NK Claims it has six nukes

[TillEulenspiegel]

Re: Re: Re: NK Claims it has six nukes

A better idea is for AUP and his country to do something. If he/they see a problem he/they should address it instead of bitching to us to address it for them. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. It seems reasonable that our priorities/decisions regarding our 'best interests' would differ from his/theirs. He needs to follow his own path and stop expecting us to hold his/their hand.

Rob You know that's an emotional response. The unfortunate fact in that we are the only country in the world thats has the weapons, the troops and the balls to address the NK question The reality is that any lash out by NK could be directed at our friends and trading partners Japan, SK, Etc. That would have catastrophic ramifications for the world economy and well as introducing more strain between China and the West . It's almost a proof of part of the Bush pre-emption doctrine. The difference being you use that in situations that have a real danger like NK.

I think a policy of carrot and stick is the best which is what Bush1 and Clinton pursued, but we must have the stick not the threat of one.

Park some patriot 2s and 3s on Hokkaido Japan , in Songnisan national park SK and park a few boomers loaded with HEEs cruse missiles in the Yellow sea . Then you goto the UN tell them that we are unilaterally ceasing any and all aid and bring up sanctions.

That shifts the dynamic to the other member states of the UN to pile on or to take up the chore of their food/fuel subsidies. The specter of sanctions was met by a promise of war by NK.
SO- The rest of the world instead of bitching takes Bk's bellicose threats and NK is challenged so if they Do react , the onus is on them and we can react accordingly absolved from any guilt of direct action on our part. That's an old lesson from grade school , call the bully's bluff


Edit to add , we also have 37000 troops on the ground a <1 hour march from a million member NK peoples army.

 

[varwoche]

I don't understand what you're saying here.
...
You don't negotiate with tyrants, because tyrants never negotiate in good faith.

The Bush administration has insisted on, and engaged in, multilateral negotiations with NK (involving China, Japan, and S Korea). NK wants bilateral negotiations with the US, which the US rejects.

I take it from your post that you're more hardline than even the Bush administration, since you oppose all negotiations. So do you favor passively sitting back as they expand their arsenal, or attacking them?

Can we agree that this is a complex problem with no easy answers?

 

[BPSCG]

I take it from your post that you're more hardline than even the Bush administration, since you oppose all negotiations.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration has to do the diplomatic dances.

So do you favor passively sitting back as they expand their arsenal, or attacking them?

Frankly, I think we could effectively wipe out their entire military sometime between breakfast and brunch tomorrow, including time for a coffee break. But I could be wrong, so that's not a viable solution.

What should be done is for the whole world to recognize that we're dealing with a dangerously paranoid country that has nuclear weapons, and the thing to do is to treat them like the pariah they really are: Cut off all trade of any kind, including humanitarian trade - until they change their regime or prove they've destroyed their weapons.

What we have now is a situation where they dictate the terms of their own discomfort. They make nice to the rest of the world when they need food or oil, then when the pressure eases, they go back to their sociopathic ways. The whole world should cut them off any kind of trade and aid until they decide it isn't worth it.

Of course, the world, being the weasely, appeasing lot that it is, will find this appalling. All I can say is it's not nearly as appalling as having the equivalent of an escapee from a lunatic asylum waslking around your neighborhood bragging to everyone that he has an AK-47 at home.

Can we agree that this is a complex problem with no easy answers?

No. The answer is easy. Getting the rest of the world to do what has to be done is the hard part.

 

[BPSCG]

Or what TillEulenspiegel said.

 

[varwoche]

Unfortunately, the Bush administration has to do the diplomatic dances...

Ahem, you quoted back my entire post except where I pointed out that you are apparently unaware of fundamental facts (the multi-lateral negotiations that have ocurred, and NK's desire for bi-lateral).

For years, Bush has chosen not to attack NK (in opposition to what you advocate in alternate posts), and the process, such that it is, has been hung-up on this multi-lateral versus bi-lateral crappola.

Can you please explain what exactly is the argument against having a one-on-one discussion? So what if it fails. What's the downside? At worst, it's a PR opportunity for the US.

I suppose you could argue that behind the scenes the current strategy is working.

 

[rikzilla]

Beeps is right, cut them off. A world-wide embargo...that's the stick.

But there should be a carrot too: Offer them a way out either through disarmament or democratic reforms.

Above all no one should cut any deals with Kim's government. They wouldn't be worth anything anyway.

-z

 

[Rob Lister]

Ahem, you quoted back my entire post except where I pointed out that you are apparently unaware of fundamental facts (the multi-lateral negotiations that have ocurred, and NK's desire for bi-lateral).

For years, Bush has chosen not to attack NK (in opposition to what you advocate in alternate posts), and the process, such that it is, has been hung-up on this multi-lateral versus bi-lateral crappola.

Can you please explain what exactly is the argument against having a one-on-one discussion? So what if it fails. What's the downside? At worst, it's a PR opportunity for the US.

I suppose you could argue that behind the scenes the current strategy is working.

The downside is the lack of up side. Bi-lateral negotiations appear to be something they want (for the obvious and not so obvious reason -- most of which I can't imagine). It is therefore a barginning chip.

I personally don't believe any negotiations are going to work. I don't know what the answer is. My father, a KW vet, has some choice things to say about the situation but he too is at a loss when it comes to a solution. He did suggest that the first thing that needs to be done is to move Soeul, lock, stock, and barrel, outside artillery range. That option, impossible though it may be, would open up all kinds of possibilities.

 

[varwoche]

Beeps is right, cut them off. A world-wide embargo...that's the stick.

I have no better suggestion to offer.

NK's largest trading partners are China and S Korea, according to DOE. We'll see.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The problem with negotiating with NK is that the ole Kimfuhrer is several tacos short of a combination platter. You can't reason with people who haven't any.

Perhaps we should offer him some magic beans in exchange for his nukes?

Maybe NK doesn't have nukes, but their Glorious Leader just imagines that they do? Someone might have wrapped a toilet in tinfoil and convinced him it was a hydrogen bomb.

 

[American]

So, there are claims North Korea has nukes, that Iran is just about to develop them, and the US has just blown multiple billions on the place that didn't have them. Go figga.

Not 6 nukes, 60 nuclear weapons, all developed when George Bush gave North Korea the technology to build them.

 

[BPSCG]

Ahem, you quoted back my entire post except where I pointed out that you are apparently unaware of fundamental facts (the multi-lateral negotiations that have ocurred, and NK's desire for bi-lateral).

Yes, tyrants just love to talk. It buys them time to cook up something really nasty to do to you while your back is turned.

What did negotiating with Mussolini buy the League of Nations? Nothing. What did it buy Mussolini? Ethiopia.

What did negotiating with Hitler buy Chamberlain? An invasion of Poland. What did it buy Hitler? Time to build up his armies to invade Poland.

What did negotiating with Tojo buy the U.S.? Pearl Harbor. What did it buy the Japanese? Time to build up their navy and air force.

What did negotiating with Stalin at Yalta buy Roosevelt? A promise from Stalin to hold free elections in Poland. What did it buy Stalin? Time to consolidate his eastern European conquests and to murder the Polish government in exile and install a puppet regime there.

What did negotiating with Arafat buy Israel? The intifada. What did it buy Arafat? Estimates range up to a billioin dollars.

What did negotiating with Saddam buy anybody? Eleven years of broken UN sanctions and oil-for-food. What did it buy Saddam? Estimates range up to and even over a billion dollars.

For years, Bush has chosen not to attack NK (in opposition to what you advocate in alternate posts), and the process, such that it is, has been hung-up on this multi-lateral versus bi-lateral crappola.

Ah, yes, "the process." Like the "peace process" that has brought peace and prosperity to Israel and Palestine these last sixty years. Diplomats love that term - "peace process." It makes it sound like there's some sort of progress being made.

Can you please explain what exactly is the argument against having a one-on-one discussion? So what if it fails.

See above. I've said it before, but maybe you missed it: You don't negotiate with tyrants, because tyrants never negotiate in good faith. Never.

What's the downside? At worst, it's a PR opportunity for the US.

The downside is a situation that continues to spiral out of control until one day Kim decides that the best way to get rid of the Martians crawling around in his pants is to have some spies smuggle certain steamer trunks into New York City and Washington, DC and Los Angeles...

Don't give me that PR nonsense. Stalin got terrible PR after he screwed Roosevelt at Yalta. He still died comfortably in bed and ten years later, his successor was toying with the idea of putting nuclear missiles in Cuba.

I suppose you could argue that behind the scenes the current strategy is working.

I have no idea what strategy is being pursued behind the scenes, or whether it's working. I do know what doesn't work, though; I've read a couple of history books over the years.

 

[BPSCG]

I have no better suggestion to offer.

I give you credit for honesty. Unlike AUP, who launched this thread with his little sarcasm, then seems to have fallen conspicuously silent when I asked him what we should do about it (kinda like The Fool did when I asked him how we should have removed Saddam...).

NK's largest trading partners are China and S Korea, according to DOE. We'll see.

Hey, don't get me wrong. If bringing harsh economic pressure on them can make them see the error of their ways better than a war, I'm all for it. I'm just not optimistic about the chances, since the next tyrant who gets overthrown as a result of trade sanctions will be the first.

 

[varwoche]

I do know what doesn't work, though; I've read a couple of history books over the years.

I'm glad you have read some history books. May I suggest you do some catching up on current events?

As to the bilateral talking versus multi-lateral talking versus invading... You are missing my point. The Bush administration strategy on NK is to talk. (I understand that you don't like this; no need to repeat yourself.) Given that Bush (your guy, yes?) has chosen to talk, I'm expressing confusion about his entrenched position not to engage in one-on-one talks, just to augment, not replace, the stalled multi-lateral talks. It seems irrational to me.

 

[Reager]

How did arrive at the conlcusion that we did nothing? We hel negotiations with them, brought other countries in there. Do you discount those negotiations or think we should have done something else?

I don't mean we did *literally* nothing. But compared to our obsessive policy in Iraq we have done very little on the NK front. NK broke off negotiations in..what..2002? And our policy has been to basically sit back and allow them to continue to build their nuclear arsenal while we invade the only "Axis of Evil" nation WITHOUT an active nuclear program. The word incompetent is not hyperbolic.

Mike

 

[Reager]

...snip...

-z

Nice rant. I choose to ignore it.

Mike

 

[rikzilla]

Nice rant. I choose to ignore it.

Mike

Interesting.

I come here to engage in debate. If debate isn't your thing, then why are you here?

-z

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't mean we did *literally* nothing. But compared to our obsessive policy in Iraq we have done very little on the NK front. NK broke off negotiations in..what..2002? And our policy has been to basically sit back and allow them to continue to build their nuclear arsenal while we invade the only "Axis of Evil" nation WITHOUT an active nuclear program. The word incompetent is not hyperbolic.

Mike

Iraq was always about more than WMDs, and the WMD issue was always about more than his current stockpile. One of the problems with dealing with Saddam was it wasn't possible to starve him out. His oil smuggling basically ensured that he could last indefinitely, and he had too much sympathy in neighboring countries to allow a true, complete embargo. North Korea is different. They WILL collapse without aid (not just trade, but actual aid), and their only real supporter, China, isn't happy with them either. And militarily, Iraq is lower hanging fruit. Toppling Saddam was much easier, and less costly in lives AND dollars, than a similar attack on North Korea. And China would be quite a bit more pissed off about a US invasion of North Korea than France was about removing Saddam.

But what you're arguing, despite the lack of parallels between the two countries, can ONLY make sense if you're actually advocating that we invade North Korea instead of Iraq. Are you seriously arguing that? I doubt it. Rather, I think you're trying to use any argument at hand to try to smear the Iraq invasion, because you're too lazy to come up with a real plan to deal with either Iraq OR North Korea. Color me unimpressed.

 

[Ed]

deleted cuz I cant read.

 

[Reager]

..snip..

No, my point is not simply to smear the Iraq invasion. My point is that the Bush administraion should implement a foreign policy that reduces the likelihood a nuclear device will make the lower portion of Manhattan Island uninhabitable. The invasion of Iraq has actually increased that risk.

True, North Korea's nuclear capability may be a more difficult problem to deal with than Iraq, but the danger is also much greater. So why did we put NK on the back burner and expend billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of troops to deal with a lesser threat at the expense of a greater threat?

I suppose when NK sells a nuclear bomb to Al Quaeda for a few hundred mil* which is then smuggled into the US and wipes out Washington DC, will you be patting yourself on the back thinking, "Thank God we took out Saddam Hussein first or we'd really be in trouble!!"

Mike

*(or when they acquire nuclear material from an unguarded facility in Russia...thanks to Bush's refusal to ensure such sites are cleaned up...which, btw, would cost what we are spending every two weeks in Iraq)

Edited to add an asterisk.

 

[Ed]

Re: Re: Re: Re: NK Claims it has six nukes

Rob You know that's an emotional response. The unfortunate fact in that we are the only country in the world thats has the weapons, the troops and the balls to address the NK question The reality is that any lash out by NK could be directed at our friends and trading partners Japan, SK, Etc. That would have catastrophic ramifications for the world economy and well as introducing more strain between China and the West . It's almost a proof of part of the Bush pre-emption doctrine. The difference being you use that in situations that have a real danger like NK.

I think a policy of carrot and stick is the best which is what Bush1 and Clinton pursued, but we must have the stick not the threat of one.

Park some patriot 2s and 3s on Hokkaido Japan , in Songnisan national park SK and park a few boomers loaded with HEEs cruse missiles in the Yellow sea . Then you goto the UN tell them that we are unilaterally ceasing any and all aid and bring up sanctions.

That shifts the dynamic to the other member states of the UN to pile on or to take up the chore of their food/fuel subsidies. The specter of sanctions was met by a promise of war by NK.
SO- The rest of the world instead of bitching takes Bk's bellicose threats and NK is challenged so if they Do react , the onus is on them and we can react accordingly absolved from any guilt of direct action on our part. That's an old lesson from grade school , call the bully's bluff


Edit to add , we also have 37000 troops on the ground a <1 hour march from a million member NK peoples army.

The NK guy is a nut, much like Saddam was a nut. They both think that because they are administered BJ's with abandon by the sycophants around them that they are really, really special and proof against force. All Saddam had to do was (even at the 11th hour, I wager) give in to any and all demands on the part of the US and he would still be there fat, happy and ugly. Similarly, did he really think that during Gulf I he could take on the US and her allies? Who told him that I wonder?

Point is Kim il Park or whatever his name is thinks that he is a member of the Big Boys Club and I have absolutely no doubt that he would go out in a large explosion.

I would simply say that they get no US trade and neither does any country that trades with them. Leave it to the Aussies and Japs and Chinese to sort it out.