NK Claims it has six nukes

[Reager]

This is silly, a post about NK having WMDs that they are not suppose to have. And of course this isn't about invading NK, it's about US being wrong to invade Iraq...you know I am not sure what this post is about if it's not about invading NK.

If this thread is about anything, it's about exposing the incompetent foreign policy of the Bush Administration. Invading a county that posed no threat to the US, while doing nothing to prevent a country that poses a real threat from acquiring more nuclear weapons. What gets my goat is that there are actually people who think the President shouldn't be held accountable for his actions, actions which have directly made the world a more dangerous place.

Mike

 

[Grammatron]

If this thread is about anything, it's about exposing the incompetent foreign policy of the Bush Administration. Invading a county that posed no threat to the US, while doing nothing to prevent a country that poses a real threat from acquiring more nuclear weapons. What gets my goat is that there are actually people who think the President shouldn't be held accountable for his actions, actions which have directly made the world a more dangerous place.

Mike

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?

 

[seayakin]

I am not sure you can assume North Korea is capable of any rational decision. They are run by an extremely paranoid dictator which directly impacts all domestic and foreign policy. This also creates a government that functions almost like a schizophrenic paranoid.

Because of this, any negotiated agreement is only temporary and will only work if it suits the current needs of the Kim Jong Il (as it was the same as his father). Unfortunately, they have enough armaments (regardless of whether they have nukes) to be extremely dangerous to their neighbors.

Therefore, the world has one of two options:

• Containment
• Regime change

Regime change would be costly in money and lives (especially to South Korea) and would also raise the specter of Chinese involvement as with the Korean War. Therefore, the only option for me is containment which involves isolating North Korea as much as possible while balancing their ability to threaten their neighbors and the rest of the world.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Huh, It took 8 posts before Clinton was blamed or invoked
Come on You guys are slippin, You can do better then that!

Firemarshal Bush theres a house burning down on main St.for a half hour now Arn't You gonna do somthing??
It didn't start on my watch, Besides it's what my company referes to as weed and seed.

 

[Checkmite]

Oh my god, N Korea has nukes...

PANIC!!!!!


...



Actually, no. Simply sanction further. What is Kim going to do, actually set a nuke off if nobody starts paying him? Yes, and then the world will be just lining up to throw money at him, sure.

This is nothing but a more modern yet surprisingly cheap ploy to exact protection tribute. Hopefully Bush will make a good decision and use a hardline that's actually called for here, rather than cave in with some excuse that he needs to "protect Americans" that aren't in any more danger now than they were yesterday, or go crazy and launch the military again.

 

[a_unique_person]

It's already about the most isolated, sanctioned country in the world. I am not asking for an invasion, or more of the same. Actually, Clinton is partly to blame, as this issue has been festering for years. A promise to build nuclear reactors was made, but never followed up on.

 

[Doubt]

NK has the habit of stating that they have weapons followed by a denial,

Let’s wait a couple of weeks and see if they change their story again.

Maybe NK should schedule the denial press conferences at the same time they make the announcements that they have the weapons.

 

[Phrost]

Actually, no. Simply sanction further. What is Kim going to do, actually set a nuke off if nobody starts paying him? Yes, and then the world will be just lining up to throw money at him, sure.

This is nothing but a more modern yet surprisingly cheap ploy to exact protection tribute. Hopefully Bush will make a good decision and use a hardline that's actually called for here, rather than cave in with some excuse that he needs to "protect Americans" that aren't in any more danger now than they were yesterday, or go crazy and launch the military again.

Remember though, cutting off our oil shipments to Japan was what provoked the attack on Pearl Harbor.

The main concern is with NK selling nuke tech to rogue nations or terrorist groups.

My vote is for assassination. 1 dead KJI > 1,000,000 dead soldiers on either/all sides.

 

[Theodore Kurita]

Remember though, cutting off our oil shipments to Japan was what provoked the attack on Pearl Harbor.

The main concern is with NK selling nuke tech to rogue nations or terrorist groups.

My vote is for assassination. 1 dead KJI > 1,000,000 dead soldiers on either/all sides.

True.

But the problem with that however is...

Intelligence wise, North Korea is one of the hardest, if not the hardest country to penetrate...

Well, maybe a few CIA operatives will be on this trip:

http://www.korea-dpr.com/kfatrip.htm

 

[LW]

All of that said, I think the skeptic's view of North Korea is that it is a paper tiger unless proven otherwise. This is more desperation from them in trying to draw the US into unilateral talks and a sweetheart deal.

Not a paper tiger. A striped alleycat, perhaps: not a real threat but capable of giving a few painful scratches. And it is a serious threat for your pet mouse.

Any large-scale military action with North Korea is bound to leave thousands of Koreans (both North and South) dead, and that is probably the best case.

 

[DaChew]

Bush or Clinton bashing over North Korea is simply silly. North Korea has violated each and every agreement it's signed including the 53' cease fire. Kim Il Sung and Kim Jung Il violate and saber rattle for one simply reason - IT WORKS. They've been able to extort aid and concessions out of the U.S. the U.N. and China for decades using the tactic. Why would they stop? Anbd what difference who was President make?

 

[a_unique_person]

NK has the habit of stating that they have weapons followed by a denial,

Let’s wait a couple of weeks and see if they change their story again.

Maybe NK should schedule the denial press conferences at the same time they make the announcements that they have the weapons.

Interesting, thanks for the party line, I was wondering what it would be. The place that has the nukes, we don't believe it, but the place that doesn't, we do. I bet there are endless hours of taped conversations between NK officials that won't be released.

 

[BPSCG]

Interesting, thanks for the party line, I was wondering what it would be. The place that has the nukes, we don't believe it, but the place that doesn't, we do. I bet there are endless hours of taped conversations between NK officials that won't be released.

Okay, you know what? I'll go on record as saying I believe they do have nukes now, and, what's more, I believe now they were lying through their teeth when they said they weren't working on them, and I believed in the past that they were lying through their teeth when they said they weren't working on them, and I always believed that they were lying through their teeth when they said they weren't working on them. Satisfied? Good.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, I'm curious as to what you propose we should do about it, - if anything - since ten years of bribes, food, oil, and money didn't stop them, and I presume you're opposed to any military action. You'll note I kinda asked this in two of the first three replies to your OP, without a reply; are you ducking the question?

 

[rikzilla]

If this thread is about anything, it's about exposing the incompetent foreign policy of the Bush Administration. Invading a county that posed no threat to the US, while doing nothing to prevent a country that poses a real threat from acquiring more nuclear weapons. What gets my goat is that there are actually people who think the President shouldn't be held accountable for his actions, actions which have directly made the world a more dangerous place.

Mike

Incompetent foreign policy eh? Well, do tell us how "competent" policy vis-a-vie NK would look. Personally I wouldn't believe Kim if he told me the friggin sky was blue. IMHO you'd have to go back to the time of Gen MacArthur to find "competent" foreign policy towards NK. MacArthur was right about China the same way Patton was right about the USSR....but that isn't really what you had in mind was it Mike?

Certainly in the past year the major theme of the left in general and Sen. Kerry in particular was that there were no WMD's in Iraq and that "Bush Lied!!!". So now that North Korea has publicly admitted creating WMDs, will those same voices demand war against North Korea?

Nope. Because WMDs were never the real issue, were they? The left never had any answers at all. They were just as scared of Saddam's WMD's as anyone else pre-invasion...and yet their answer was more inspections, continued sanctions, more OFF, more Saddam and sons,...more death with no end in sight for ever, and ever, amen.

Now here we have a tyrant who has been lying, obfuscating, scheming, and breaking more UN sanctions than even Saddam, for even longer....and now he has nukes. Great....and what is Mike's answer to this? Impeach, or otherwise hold Bush accountable.

Is that really an answer? Does that diffuse the situation? Is that "competent" foreign policy? No. No. And Hell No! We finally do have a President who has publicly dedicated his administration to fighting the tyranny that breeds terrorism instead of just coddling "stable" tyrants like Kim. IMHO, the very smartest foreign policy yet attempted. But Mike would have us scrap all that in favor of ....well....what exactly?

The silence on what to do with North Korea NOW is absolutely deafening and what we do hear from the lefty crowd is hideously dumb, but everybody needs to laugh at the court jesters from time to time...

Bitter laughter though....a maybe more than a bit fatalistic...but it's still pretty funny Mike.

-z

 

[Ziggurat]

Let's take a step back: what is actually new here? Is it the information that North Korea has nukes? No, that's not new information. They've never been believable to begin with. They denied they had nukes, said they had nukes, then denied it again. Either they've got them or they don't (my guess is they've got bombs that are too big to load on their ballistic missiles), but this statement tells us nothing about that. What it DOES tell is is that they no longer feel like they can achieve anything by *claiming* to not have nukes. That's the only new information, and in a way it's a sign of progress. They've realized that they can't go back to their previous plan of promising no nukes in exchange for food and oil shipments while still working to make them in secret. That path is closed, as it should be, and they realize that now. That realization on their part is the ONLY new thing here, and in a way it's probably progress.

 

[varwoche]

This is the part that troubles me:

U.S. Rejects North Korea's Demand for Direct Talks

First the news was "they have one or two; if we don't do something fast they'll have 6 or 10". In response, the US refuses direct talks.

And now they supposedly have 6. And the US still refuses direct talks. I just don't get it. It's not like the current approach is working.

 

[BPSCG]

U.S. Rejects North Korea's Demand for Direct Talks

Would you feel better if the headline read thusly:

U.S. Rejects Patholgical Liars' Demand for Direct Talks

or

U.S. Rejects Paranoiac Regime's Demand for Direct Talks

I assume you consider it prudent on your part to not enter into any legally binding agreements with liars, paranoiacs, religious fanatics, and drunks. Why does it disturb you when the U.S. government decides to follow othe same standard?

 

[varwoche]

Would you feel better if the headline read thusly:

U.S. Rejects Patholgical Liars' Demand for Direct Talks

or

U.S. Rejects Paranoiac Regime's Demand for Direct Talks

I assume you consider it prudent on your part to not enter into any legally binding agreements with liars, paranoiacs, religious fanatics, and drunks. Why does it disturb you when the U.S. government decides to follow othe same standard?

It's not evident to me how multi-lateral versus bilateral changes this equation. NK's trustworthiness is a problem no matter.

 

[BPSCG]

It's not evident to me how multi-lateral versus bilateral changes this equation.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

NK's trustworthiness is a problem no matter.

Agreed. So why should we be negotiating with them? For anyone to negotiate with Kim Jong Il is like Israel negotiating with Arafat.

You don't negotiate with tyrants, because tyrants never negotiate in good faith.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's not evident to me how multi-lateral versus bilateral changes this equation. NK's trustworthiness is a problem no matter.

The difference is China. China has a LOT of leverage on North Korea. Any agreement reached in multi-party talks that also involve China means that North Korea would not only break trust with the US (something they're obviously quite willing to do), but also with China, on whom they depend for their survival. This does not make them anymore trustworthy, which is why ANY deal we reach will require a strong mechanism for verification of disarmament (something we did not have before with Clinton's deal), but what it does do is dramatically raise the cost for breaking the deal on the verification side of things. That's why the multi-party talks have some hope of coming to a real resolution, whereas any two-party talks are not likely to produce anything beyond the sort of deal Clinton brokered that really only acted as stalling maneouvers for Kum Jungle.