Cleon
King of the Pod People
Oh, yay! Let's have another war! After all, the current one seems to be going so well...
I suspect this one will go substantially better; there's no great popular support for Kim, nor is there a ready-made group of insurgents who will try to prop up his regime or undercut South Korean-based rebuilding efforts.
I don't think Saddam had a great popular following either. Neither does Castro. But they do have people that have been brainwashed their whole lives and will fight for their country if attacked. It may not involve the whole population, but enough will go along to make things difficult. I don't think that Kim is a total idiot. It is not beyond their current military technology to have a response ready in case the US attacks. Most of their weapons systems and nuclear facilities are located underground, so information about their capabilities is unclear. We don't know how many missiles or how many nukes they have. They may have tested parts of weapons systems and then assembled them without testing the complete system as a whole. They may have untested missiles fitted with untested nukes as a last resort.
Is the possible destruction of several American cities and possibly millions of lives lost, worth it? And wouldn't we, the US be held accountable for starting the war. How does the US, which has over 10,000 nuclear warheads ready to go, tell a small, mostly agricultural third world country, that they are not allowed to make nukes or long range missiles? Do as we say, not as we do.
I saw "Fog of War" again just the other day. Interesting stuff. You're right, McNamara really put it on LeMay.
Lots of what I learned about the Cuban situation during the Missile Crisis came from a relative who was a Naval UDT lieutenant, and which was right during the time when UDT was being redesignated "SeAL". He was in one of the first 2 Seal teams ever.
Incredible story is all I can say.
Actually, the current "war" did go well. About 19 days long, if I remember right.
It's the occupation that sucks.............
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Fixed that for you to make the answer obvious.
Elind
Philosopher
Yet, presumably he has no problem with any small, mostly agricultural third world country (with or without oil) doing so either? The more the merrier to some, as long as there isn't a US opinion in the mix.
Maybe. I'm only guessing, using past events as a guide. I'll stand to be educated on the subject [of previous negotiations with NK].Maybe you're answering your own question?
[poking_with_a_stick]
So do you happen to think the USA is the only country worthy of holding nuclear weapons? If so, on what grounds do you justify that?
[/poking_with_a_stick]
Elind
Philosopher
Not what I said, but thanks for elaborating my point.
And your answers?
I will, if I can. I'd like to point out two things though. First of all it seems to me that a former US secretary of denfence isn't an unbiased source. Secondly, it can actually be perfectly rational to try to convince your opponenets that your batsh*t crazy if you're trying to deter them.
Being batsh*t crazy was actually the official US Nuclear policy in the beginning of the Cold war (the strategy of Massive retaliation). You abandoned that strategy when the Soviets called your bluff a number of times. Castro might simply have been doing the same thing.
ARubberChickenWithAPulley
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2006
- Messages
- 2,150
Well, there have been a lot more attempts to break the impasse than just a few nK spy raids, including North Korea killing 21 members of the South Korean cabinet in Rangoon in 1983 (they just missed the SK President), mounting a commando raid on the Blue House (presidential residence) in 1968, a covert South Korean military unit that attempted to infiltrate NK and assassinate Kim Il Sung (recently dramatized in a popular movie), a 1971 joint communique on reunification, etc. etc. The most recent attempt at breaking the impasse has been the so-called "Sunshine Policy," which was begun in 1998 by Kim Dae Jung, eventually winning him the Nobel Peace Prize. The Sunshine Policy has basically amounted to South Korea giving North Korea loads of aid, putting up with a whole lot of wacky crap from NK (randomly cancelling planned events, bizarre demands, threatening South Korea, etc.), and alienating the United States. Yes, I am critical of the Sunshine Policy. It was a nice attempt, but North Korea has made it clear they have very little intention of reciprocating any of the South's gestures. It has been probably the longest and most serious attempt at breaking the impasse between the two countries, but IMHO, it has been a rather dismal failure.
Incidentally -- and this has not been brought up yet -- one of the main reasons that I think North Korea is pulling this missile stunt now is that the Sunshine Policy is just about nearing an end. The ruling Uri Party, the main advocate of the policy, just got absolutely crushed in local elections, and thus far it looks like they will be crushed again in the national elections. They are deeply unpopular, albeit mainly for economic reasons. However, the opposition GNP, which has been the main benefactor of Uri's fall, is very pro-U.S., and will at least significantly modify, if not eventually abandon, the sunshine policy. This will have some major ramifications: in the Six Party talks, China and Russia have tended to be sympathetic to North Korea, Japan and the U.S. have advocated a much harder line, and South Korea has been quite tolerant of North Korea. Expect that to change if (when) the GNP comes to power in South Korea. We will likely see South Korea's position come much closer to that of the U.S. and Japan. This prospect has bothered North Korea enough that their delegate to the recent "reunification festival" in Gwangju basically threatened South Korea if they elect the GNP (this caused a huge backlash, with South Koreans decrying the North trying to influence the South's elections). Right now, North Korea's best bet is to try and get the United States to negotiate with them one on one, which is something they have been chasing for a while. They've requested a one-on-one talk over the missile issue, which they likely hope to use to set a precedent for bilateral talks on other issues.
In short, right now, North Korea's antics are well-planned with an eye toward a likely shift in South Korean policy after the next national election in 2007, assuming that the GNP regains the presidency.
What do you think they're hoping to get out of two party talks that they couldn't get by 6-party talks with some of the members significantly more sympathetic to them than the US?
ARubberChickenWithAPulley
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2006
- Messages
- 2,150
Negotiating in the framework of the six-party talks makes North Korea's nuclear weapons program a regional security issue that essentially has one point: North Korea's possession of nuclear weapons are a potential threat to all countries in East Asia. Even with Russia, China and South Korea sympathetic, in the framework of the Six-Party talks, none of them can legitimately say they support North Korea's possession of nuclear weapons. As such, while they are sympathetic to North Korea, they have to come out against the North's nuclear program in the context of regional security. This essentially makes the talks 5 against 1. Having countries that are sympathetic to them can give them some negotiating leverage in the talks, but not much.
North Korea has more of an advantage if it can frame the issue as a bilateral issue -- that its nuclear weapons programs are in direct response to United States and the United States alone. North Korea has been pushing that idea for a while -- that they only have a problem with the United States, not with any of the other countres in Asia, and that their nuclear program is designed to be a deterrent to a U.S. attack. If it convinces the United States to engage in bilateral negotiations, it will be reinforcing the notion that it is a NK-US issue, not a NK-East Asia issue. This will make them less of a pariah to the rest of East Asia ("we are just defending ourselves against the U.S."). North Korea also wants to use the bilateral talks to bring up a number of bilateral issues that are pretty much off-topic during the Six-Party talks, including the recent U.S. anti-counterfeiting operations, an official peace treaty between the two countries, and the US recognizing North Korea's government as legitimate (rather than as a "rogue state").
North Korea has never liked the Six Party talks, and has always regarded the issue as one between the US and North Korea alone. However, because South Korea in particular has been sympathetic, the Six Party talks have not been a disaster for the North. They have had some leverage to negotiate, and the U.S. has not been able to get anywhere near the concessions they want, particularly because of South Korea's sympathy. Should the GNP take the presidency in South Korea, NK will be at an even greater disadvantage in Six-Party talks -- and in any talks.
North Korea has to try and convince the U.S. to negotiate bilaterally, and soon. The 1994 agreement was reached through bilateral negotiations, and they are looking for a similar breakthrough.
The bottom line is timing. North Korea needs to get something done soon. The Six-Party talks are by nature a very slow process that have not produced much of anything for the North. If they continue with the Six-Party talks, they will likely continue into 2007, at which point they will be in a much worse position than they are now. So, they are trying to do something to force the U.S. into bilateral negotiations while they still have some advantage (mainly the sympathy of the South Korean government). If they wait, their leverage -- in either venue -- will be considerably less.
Thank you! You ask questions here, and lo and behold, answers come out.
ARubberChickenWithAPulley, thanks for those last two posts. Genuinely insightful for those of us on the other side of the world, and serves as a good reminder that we shouldn't assume the other guy is crazy just because we don't understand what he's doing.
Elind
Philosopher
Look ZEP, I think you hold pie in the sky juvenile views of the universe and if only everyone saw things as simply as you everything would be just peachy. I used to feel that strongly when I was in my teens too, so I can sympathize and in one sense you are right, but that is the imaginary sense unfortunately.
I write this only because you poked me.
This was my point. I don't want NK to have nukes, but I can understand why other countries want them. From the perspective of other countries, Bush may appear paranoid and out of control. After all, he just attacked Iraq, because he was affraid they might be a threat to the United States; and can anyone please tell me what exactly did Iraq do to us? Iraq was never a threat to us, unless you are paranoid enough to believe that an aging T-72 tank is a threat. If NK attacked another country for no good reason, what would we say about their aggresive action?
We say that developing nukes is a bad thing, but we stockpile over ten thousand warheads. We say that testing missiles is bad, but we develop and test new weapons systems all the time. We say that work on new nukes is bad, but we don't seem to have a problem having our weapons labs work on designing new types of nukes. We say that anyone who is working on nukes is a threat and may be ready to use them, but we always reserve the right to use nukes if we need to.
Put yourself in someone else's shoes. If your neighbor has a gun pointed at you and promises not to use it, unless in an emergency; and the neighbor also says that if you attempt to get your own gun, that would be an emergency in their mind, what would you do?
I'm not saying that everyone should have nukes. I'm saying that we have a double standard. How about everybody gets rid of all nukes? Would the United States go along with that?
It's absolutely amazing how you can divine so precisely what I'm thinking, my state of mind, what my intentions are, what I'm trying to achieve in this discussion, and even how old I am.
It's absolutely amazing how wrong you are.
I'd give up on mind-reading for a living, if I were you. But that's utterly by-the-by here.Do you have any answers to the question I asked? Here it is again:
Here's the thing: That question is not me revealing any of my own prejudices on the subject of nuclear weapons, much as you might like it to be that. It's about trying to get you to show us yours. I happen to find it amusing that you would read into such a question a level of rhetoric that implies some sort of stance on my part in asking it - in this case anti-nuclear or possible even anti-US or both - that is simply not in evidence.
What I suspect you do realise is that the answers you provide might reveal a lot more about your own prejudices than anything about my political views, especially relating to your stance on other nations now also being nuclear-weaponed. Examples I might refer to: Russia, former Russian states, Russian customers of nuclear weaponry, China ditto, Pakistan, India, the Middle East, and various Asian countries. Your position on non-US countries' nuclear capabilities would seem relevant if we are to discuss North Korea's claimed nuclear capabilities in a realistic perspective.
And we have just had a detailed update from someone on the ground in Korea who is much more aware of the political situation there than we are. I'll be taking that on board, and perhaps I'll modify my own thoughts as a result. How about you?