NK Claims it has six nukes

[Ziggurat]

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?

Again, what would you have had the Bush administration do? In the absence of a suggestion to that effect, what we did or did not do with regards to Iraq is kind of beside the point. Did our invasion of Iraq prevent us from doing what we should have done with North Korea? Well, to answer that you'd have to actually put forward a suggestion as to what we should have done. You haven't. All you've said is you're unhappy with what we have done. Real easy to say when you don't have an alternative on offer. So let's out with it: do you have a better suggestion, or are you just heckling?

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!!"

Here you're actually rather missing the big picture. Ten years down the line, if a nuke goes off in New York, or DC, or whatever, we can be fairly confident it came from the Norkers. That being the case, we wipe them off the face of the earth. They know this. It's called a deterent. If, however, Saddam had been around, with us still not knowing his WMD capability (and you can complain all you want to about this point, but we really had no way of knowing he DIDN'T have a program, and he fooled us before), and Libya still keeping their nuclear program under wraps (they gave it up because of our invasion of Iraq), it becomes much harder to guess who did it. And unless we strike out all our enemies (a much more difficult task), we can't depend on getting the guilty party. Which means that our enemies can contemplate striking at us and possibly getting away with it. Deterence drops quickly once more than one possible source exists.

*(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)[/SIZE]

Here you're falling for the fallacy that just spending money will fix the problem. It won't. There has to be infrastructure there to handle the influx of dollars, and that's a hard problem. It also depends rather crucially on cooperation from the Russians. That program cannot move forward any faster than the Russians make it move forward. I'd love to see more progress on this front, but to pretend we're ignoring it, or that dollar sums are the primary metric to measure our effort or success, is really simplistic and inaccurate.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

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

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.

I tacitly agree, the point tho is 1 we don't reward him for bad behavior and contribute to "our" own demise.
2 We basically force his hand.

Realistically We all know we will have to deal with this REAL menace. Wouldn't it be better to do it now rather then we he has 10-20 nukes and the kow-dung 3 missile that could hit Alaska or Hawaii? This situation has but one direction and that is "worse".

So we do a hand off to the member states of the UN and if Lil'Kim goes ballistic ( pun intended) it ain't our fault and we can spank him.

 

[Skeptic]

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.

Typical AUP.

If the USA had acted against Iran or NK militarily before they got the bomb, AUP would go all bats--t about this new proof of "imperialistic American agression", blah blah blah.

Now that it didn't, and these regimes have the bomb, that, too, is the USA's fault--for NOT taking them out in time.

Ah well.

 

[Skeptic]

And now they supposedly have 6. And the US still refuses direct talks. I just don't get it.

It's simple. Any "direct talk" with NK means absolutely nothing, since no agreement with the Kim crime family's private gulag, A.k.a. North Korea, is worth the paper it's printed on. It would simply mean more legitimacy to the lunatic regime.

What the NK government calls "direct talks" is more properly called "attempt to blackmail the USA". No wonder the US isn't biting.

 

[Skeptic]

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...).

No wonder they are silent now, for in regards to NK, the USA acted precisely how they always demand it should act: negotiate, sign worthless agreements with tyrants, make promises and presents to appease them, involve the international community, etc., etc., etc.

When this leads precisely to the rather obvious negative result, they are in a dilemma: for in order to blame the USA (The real goal of most of their posts, of course), they have to accuse the USA of not acting differently. But since "acting differently" here would mean either "do nothing" (which would obviously not help) "take out Kim whatshisname with armed forces", they cannot very well recommend this, since any and all US military interventions (except for the one that freed their own country, of course) are by definition evil.

So the US IS to blame, but it should NOT have done anything differently. Is it any wonder they are shutting up about it?

 

[Ed]

And now they supposedly have 6. And the US still refuses direct talks. I just don't get it.

It's simple. Any "direct talk" with NK means absolutely nothing, since no agreement with the Kim crime family's private gulag, A.k.a. North Korea, is worth the paper it's printed on. It would simply mean more legitimacy to the lunatic regime.

What the NK government calls "direct talks" is more properly called "attempt to blackmail the USA". No wonder the US isn't biting.

It's also negotiation 101. What higher authority can be brought to bear after they have spoken with the US? In any event, the other powers are more directly concerned.

 

[Ed]

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

I tacitly agree, the point tho is 1 we don't reward him for bad behavior and contribute to "our" own demise.
2 We basically force his hand.

Realistically We all know we will have to deal with this REAL menace. Wouldn't it be better to do it now rather then we he has 10-20 nukes and the kow-dung 3 missile that could hit Alaska or Hawaii? This situation has but one direction and that is "worse".

So we do a hand off to the member states of the UN and if Lil'Kim goes ballistic ( pun intended) it ain't our fault and we can spank him.

True and if he is going to light one I'd much rather see it over Tokyo than LA.

Basically, it appears that the rest of the world, particularly in the far east blew it and it is going to fall to the US to figure it out. I would still vote for leaving the lot of them to their own devices making sure that we have enough nukes targeted on NK so that if they do decide to take out Sydney or whatever we can toast them in good order.

 

[Mycroft]

No wonder they are silent now, for in regards to NK, the USA acted precisely how they always demand it should act: negotiate, sign worthless agreements with tyrants, make promises and presents to appease them, involve the international community, etc., etc., etc.

When this leads precisely to the rather obvious negative result, they are in a dilemma: for in order to blame the USA (The real goal of most of their posts, of course), they have to accuse the USA of not acting differently. But since "acting differently" here would mean either "do nothing" (which would obviously not help) "take out Kim whatshisname with armed forces", they cannot very well recommend this, since any and all US military interventions (except for the one that freed their own country, of course) are by definition evil.

So the US IS to blame, but it should NOT have done anything differently. Is it any wonder they are shutting up about it?

 

[SezMe]

Did our invasion of Iraq prevent us from doing what we should have done with North Korea?

I think our invasion of Iraq has caused us serious problems in dealing with NK - or Iran or any other rogue nation because we have NO ability to go on the international stage and build a substantial, meaning coalition against such a nation. And not just in regards to and invasion but also a boycott.

Imagine Rice going to the UN to give a speech which defines NK's nuclear capabilities and trying, then, to build agreement to a boycott. Laughter would be the response.

On a related issue, I am not sure how seriously we should take NK's assertion of a nuclear capability. Remember how Saddam had bad information about his military capabilities because people who gave him bad news end up being dead news. Might the same be working in NK?

FWIW, the only solution I can think of has been described - a hard boycott. Completely seal off all sea routes then see if China is willing to completely support the current regime. However, unless we want war to be the end result, we have to give NK a facing saving way to back down.

So, suppose we do enforce a boycott. What is the face saving way out for NK? It has to be a way for Kim to be able to say to his people that he won, even if he didn't. After all, remember what Saddam told his people after Gulf I. And don't say "screw their face" because that means a war that will make Iraq look like Sunday in the park.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think our invasion of Iraq has caused us serious problems in dealing with NK - or Iran or any other rogue nation because we have NO ability to go on the international stage and build a substantial, meaning coalition against such a nation. And not just in regards to and invasion but also a boycott.

See, I keep hearing this, but I don't really believe it. Other than the Germans and the French, who are of no use with regards to North Korea, I really don't see this as a problem.

Imagine Rice going to the UN to give a speech which defines NK's nuclear capabilities and trying, then, to build agreement to a boycott. Laughter would be the response.

The norkers have rather done that part for us. And seeing as how they kicked the inspectors out already, it's rather hard for the anti-war croud to argue for more inspections. Hell, inspections would be a step forward in this case.

On a related issue, I am not sure how seriously we should take NK's assertion of a nuclear capability. Remember how Saddam had bad information about his military capabilities because people who gave him bad news end up being dead news. Might the same be working in NK?

Maybe. Hopefully. But we should be taking the threat VERY seriously. Because we know for certain that Kim has enough plutonium for several nukes. There is no disagreement on that.

 

[Ed]

I note that AUP and other are sorta silent here. I must ask what their response would be to a total embargo of goods to NK?

My assumptions on the topic of NK and nukes are fairly simple:

-Kim il whoosie is really insane, not nutsie like Saddam but certifiably insane

-He would not hesitate to set off a nuke

-He will, eventually. It might be SK or Japan or there might be a whoopsie with one of their Kimchee powered missles that sends the thing to China. Who knows, but I believe it will happen sooner than later.

So, what to do? Negotiate? With a nut with delusions of Godhood? If not that, what?

I predict that Kim Whoosie will test one pretty soon just to show that he is hung like a horse. Any takers on a bet?

I would really like to hear the monday morning quarterbacks weigh in on saturday.

 

[BPSCG]

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

Bi-lateral or multilateral - what difference does it make? Please tell me what gives you any reason to believe that Kim Jong Il sitting down and talking with just the U.S. would make any difference at all.

If they want bilateral talks, why don't they demand talks with Canada or Mexico? They're on the same continent as the U.S.

You say they want bilateral talks with a great power? Fine. Then why don't they demand bi-lateral talks with China? China at least has the advantage of being their neighbor, with a bigger vested interest than we have.

The demand for talks with the U.S. is just another stalling tactic, designed to buy them time to think up something nasty and figure out how to pull it off. Again, if you think I'm wrong, please tell me what Kim has done to persuade you he's different from any other past tyrant who's brought war to the world. Indeed, he's using their exact same tactics - he is truly a student of history. And the rest of the world is also using the exact same tactics that brought it such misery in the past.

Click on some of th links on their official news agency web page and tell me with a straight face that having any kind of negotiations at all with these people isn't an exercise in futility.

 

[Supercharts]

One option among many is just to ignore NK. Whatever NK says doesn't mean anything. They have to act.

Call their bluff by ignoring them.

If we and the rest of the world just ignore NK we stop playing the infantile's game of them tossing a spoon onto the floor just to see Mommy pick it up - over and over again.

Mine the harbors and ports, control what airspace we can, and give them the choice - and NKs "allies" China and Russia - to continue to allow NK to exist as a nation by reducing their expenses and economy on supporting an Army (which is way out of proportion to their needs to provide food) or face disintegration to the level of cannibalism but with nukes.

US and Israel waited out Arafat until that ********** died. Kim will pass on also.

Patience is needed. China isn't worried, nor is Russia. Economic expansion is the new rule for former Stalinist countries. It will also be the rule for NK once "The Dear Leader" dies.

It is not in the National Interest of China or Russia to allow NK to start a war.

Why worry about words?

 

[Ed]

One option among many is just to ignore NK. Whatever NK says doesn't mean anything. They have to act.

Call their bluff by ignoring them.

If we and the rest of the world just ignore NK we stop playing the infantile's game of them tossing a spoon onto the floor just to see Mommy pick it up - over and over again.

Mine the harbors and ports, control what airspace we can, and give them the choice - and NKs "allies" China and Russia - to continue to allow NK to exist as a nation by reducing their expenses and economy on supporting an Army (which is way out of proportion to their needs to provide food) or face disintegration to the level of cannibalism but with nukes.

US and Israel waited out Arafat until that ********** died. Kim will pass on also.

Patience is needed. China isn't worried, nor is Russia. Economic expansion is the new rule for former Stalinist countries. It will also be the rule for NK once "The Dear Leader" dies.

It is not in the National Interest of China or Russia to allow NK to start a war.

Why worry about words?

I agree. I think that he will, childlike, throw a plutonium tantrum though.

Ummmmm what do you mean **********? Can't suss it.

 

[varwoche]

Click on some of th links on their official news agency web page and tell me with a straight face that having any kind of negotiations at all with these people isn't an exercise in futility.

Understood. Can I assume that you dissaprove of the Bush administration for negotiating with NK?

 

[Supercharts]

*....* was a bad word. (Didn't know that because *...." is how everyone described Arafat.
Well when the post was submitted the "bad word" had *...'s replacing it.
I thought - That's cool! Some has installed a pre-submission editor that knows what "*....*" means and automatically substitutes *'s for the bad word."
Then, being paranoid, I started to think that someone could see my reply before I submitted it and substituted *'s for the word.

Instead of "**********" I should have written dohickeysucker. So now that I'm caught up on the editing rules that's what I meant. Sorry.

[Back to mu.nu where I can be puerile]

 

[BPSCG]

Understood. Can I assume that you dissaprove of the Bush administration for negotiating with NK?

Yep. The only "negotiating" we should be doing with these people is whenever they throw a tantrum, respond with, "That sounded like a threat. Did you mean it to be a threat?"

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

one aspect of the equation We haven't raised here is the Peoples Army.
I'm not sure Kim has power to do something stupid on a whim-himself.The Army has the power, problem is that altho they are probably more pragmatic, they hate the US even more then Kim and are extremely bellicose. It may be they who strike out ignoring Kim. A million + man army takes a lot of provender , thats why the rest of the country is starving, the Army comes first.

Plato's dilemma indeed.

 

[Rob Lister]

one aspect of the equation We haven't raised here is the Peoples Army.
I'm not sure Kim has power to do something stupid on a whim-himself.The Army has the power, problem is that altho they are probably more pragmatic, they hate the US even more then Kim and are extremely bellicose. It may be they who strike out ignoring Kim. A million + man army takes a lot of provender , thats why the rest of the country is starving, the Army comes first.

Plato's dilemma indeed.

The up-side to all that is that the Powers-that-be in the army are not, can not be, stupid. They have to know up from down. While they know who butters their bread, they also know who could/would potentially poison it. That would be us (and/or willing allies). So Kim-woo II orders a nuclear strike, what would they do? I'm sure they really don't mind the death of a million or so of their own citizens but I don't think they are ignorant enough to think they'd (themselves...personally) survive very long thereafter.

That doesn't stop Kim-woo II from outright selling a weapon to a third party but at least it might well prevent him from ordering a strike on another nation.

In closing, I'd like to say that the reason Kim-woo II hasn't yet tested a weapon is likely because he has tested a weapon and it didn't work. A Uranium-based bomb is fairly simple but there's a lot more to a plutonium bomb than obtaining the plutonuim...right? It may be that he dosen't yet have a working design. If he really has six (of any design) then surely he would have tested at least one. If not, then he's not only crazy, he's fundamentally stupid; who builds a production line without first testing the prototype. Even the U.S. felt the need to test their own Plutonium weapon.

Just some thoughts.

 

[corplinx]

I said it once and I will say it again. NK is a nuclear paper tiger. They haven't done a single successful test of a nuclear bomb. While we estimate they may have up to six nuclear bombs, we also estimate they have very primitive detonator technology.

They also have not had a single test of a nuclear warhead equipped missile.

I'm more worried about the Pakistan/India situation than I am about North Korea at this point.