North Korea

bloggs

Would you support a pre-emptive strike? It is belived that NK have the nuke and could deploy it against the US/Japan/SK. There is word in Washington that a war footing should be taken.

TwoShedsJackson

In much the same way Iraq had all these WMDs ready at 45 minute notice :rolleyes: They won't attack North Korea because the North has enough artillery pointing at Seoul to flatten most of it in 30 minutes.

The Beer Baron

Then why not invade China, Pakistan, Russia...
Heck if unstable leaders with agressive military ambitions shouldnt have nukes then why don't the rest of us invade America.

sorry- just realised, I assume you meant more *talking* needs to take place. Not more taking. Enough taking has taken place I'm sure you all agree.

You know what- I hope the little ****ers *do* nuke America.

Typedef

A pre-emptive strike against North Korea... and it's 2 million strong army... not to mention the fact that it has or is close to developing an ICBM which can reach the west coast of the US, and the fact that North Korea, if it already hasn't, probably could produce a Nuclear weapon quite quickley?

Are you smoking crack?

Besides, it is not the place of the US to encroach onto the process of rapprochament that the North and South were coming to during the Clinton era.

Sure Bush is a warmonger, but, North and South Korea were making real progress towards, normalisation and prehaps even reunification... under a 'democratic' Western model, but, the simple fact is that the Bush administration needed justification (at the time) to deploy the ostensibly useless Missile defence system.

A system that exists, not to counter North Korea, but to counter Russia and China... North Korea is simply a scapegoat.

Thus, if the Administration were to take out it's scapegoat, it would be left with the position of deploying it's missle defence system against countries it's supposed to be normalising relations with, namely Russia and China, in that order.

To be honest, anybody who believes that North Korea, a nation on the verge of famine, is in any position or has any desire to start a war, watches, too much television and can't discern propaganda from logic.

bonkey

Originally posted by bloggs
Would you support a pre-emptive strike?

Not a chance.

It is belived that NK have the nuke and could deploy it against the US/Japan/SK. There is word in Washington that a war footing should be taken.

Heh...

I would be inclined to re-word that as :

There is word in Washington that NK have the nuke and could deploy it against the US/Japan/SK. It is belived that a war footing should be taken.

Of course, if the US went up against NK, they'd be just begging to have the Chinese side against them....which is a massively interesting question (in the potentially-world-as-we-know-it-ending sorta interesting)

Either way, though....no chance. Its more bluster from Dubya. His Iraqi invasion is over, but the war there continues, his economy is still shot, and he has an election approaching.

Methinks Emporer George II is desperately looking for anything at all to distract the media and public from, well, pretty much everything else, cause otherwise he's sunk. This would be about the only reason I could see for a new "tough" stance with Korea, or talk of war.

But seriously...NK have nothing to gain from attacking the US, Japan or SK. Absolutely nothing. They can gain leverage from the threat, but thats about it.

jc

Manach

Voted for the not yet anyway. North Korea falls under China's sphere of influence, and given that radioactive fallout is no respector of national borders, it's in China's best interest to leash North Korea.

The Beer Baron

But seriously...NK have nothing to gain from attacking the US, Japan or SK

Indeed.

Whereas the US have bases, territory and, well, Hyundai, Daewoo...

TomF

Russia Turns From Old Allies to U.S.
N. Korea Urged to Cooperate in Talks
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, August 27, 2003; Page A19


MOSCOW, Aug. 26 -- For each of the previous two years, Russia has hosted the leader of North Korea on lavish railroad excursions fit for visiting royalty. This year, however, has brought no train trip for Kim Jong Il, only Russian warships floating off the coast of North Korea.

Russian armed forces are conducting an elaborate series of military exercises in the Far East, in part to prepare for any refugee crisis that might occur should North Korea's government collapse or become involved in a war with the United States. Officials in the North Korean capital, Pyongyang, were so offended at the exercises that they angrily denounced them and refused to send observers.

The flap demonstrated that the North can no longer count on unstinting support from Moscow as it seeks to deflect international condemnation of its nuclear weapons program. Heading into the six-nation talks that open in Beijing on Wednesday, Russia has pushed its ally to find common ground with the United States and abandon its atomic ambitions. "The Korean Peninsula should be free from nuclear arms," Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said last week.

In backing away from the Stalinist government, Russia has underscored a broader diplomatic turn away from so-called rogue states since the war in Iraq as it seeks to rebuild its relationship with the United States.

Last summer Moscow seemed to go out of its way to court members of President Bush's "axis of evil," negotiating a $40 billion economic agreement with Iraq, proposing construction of five more nuclear reactors in Iran and opening its doors to Kim at a time when Washington wanted to isolate him.

A year later, the Kremlin is taking a more cooperative stance with the United States. In the past two months, Russian officials have abandoned talk of expanding their nuclear assistance to Iran and brought new pressure on that country to subject its nuclear program to strict international inspections. Russian diplomats have not led the charge against U.S. postwar Iraq policy at the United Nations. And they have teamed up with China to encourage recalcitrant North Korea to negotiate.

"The tide has certainly changed in Russia on foreign policy," said Dmitri Trenin, an analyst at the Carnegie Moscow Center. The transformation has happened "very quietly. It's very interesting. There has been no major statement, nobody has been sacked. But everybody is singing a different tune."

Senior policymakers describe it not as a change in substance, but in calibration. Mikhail Margelov, an adviser to President Vladimir Putin and chairman of the international affairs committee of the Federation Council, the upper house of parliament, attributed the new harmony to better coordination to avoid misunderstandings.

"Today we have much in common," he said in an interview. "What we have managed to achieve in the last few months, especially after the Iraqi crisis . . . [is] to establish a more efficient level of communications." After all, he added, "when it comes to Iran and when it comes to North Korea, definitely neither Russia nor the United States wants these countries to have the nuclear bomb."

Other officials and analysts see two imperatives behind the shift in Russia -- Moscow's fear of being shut out of major global decisions, as it was during the Iraq war, and its creeping realization that Iran and North Korea may actually pose a serious threat.
Russian armed forces are conducting an elaborate series of military exercises in the Far East, in part to prepare for any refugee crisis that might occur should North Korea's government collapse or become involved in a war with the United States. Officials in the North Korean capital, Pyongyang, were so offended at the exercises that they angrily denounced them and refused to send observers.

"Russia wants to be respected and seen as a country that could and should play a significant role in world issues," said U.S. Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), a leading congressional figure on Russian relations, who was in the country today visiting a once-secret weapons-grade plutonium facility in the Siberian city of Zheleznogorsk. To encourage this, he said, Washington needs to reciprocate, and the first thing it should do is lift three-decade-old trade restrictions.

Even so, Russia's newfound cooperation may not fully satisfy Washington's demands. Moscow still refuses, for example, to give up its $800 million contract to finish a nuclear power facility at the Iranian port of Bushehr and has echoed North Korea's proposal that the United States promise not to attack the North as part of any settlement of the nuclear crisis. Washington has so far resisted giving such security guarantees.

Undersecretary of State John Bolton left Moscow today after talks with senior Russian officials on these issues. U.S. diplomats have been pushing Moscow to bring the issue of Iran's nuclear program to the United Nations, but Russian officials are still mulling their response.

For years, Russia has ignored or denied evidence that its scientists who went to Iran were helping it develop missiles and nuclear weapons. Yet a key moment in the evolution of Russia's attitude, according to officials on both sides, was the disclosure by Iranian opposition figures of the existence of two secret nuclear facilities in addition to Bushehr that could support a weapons development program.

Publicly, Russian officials shrugged it off. But Moscow has since pushed Iran to sign agreements obligating it to return to Russia all spent nuclear fuel from Bushehr and accept short-notice inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Russia conducted back-to-back talks here in Moscow with South Korean and North Korean officials and enlisted China's leadership in putting together this week's multiparty negotiations. The Far East military exercises, which also planned for what would happen if a North Korean vessel bearing a nuclear weapon had to be stopped, "were not a PR exercise," said Trenin. "I think they were damn serious."

Vasily Mikheyev, a former Russian diplomat who served in Pyongyang, said the Kremlin has found it easier to turn away from North Korea because it has only minor economic ties to its small neighbor. By contrast, the extensive oil interests in Iraq helped drive Russian opposition to the U.S. war there. Now that the war is over, Moscow wants to secure contracts for its oil companies.


© 2003 The Washington Post Company

TetsuoHashimoto

Real Taliban threat Sudan, Iran, Syria?

Real Axis of Evil US, Isreal, UK


North Korea another insane leader with Nukes not unlike little Bush

Piliger

Originally posted by bloggs
Would you support a pre-emptive strike? It is believed that NK have the nuke and could deploy it against the US/Japan/SK. There is word in Washington that a war footing should be taken.

Yes and the sooner the better. If we sit back and let them develop their nukes further then it's just a matter of time before they use it against the South, the US, Japan and sell it to anyone else with a few million such as Al Quida, the real IRA, the Basque terrorists. The vista for the world is frightening.

Of course the America haters want to attack the US far more than they want to protect the rest of us from anihilation. But that's no surprise. They are so obsessed with their Bush hate and their anti American fictions that they would probably be happy to see nukes going off around the world rather than see the US take effective action.

Vader

Yes and the sooner the better. If we sit back and let them develop their nukes further then it's just a matter of time before they use it against the South, the US, Japan and sell it to anyone else with a few million such as Al Quida, the real IRA, the Basque terrorists. The vista for the world is frightening.

Of course the America haters want to attack the US far more than they want to protect the rest of us from anihilation. But that's no surprise. They are so obsessed with their Bush hate and their anti American fictions that they would probably be happy to see nukes going off around the world rather than see the US take effective action.

Are you by any slim chance an American?
The real IRA doesnt need, want or could afford a Nuke. I'm not anti-american, I'm anti-bush and anti-imperialism. They are very different

Zombrex

Originally posted by Piliger
Yes and the sooner the better. If we sit back and let them develop their nukes further then it's just a matter of time before they use it against the South, the US, Japan

It is funny that if you watch any Hollywood movie about the Cold War the position is always put across that Russia was just about to attack the US, but the US was never going to attack first because they were the good guys. This seemed to be the general view at the time as well.

In fact the Russians were convinced that the Americans were going to attack first, and they based this accurate spy information that the US military was activily pressuring the various presidents to launch a pre-emptive attack. The US military believe that, because the US was more military supperor than the USSR they should attack now before the USSR could develop further. Of course they hid this from the public.

In fact the entire Cuban missle crisis was simply about the USSR trying to get in a better position to defend themselves against a US pre-emptive attack. THe USSR had a few ICBMs that could reach the US mainland. The US could destroy the USSR many times over.

Now in this modern world of enlightment, the US military doesn't even feel the need to pretend that it will not start a war. "Defending" itself seems to be as much justification as it needs to attack any country it wants.

I wonder what would have happened if Iraq had launched a pre-emptive attack against the US in an effort to "defend" itself. Someone want to explain the difference between Sadamm doing that and Bush doing it?

Oh thats right .. Sadam was evil and Bush is good

Piliger, there was a very distinct possibility that the US would launch a pre-emptive attack against the USSR, espeically around the Missle Crisis. Do you believe that would have been justification for the USSR to launch its own pre-emptive attack against the US mainland???

If you don't, mind explaining what the difference is?

sceptre

Originally posted by Wicknight
In fact the Russians were convinced that the Americans were going to attack first, and they based this accurate spy information that the US military was activily pressuring the various presidents to launch a pre-emptive attack. The US military believe that, because the US was more military supperor than the USSR they should attack now before the USSR could develop further. Of course they hid this from the public.

Absolutely. Von Neumann pushed the option fairly hard. In retrospect, the Russians, knowing that von Neumann had been advising the US military and, being aware of the implications of von Neumann's game theory applied to the early Cold War, would have known that a pre-emptive attack by the US was a strong possibility while the US had the advantage. Hence they had no other option, at least in the early days, but to increase military strength.

(and before someone accuses me of being a red commie loving US basher or something else you make up, I'm dealing purely with the implications of basic game theory on the possible US decision to invade in this post. Nothing else)

Geromino

Asia Times
Korea: The hexagon of uncertainty
By Francesco Sisci

BEIJING - North Korea has managed to pull another rabbit out of its hat - threatening the world with the test of a nuclear bomb, while holding multilateral talks and listening to what the United States had to offer.

In fact there were two distinct aspects to the Six-Way Talks that wound up in Beijing on Friday: on the one hand Pyongyang has fired out its usual incendiary rhetoric, claiming it will never surrender and daring the South Korean navy with trespasses of the sea border; on the other hand it has backed away from its former positions, in two key areas. Whereas it had insisted for months that it wanted bilateral talks with the US, it has bowed to the US wish for multilateral talks. And whereas it had insisted on a non-aggression treaty with the US as a prelude to any talks, its delegates have just spent three days in Beijing without any such agreement.

The North Korean party attending the talks most probably could not make decisions, but was simply ordered to sound out the offers put on the hexagonal table and then report back to the leadership sitting in Pyongyang.

On Friday, the Chinese, who organized and hosted the meeting, said North Korea was willing to give up its nuclear plans. Furthermore, Vice Foreign Minister Wang Yi said the six parties had reached a six-point consensus on the nuclear issue:

The nuclear issue must be resolved through peaceful means and dialogue. The parties stressed that stability and long-term peace should be maintained on the Korean Peninsula.

While the Korean Peninsula should be free of nuclear weapons, the security concerns of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea should also be taken into consideration.

An overall plan to resolve the nuclear issue in a just and reasonable manner is to be explored.

In the process of negotiations, any action that might aggravate the situation should be avoided.

Dialogue should continue to establish trust, reduce differences and broaden common ground.

The six-party talks should continue, and their specific date and venue should be decided through diplomatic channels as soon as possible.

Wang said that the six-point consensus demonstrated the spirit of understanding and cooperation and laid a solid and necessary foundation for the next round of talks. China is keen on continuing to host the talks, and Wang said a new round could be held in Beijing within two months.

That would be shortly before the long, cold winter grips Pyongyang, a time when North Korea will be more than ever in need of aid from abroad and especially from China.

It could also be the time when the US, its patience with North Korea at an end, pulls the plug. With China's support, it could reduce or cut off the aid that is keeping the Pyongyang regime afloat. It would be a risky move, as it could prompt a sharp reaction from Pyongyang. But if carefully calibrated, a temporary interruption of aid could make itself felt in North Korea without totally disrupting it.

The problem is the timing. Right now the US, its hands full with the Iraq and Afghanistan problems, has no interest in getting involved in the thorny North Korean issue. But if after two months the Iraq situation has improved, and say Saddam Hussein has been apprehended, freeing up the Americans to act elsewhere; if President George W Bush's opinion polls have kept on sliding; and if Pyongyang has gone on incensing the US public with nuclear threats, then some hawks in the administration could wish to confront North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. There are many "ifs" in this story, proving the extreme fluidity, and thus volatility, of the situation.

The great stabilizing factor so far has been China, which has gone out of its way to push for a peaceful solution. If this ultimately succeeds, then China could aim at a real strategic partnership with the US in the region. But even if peace fails to be achieved, China has much to gain in sticking on the US side. In recent years it has been argued that China made a gross mistake when it sided against the US in the Korean War in 1950. Beijing does not want to repeat that error.

---

Geromino

Asia Times
SEOUL - The full inclusion of all the region's stakeholders in the Beijing talks, their full participation in a negotiated settlement, a subsequent role in agreement implementation, and a share of the responsibility in the event of failure - all this adds up to the possibility of a regional solution to a regional crisis with global implications. For the region is united in its rejection of North Korean jingoism.

Or at least that's how it could be. But the reality is a region far from united, and it is difficult to be very optimistic about the outcome of this week's six-party talks in Beijing, as there are yawning chasms in national interests that have yet to be reconciled. In fact, the participants are not only in disagreement about all the options that should be on the table, they have all, with the exception of the United States, declared positions that seem to preempt any discussion of a military option - a point not lost on the Dear Leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-il.

As long as these obvious differences in approach persist, and options are excluded, North Korea will continue its intransigence in the knowledge that, with history as a guide, belligerence will be met with more aid and support from South Korea, relative ambivalence by China and Russia, and a focus on citizen repatriation, not disarmament, by Japan.

China holds tremendous influence over North Korea, and the visit of Chinese officials to that country last weekend could be a sign of China's willingness to exert pre-talks leverage on North Korea. But this too is probably overly optimistic, as Beijing has so far been less than willing to lean on Pyongyang and instead seems more interested in expanding its influence in North Korea specifically and the region generally, than with making strong demands of Pyongyang. Beijing's move toward Pyongyang at such a critical juncture and Seoul's repeated declarations that armed conflict with the North is not an option, with or without Northern disarmament, leaves the United States in a tough position and does not bode well for success in the upcoming meeting.

US officials have maintained a firm line in the weeks leading up to these talks, and rightly so. The leadership of North Korea needs to hear, in no uncertain terms, that threatening, belligerent behavior will not be tolerated further. But as sound as the US position is, it has also left it with little obvious wiggle room if things fall apart.

What, for example, would be the response to a North Korean declaration that it will not abandon its nuclear weapons and other WMD (weapons of mass destruction) programs, and will instead commit even more of the country's scarce resources to these programs to thwart continued US aggression - a statement already floated through the state media? What choice is left? Longtime US ally South Korea is more concerned with appeasement than punishment, and China, the major North Korean influencer, while having an interest in preventing a US-led attack on North Korea, believes that such an event is unlikely and would probably not be too concerned if the tense status quo were to continue. As well, the North Korea issue continues to divide the populace in South Korea, putting increasing pressure on US forces stationed there, a situation that China also finds quite acceptable.

Both China and South Korea perceive talk of US military action against North Korean as a negotiating ploy, not a true option. It's also important to remember that of all the parties attending the Beijing talks, only Japan and the United States feel directly threatened by North Korea. South Korea officially prefers to see a kinder, gentler, misunderstood North Korea - a situation best addressed with a hug, not a gun. But, of course, without a viable military option against North Korea, more bad behavior is likely and future forced compliance impossible.

But there may be another way forward if these talks stall, one that would negate the necessity of a full frontal assault on Pyongyang, and herald a new beginning for both North Korea and its neighbors.

The present leadership in North Korea has proved time and again, in broken promises to all the countries represented in Beijing, that it cannot be trusted to keep its word. Even in the unlikely event that North Korea were to accept its previously promised obligations, there is little to suggest that new promises, without the real threat of regional retribution, will amount to anything more than so many failed agreements before. The leader of North Korea has become synonymous with deceit, making a negotiated settlement with him and his ruling clique very difficult. In the interests of long-term stability and regional peace, all options must be on the table, and all possible scenarios should be considered.

The "encouraged leadership change" scenario has been batted around before and is usually dismissed out of hand, as most assume that viable opposition does not exist - many pointing to reports of a failed coup in the northern provinces in the late 1990s that was ruthlessly put down by overwhelming numbers of troops loyal to the Pyongyang regime. This event is often cited as the reason regime change is not possible. But seen another way, the attempts of years past support the hypothesis that elements exist within the military ready for change, but remain hidden, lacking external support and planning.

The other traditional response is that such a move would cause a complete collapse of North Korea, resulting in a massive wave of refugees across its northern border, a situation that Russia has reportedly begun preparing for. But in many ways North Korea has already collapsed. The famine in the mid- to late 1990s that resulted in the deaths of more than 2 million people in North Korea - one in every 13 - did not precipitate a mass exodus.

Koreans are no strangers to hardship, and North Koreans can be expected to resort to a defense mechanism that has worked for millennia on the peninsula. Koreans have traditionally maintained stronger ties to their region of birth and upbringing than to the wider nation, and this is probably especially true in a country where the vast majority are not permitted to move and interact with one another. If history is any guide, most North Koreans will hunker down and stay put, using family, village, regional connections and affiliations to survive. Further, the ethnically homogenous nature of North Korea negates the possibility of competing ethnic and religious groups prolonging instability, as has been the case in other regions.

The key to a successful leadership evolution in North Korean is post-regime military control. The military is the glue that holds the nation together, and it's the only institution capable of managing and maintaining the country in the short term. Well-placed groups within the northern military establishment must be identified and encouraged in any way possible.

Of course, such proposals will not gain momentum if credible sources of opposition are not known, and there is probably only one country that can secure the information necessary, and its representatives have just returned from Pyongyang. China must be strongly encouraged to aid and abet change in North Korea. It must be made very clear to China that the cost of maintaining and supporting the present North Korean leadership will be very high politically and economically. China has grown very dependent on foreign investment and trade to keep its economy moving and to ensure that internal socio-economic fissures do not widen and deepen. The Chinese leadership must understand that the present situation is not acceptable, and that in the absence of positive steps forward, the situation could worsen, adversely affecting all in the region, including China.

Peace on the Korean Peninsula and greater regional stability are possible in the short term. But if self-serving agendas are allowed to take precedence over sustainable stability, then the region will continue to stagger along in a state of quasi-peace with further polarization, instability and potentially armed conflict in the near future. Strong solutions to this protracted problem will not be easy, but the dividends that eventual peace will pay will benefit generations to come.

David Scofield is a lecturer at the Graduate Institute of Peace Studies, Kyung Hee University, Seoul.

Zombrex

you can always sum up the article and prove a link to it

bonkey

Geronimo and TomF could also offer your own opinions, supported by the articles in question.

This is not intended to be a forum for posting other people's work. Its intended to be about discussion. If you're not going to discuss, then stay out of it. If you are going to discuss, then discuss, dammit.

jc

Typedef

Seriously though.

For the hawks amongst the Western world it should be noted, that North Korea has one of the largest armies in the world, so simply going headlong to war with North Korea, would be pretty crazy.

Really what would be happening is the US and China having a proxy war, through North Korea, something that happened in the 1950s, with North Korea recieving huge amounts of help from Communist China.
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/kowar/50-chin/50-chin.htm

So the term "Korean War" is really a pseudonym for a US-China war, as that is how a conflict would ultimately shape up.

bloggs

Im not sure how war can be avoided certainly in the very long term. The US hawks will keep pushing Bush to go to war to more or less wipe out NK. But if they did, how could such a war take place. I think NK 1,000,000 man army is formidable, but certainly wouldn't stand up to American firepower, as most of the war is fought with bombs and fighter planes. Also NK's weapons/fighters are no where near as advanced as the US. I think the only thing NK could use to any affect would be their Nuke, and we all know what this could cause!

Some of the US Army Generals claim they could destroy NKs facilities quick enough to stop them from developing the nuke, but at the same time stop a large scale war, i doubt this.

If the US decide on containment of NK, there will be the hawks in the US who say that it's just buying NK time to develop the nuke and would put the US in danger.

I certainly don't agree with striking NK, as this could cause a unpresidented consquences, but at the same time, if NK are left unchecked, that mad guy incharge could have a nuke and be willing to use it, in a few years time?

dumb larry

Originally posted by Typedef
Seriously though.

For the hawks amongst the Western world it should be noted, that North Korea has one of the largest armies in the world, so

AFAIK much of North Korea's army is made up of poor peasants from the countryside who go into the army because they get to eat that way. They sell their army uniforms on the black market so they can buy other things. Most of them would have little loyalty to Kim Jong Il, are easily bribed and I would think that they would desert quickly.

A good book on North Korea is 'The Aquariums of Pyongyang', written by Kang Chol-hwan who spent 10 years in a gulag there then escaped to the South. It's a fascinating read.

sovtek

Originally posted by The Beer Baron


You know what- I hope the little ****ers *do* nuke America.

Ummmm I surely hope not.
Aerlingus would be in a whole then.

sovtek

What rarely gets mentioned is that when Clinton got NK to quite working towards nukes in 1994 the US promised (I'm talking from memory here) something like 500,000 tons of oil a year, to build modern nuclear power plants and to remove all sanctions.
The US has yet to come through with those promises.
This whole hissy fit thrown by NK is to get the US to live up to it's obligations under a treaty they agreed to.
When's the last time they mentioned that on the idiot box?

bonkey

Well, its a chicken and egg sorta thing, from what I recall of when this all started up again....

The NK said that they restarted their nuclear program because they had no choice - the US was reneging on its side of the bargain.

The US, on the other hand, maintained that they didn't renege - that the NK had restarted its nuclear program (or never even terminated it), and that as a result the US withdrew from the bargain.

Now, while I generally take what the US says with a grain of salt....I wouldn't classify NK up amongst my most credible of nations either.



jc

dumb larry

Originally posted by sovtek
The US has yet to come through with those promises.
This whole hissy fit thrown by NK is to get the US to live up to it's obligations under a treaty they agreed to.
When's the last time they mentioned that on the idiot box?

No, they did supply them with fuel oil, sanctions were eased. North Korea wouldn't allow IAEA inspections (which technically they didn't have to till 2005) which the bush administration wanted. The administration's suspicions were proved right when North Korea admitted their nuclear program was still going. That's when the US halted supply.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/nuke-agreedframework.htm

Capt'n Midnight

ie. How to disarm a country without killing a large % of the population. I do get upset when people forget that most of the soilders killed in recent wars are conscripts and not there by choice.

But hang on - aren't the trains running again between the two countries... I had thought that relations were warming up agai

Anyway the US has previously bribed the NK's to the tune of billions to not go to war - and Koreans aren't stupid... ("Hey lads lets all go down to the boarder and march up and down till they give us some more money...")

Given the US's track record of promises of aid and actual delivery of aid or fair trade (as opposed to loans at market rate)...

And yes China would go gaga if the US tried something there.

Lets face it, one plane crash or a heart attack would damage the gov't there more than anything short of a complete victory against them.


PS. Check up on South Korea - how long were they ruled by the military - when were the first fully democratic elections there ??

Typedef

I honestly have to say that a country as poor as North Korea is better helped into the international fold then attacked.

Instead of being Westerners pontificating from thousands of kilometers away, let's examine what the South Koreans would do.

In terms of South Korea, the perferred policy is the "Sunshine" policy, or in simple terms rapprochament with the North, with a view to eventual normalisation of relations and reunification... that's it.

The notion of war in Korean peninsula, is a notion predicated by foreign intervention in the Korea, either from China supporting Communists or the US supporting Capitalists.

Left up to Koreans, North-South relations would be a whole lot less hostile, so instead of taking lead from the US, which wants a scapegoat to justify it's endebted war economy, lets actually leave Koreans to sort out their own affairs between themselves.

Let's not forget the 'real' moves towards normalisation of North Korea's international relations, came from South Korean Chebol[1] and the democratic South Korean (as opposed to military ruled) government, investing in the North. The notion of hostility towards North Korea comes from the Bush administration, not from anything Korea (North and South), wants or needs.

PS. Check up on South Korea - how long were they ruled by the military - when were the first fully democratic elections there ??

Oh, not more then 15 or 20 years.
That particular (sucession) of military junta, were of course validated by the US.

[1] Chebol : Powerful South Korean companies, such as Samsung, Hyundai and Daewoo.

dsheehan

North Korea is probabley the scariest country on earth today. It has a large army, possibly nuclear weapons, it's people are dirt poor and are the most isolated in the world, it's leader is a cruel dictator who doesn't seem to run his country in a logical and coherent manner.

That said, I think the latest shenanigans is an attempt to extort more money from the world community.

They may have a large army, but I think the regieme would implode if they invaded the south, even and especially if they're victorious. The reason is the million strong north korean army, when it marches south, would see how they're brethern really have lived for the past 50 years without the "juche" or commmunist crap.

Kim Il Jong can maintain power, simply because the North Koreans don't know how bad off their situation is, they think the outside world is worse, or the same, once that myth is shattered, Kim's days are numbered.


They could of course, attempt nuclear strikes on Japan, the South or possibly Alaska, Hawaii or Guam if their rockets can get that far. However they know that would bring nuclear retaliation in, which would lead to the death of the regieme.


They could of course test a bomb, and threaten to sell them. They would be very stupid to do this, but I think it might be the most likely outcome. People seem to assume that having a nuclear bomb means they have a nuclear deterrent which means the U.S. would be deterred from attacking them. This is wrong. A nuclear deterrent means having hundreds of missiles dispersed in silos or on submarines that have the range to strike back at your enemy even if your country is destroyed. The North Koreans have maybe a couple of bombs, that are vulnerable to a first strike by the Americans, and could only at best reach Hawaii.


Because of this the Americans would be very tempted to do a premptive strike with nuclear weapons if they feared the North Koreans had a bomb and were selling it. A million dead in a war on the Korean peninsula would be much preferable to a million dead in an American city if a terrorist smuggled a weapon in.

I think basically the Americans should refuse to negotiate with the North Koreans unless they give up forever, verifiably, their weapons program. Even then, I think the assistance should be limited.
Where is there an obligation for the U.S. to assist another country? Sure if it enters an agreement to (such as the previous treaty, that the North Koreans were violating all along by attempting to enrich Uranium), or if they caused the damage, they could be obligated to restore it to what it was (such as Iraq_.


The U.S. should just sit back, I think, offer no aid, and watch North Korea implode over the next 20 years. If they think about doing anything with nuclear weapons, they should politley remind the North Koreans that they have 3,000 nuclear warheads, ready to fly at 15 minutes notice, that could be put to use at any time.

dumb larry

Originally posted by Typedef
In terms of South Korea, the perferred policy is the "Sunshine" policy, or in simple terms rapprochament with the North, with a view to eventual normalisation of relations and reunification... that's it.

The sunshine policy seems to have proved costly and fairly ineffective so far. It basically consists of pumping money and aid into the country to make kim il jung smile, then he uses it to improve the military. They had to pay him off for that summit in 2000. Hyundai gave him 500 million for it. The chairman of Hyundai committed suicide when the government decided to look into it.

http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/501030324/nk_sunshine.html