear powers and hope for the best. Inaction, in my opinion, will lead to a better outcome.

I simply am not eager to start a war. If they attack someone, that is when we blow the fuck out of NK. That should be our foreign policy. Not, bomb now and ask questions later.

Well, the DPRK started developing uranium enriched weapons somethime in the late 90s using Uranium enrichment technology they bought from A.Q. Kahn's network in Pakistan. So they were developing these weapons before George Bush was president. They developed nukes because they could and they realized that they could use it to their advantage.

I too am in no way whatsoever for war. This is a war that I would like to avoid. I just don't know if a policy of containment will work on North Korea, espescially if they want to sell what they are developing.

Something to know is that it is possible to determine where Uranium came from by performing some sensitive analysis on its isotope composition. If someone lobbed a Russian nuke on us, we could tell from the fallout what year the device was made. This all comes down to the fact that uranium in various parts of the world has a different isotope ratio, making for a rather accurate fingerprint. Although I haven't read anything official, scuttlebutt (from the BBC) is that when we checked the uranium Libya turned over to us, there was uranium with no known signature. America has been collecting these signatures for decades so that the Soviet union couldn't pull a terrorsit act and deny involvement. The only place we haven't gotten uranium from to sample is North Korea. So by a process of elimination, it may be the case that the DPRK is already selling nuclear technology. This would be really bad and personally I hope this isn't the case.

[Yevgeny]

Why the DPRK is not a good tourist destination (http://www.nkfreedom.org/NKFactSheet.html)

Life in the gulags (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3042116/#BODY)

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by THT
Yes, we should not attack unless they attack us our allies. If they want to have a nuclear arms race, let them. I'm sure we'll win that race. The economic offer should always stand though.

As far as chemical and biological weapons, they can have all they want. They are useless in today's military. If they were actually useful, we would actually have them in our military arsenal.

They already have all the chemical and biological agents they want. Yes, these agents aren't as useful, but they can be incredibly useful if you plan on aiming them at civilian populations.

I agree that the economic offer needs to be there, but at the same time, we need to make sure that they really do dismantle their program. I doubt that the DPRK will let us verify this. Remember that the DPRK only had two UN inspectors to kick out of all of North Korea when they withdrew from the NPT. Norht Korea isn't exactly a place where inspectors can roam freely.

[Gon]

Originally posted by Yevgeny
Why the DPRK is not a good tourist destination (http://www.nkfreedom.org/NKFactSheet.html)After reading that I find it even more true that North Korea should be totally and utterly isolated. They are pushing drugs and possibly nuclear tech out of country. That has to stop. The regime is maintaining itself with the aid. Not a smidgen of food or supplies can be allowed through. There is every reason to believe that when things go bad enough, the North Koreans will revolt. The only thing the aid is accomplishing is to push that hour back and needlessly prolong the suffering of North Koreans.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Gon
After reading that I find it even more true that North Korea should be totally and utterly isolated. They are pushing drugs and possibly nuclear tech out of country. That has to stop. The regime is maintaining itself with the aid. Not a smidgen of food or supplies can be allowed through. There is every reason to believe that when things go bad enough, the North Koreans will revolt. The only thing the aid is accomplishing is to push that hour back and needlessly prolong the suffering of North Koreans.

So it is already the worst place on earth - and you think that making it even worse will cause the masses to revolt? I bet you a dollar that you are wrong - and I also bet that the liberal masses will fight you tooth and nail over isolation, with pictures of starving children which are suddenly "your fault".

It seems like this argument is going in circles.

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by e1618978
So it is already the worst place on earth - and you think that making it even worse will cause the masses to revolt? I bet you a dollar that you are wrong - and I also bet that the liberal masses will fight you tooth and nail over isolation, with pictures of starving children which are suddenly "your fault".

It seems like this argument is going in circles.

The masses won't revolt- they're already starved to death which makes them easy to control.

We already offer food aid. We should offer food aid and enough fuel to distribute the aid, and then embargo them. North Korea (unlike Iraq) has no product to sell that the world needs, so you can cut them off pretty easily.

This has already started. The Australian navy is doing a good job of tracking down their freighters that traffic drugs. If you remember, Spain intercepted a freighter carrying long range missiles. US, Japan, and China are working on a treaty for in air interdiction.

The key to isolating the DPRK is getting China to go along with any of your plans, as China keeps North Korea afloat. China's worst fear is the collapse of the DPRK and a flooding of starving Korean refugees.

In the end, the question is one of how crazy is Kim? It looks like we are going to ignore him until he is willing to go back to six nation talks. Good. My guess is that in a few months when he realizes that we can ignore him for a long time, that he will test a nuke underground.

[Gon]

Originally posted by e1618978
So it is already the worst place on earth - and you think that making it even worse will cause the masses to revolt? I bet you a dollar that you are wrongSomeone is going to take out the political leadership at some point, it doesn't take "masses" to happen. Cut the aid, legal imports, illegal exports far enough and they won't have enough food for all of the elite in Pyongyang. They'll feel it. Someone will kill Kim and things will be shaken up.I also bet that the liberal masses will fight you tooth and nail over isolation, with pictures of starving children which are suddenly "your fault".As long as no one starts a war against NK, whatever happens in there is the fault of their leadership, down to every last starving kid. The longer the regime receives food shipments, the longer they can hold on to power and the more kids they have time to starve. Sending them reinforcements is practically criminal.

What's this about "liberal masses"? I am a liberal myself.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Gon

What's this about "liberal masses"?

Heh. Didn't you notice? Liberals are massing in record numbers or promote their anti-American agenda. But they're totally outside the mainstream. Liberalism is irrelevant. But it must be stopped. And, um, John Kerry is the most liberal senator AND consistently a flip-flopper. :err:

[groverat]

Back on track, please.

[timmy o'tool]

Its clear that kim jong ill is becoming desperate. He is losing his grip and resorting to whatever it takes to have the embargos lifted and stay in power at the same time. Any one who thinks that war at this jucture is a good idea is either stupid or crazy. If we wait it out an opportunity will come and nobody dies. If I am wrong many south koreans will die, but that would be the result either way really. This way at least there is a chance that nobody gets hurt. I really believe that political pressure inside of North Korea will shake him loose and I think that it has already started. This is why he is so desperate and resorting to these tactic. I for one, know many people who live in ROK and would be forever saddened if anything bad were to come of them.

[a j stev]

Having taught international relations in university for the past 5 years, it makes me wonder if people read books anymore:(

The information to get up to speed is out there if you are prepared to get off your computers, go to a library and start reading; even better, if you are a member of a university, go in there and look at journals such as International Security, Survival, Foreign Affairs, etc. Books by O'Hanlon, Mike Mochizuki, Selig Harrison to name a few have gone through this at great length.

The reason why North Korea is still a major issue is because there are no good ways of reaching a conclusion without either turning the Korean Peninsula to glass or killing millions of people. A war will not be clean, televised or spin-able. It will be a tragedy.

In the mean time, i'd suggest this. Educate yourselves about the history of the Korean Peninsula. The multi- volume history of Korea by Bruce Cumings from Uni of Chicago is a good start. Get some context

Back to the forum and this thread.Yevegeny has done a reasonable job of bringing some context in but even some of his info is slightly dodgy. Go have a look at the PBS Frontline special about the 1994 Agreed Framework. Diplomacy is often not black vs white, good vs. evil. There is an argument (not that I support it) that the US was the first to break the agreement...that may come as a shock.

And please, PLEASE, get over the idea that geopolitics or international relations is a battle between good and evil. Complexity is the name of the game.

As for this most recent pronouncement...forget it. If you look at the recent history of NK diplomatic announcements, they have been strident in their condemnation of all kinds of things. The problem is of course working out when they are bluffing and when they are playing. Tough call...

[Sceptic]

Originally posted by a j stev
Having taught international relations in university for the past 5 years, it makes me wonder if people read books anymore:(

The information to get up to speed is out there if you are prepared to get off your computers, go to a library and start reading; even better, if you are a member of a university, go in there and look at journals such as International Security, Survival, Foreign Affairs, etc. Books by O'Hanlon, Mike Mochizuki, Selig Harrison to name a few have gone through this at great length.

The reason why North Korea is still a major issue is because there are no good ways of reaching a conclusion without either turning the Korean Peninsula to glass or killing millions of people. A war will not be clean, televised or spin-able. It will be a tragedy.

In the mean time, i'd suggest this. Educate yourselves about the history of the Korean Peninsula. The multi- volume history of Korea by Bruce Cumings from Uni of Chicago is a good start. Get some context

Back to the forum and this thread.Yevegeny has done a reasonable job of bringing some context in but even some of his info is slightly dodgy. Go have a look at the PBS Frontline special about the 1994 Agreed Framework. Diplomacy is often not black vs white, good vs. evil. There is an argument (not that I support it) that the US was the first to break the agreement...that may come as a shock.

And please, PLEASE, get over the idea that geopolitics or international relations is a battle between good and evil. Complexity is the name of the game.

As for this most recent pronouncement...forget it. If you look at the recent history of NK diplomatic announcements, they have been strident in their condemnation of all kinds of things. The problem is of course working out when they are bluffing and when they are playing. Tough call...

A noble idea, but this is the 'armchair' political outsider.

[Nightcrawler]

Originally posted by e1618978
Diplomacy is what got us into this mess - bombing is what is required here, if we can get the Chineese to agree.

Actually I can remember pretty well that what brought about the mess was the US's sloppiness in fulfilling the promises it made in the agreement that Clinton negotiated. For example the US signed that it would help North-Corea in developing a nuclear reactor for civil purposes, and there were also problems with the deliverings of oil.

On top of that the US-administration under Bush has publicized that it would not respect the prohibition to use nukes against countries that don't have nukes, that is part of the non-proliferation-pact it signed.


Additionaly it demonized North-Corea publically by saying it were part of an evil axis.

Fact is that the US has deployed nukes in east-asia, even in South-Corea and South-Corea itself has started its own nuclear-programm including enrichment of uranium, which can easily lead to nukes.


All these four to five points together led North-Corea's paranoid (partly justified) regime to break the agreement and to continue the nukes-programm.

Nightcrawler