NK Claims it has six nukes

[Giz]

I might add this question. If invasion is out, shall we sanction NK a la Iraq? Or will the terrible impact on the civilian population preclude this?

I'd imagine AUP's views run along:

1) US invades NK: Violation of a soveriegn states territory and removal of recognised head of aforesaid state creates a mockery of international laws and institutions setup to protect the world from Tyrants.

2) US sanctions NK: NK govt switching declining resources to the military (as it cant afford to maintain military and feed populace) shows US indifference to the suffering people of NK. The key figure to blame for the suffering is, of course, GWB.

3) US does nothing: Isolationist US couldn't care less about the poor people of NK. By not engaging it tacitly supports NK govt, therefore any future action by the US will be hypocritical.

 

[Ed]

I'd imagine AUP's views run along:

1) US invades NK: Violation of a soveriegn states territory and removal of recognised head of aforesaid state creates a mockery of international laws and institutions setup to protect the world from Tyrants.

2) US sanctions NK: NK govt switching declining resources to the military (as it cant afford to maintain military and feed populace) shows US indifference to the suffering people of NK. The key figure to blame for the suffering is, of course, GWB.

3) US does nothing: Isolationist US couldn't care less about the poor people of NK. By not engaging it tacitly supports NK govt, therefore any future action by the US will be hypocritical.

Yeah.. Fairly predictable.

 

[Skeptic]

I'd imagine AUP's views run along:

1) US invades NK: Violation of a soveriegn states territory and removal of recognised head of aforesaid state creates a mockery of international laws and institutions setup to protect the world from Tyrants.

2) US sanctions NK: NK govt switching declining resources to the military (as it cant afford to maintain military and feed populace) shows US indifference to the suffering people of NK. The key figure to blame for the suffering is, of course, GWB.

3) US does nothing: Isolationist US couldn't care less about the poor people of NK. By not engaging it tacitly supports NK govt, therefore any future action by the US will be hypocritical.

About right; "Whatever the USA does is wrong" and "Whatever goes wrong is the USA's fault" are, after all, AUP's two guiding stars.

But for genuine AUP-grade posting(TM), you'd also have to add a few sneering references to Chimp Bushitler, the world's dumbest fascist, and bring in the jews for censure too, somehow.

 

[BPSCG]

I might add this question. If invasion is out, shall we sanction NK a la Iraq? Or will the terrible impact on the civilian population preclude this?

My inclination is to try to not overload AUP with too many questions at one time, since he seems to be having difficulty answering even the one.

In any case, how could any economic sanctions cause worse suffering than what already exists?

North Korea says 220,000 people died of famine in 1995-98.

 

[Kerberos]

My inclination is to try to not overload AUP with too many questions at one time, since he seems to be having difficulty answering even the one.

In any case, how could any economic sanctions cause worse suffering than what already exists?

North Korea says 220,000 people died of famine in 1995-98.

Well 440.000 could have died. You can't honestly be arguing that the a situation can't get worse just because it's bad to start with. An embargo might be necesary, but we'd be fooling ourselves if we thought it wouldn't kill North Koreans.

 

[BPSCG]

Well 440.000 could have died. You can't honestly be arguing that the a situation can't get worse just because it's bad to start with. An embargo might be necesary, but we'd be fooling ourselves if we thought it wouldn't kill North Koreans.

So when a country turns itself into an international pariah, openly threatens its neighbors, causes everyone to wonder about its collective sanity, ships nuclear weapons materials to terrorist states, and the rest of the world finally throws up its collective hands, says enough is enough, and imposes sanctions, it's the fault of the rest of the world that the pariah nation is finally facing the consequences of its own bad behavior?

Yes, an embargo would kill more North Koreans than if we sent them huge shiploads of food and fuel oil. but that's just the proximate cause. The initial cause would be the pariah government that made an embargo necessary to protect the rest of the world.

Besides, a strict embargo would really give North Korea a golden opportunity to prove to the rest of the world how powerful their juche philosophy of complete self-reliance is.

 

[Kerberos]

So when a country turns itself into an international pariah, openly threatens its neighbors, causes everyone to wonder about its collective sanity, ships nuclear weapons materials to terrorist states, and the rest of the world finally throws up its collective hands, says enough is enough, and imposes sanctions, it's the fault of the rest of the world that the pariah nation is finally facing the consequences of its own bad behavior?

I said that.

Yes, an embargo would kill more North Koreans than if we sent them huge shiploads of food and fuel oil. but that's just the proximate cause. The initial cause would be the pariah government that made an embargo necessary to protect the rest of the world.

true but does that mean we should just totaly ignore the consequences? Wouldn't your barrier for the threat needed to justify sanctions, be lower if the sanctions didn't hurt any innocent people?

 

[BPSCG]

true byt does that mean we should just totaly ignore the consequences? Wouldn't your barrier for the threat needed to justify sanctions, be lower if the sanctions didn't hurt any innocent people?

Find me the perfect cure for the disease and I'll be happy to prescribe it. Failing that, find me a better one, even if imperfect.

Any action taken against North Korea will have bad consequences for some of its people. But if the possibility of bad things happening to innocent people precluded any action against tyrants, Hitler would have died comfortably in bed.

 

[varwoche]

WASHINGTON, Feb. 13 - In the months before North Korea announced that it possessed nuclear weapons, the Bush administration began developing new strategies to choke off its few remaining sources of income, based on techniques in use against Al Qaeda, intelligence officials and policy makers involved in the planning say.

The initial steps are contained in a classified "tool kit" of techniques to pressure North Korea that has been refined in recent weeks by the National Security Council. The new strategies would intensify and coordinate efforts to track and freeze financial transactions that officials say enable the government of Kim Jong Il to profit from counterfeiting, drug trafficking and the sale of missile and other weapons technology.

article

 

[Kerberos]

Find me the perfect cure for the disease and I'll be happy to prescribe it. Failing that, find me a better one, even if imperfect.

Any action taken against North Korea will have bad consequences for some of its people. But if the possibility of bad things happening to innocent people precluded any action against tyrants, Hitler would have died comfortably in bed.

You didn't answer the question, and you apparently didn't read my posts either.

 

[BPSCG]

You didn't answer the question, and you apparently didn't read my posts either.

I read them; go ahead and crucify me for not remembering every goddam thing you said at the time I wrote my last reply.

Sounds to me like pretty much everyone here favors harsh, punishing sanctions, even at the cost of adding to the misery already in North Korea.

 

[aerocontrols]

I'd imagine AUP's views run along:

1) US invades NK: Violation of a soveriegn states territory and removal of recognised head of aforesaid state creates a mockery of international laws and institutions setup to protect the world from Tyrants.

2) US sanctions NK: NK govt switching declining resources to the military (as it cant afford to maintain military and feed populace) shows US indifference to the suffering people of NK. The key figure to blame for the suffering is, of course, GWB.

3) US does nothing: Isolationist US couldn't care less about the poor people of NK. By not engaging it tacitly supports NK govt, therefore any future action by the US will be hypocritical.

I think you should look at this which seems to be a more complete list of options, and the (strawman) arguments that a hypothetical uber-Leftist America-hater might make. Or, AUP might make them. Or he might have made them.

What should we do about a repressive regime?

* Option 1) Military Aid. Obviously wrong. We are providing the weapons that kill the innocent. See Israel, Turkey, Columbia, Reagan-era Iraq, etc.

* Option 2) Economic Aid. Wrong. We are financially propping up the regime. See Egypt, Indonesia, etc.

* Option 3) Humanitarian Aid. Still Wrong. By relieving the regime of its financial duty to feed its people, we free up their money for military uses. See Afghanistan, where the US supported the Taliban by providing $43 million in humanitarian aid in exchange for the Taliban not exporting Heroin, thus sacrificing 12 million women to the alter of the failed War on Drugs.

* Option 4) Trade / Constructive Engagement. Wrong. This is merely an excuse for US corporations to profit off of the regime's repression of its own people. See China and Reagan-era South Africa.

* Option 5) Economic Sanctions. Wrong. The economic sanctions in Iraq have killed 6,000 people a month for the past 11 years, or nearly 800,000 victims of US foreign policy.

* Option 6) Military Attack. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong! War! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing! See every military conflict that the United States has every engaged in. (Caveat: There may be a possible exception for the US Civil War, which will be considered obviously justified if you are talking to any white person born in the former Confederacy.)

* Option 7) The Prime Directive. Wrong. It is intolerable for the most powerful nation in history to sit by and do nothing while thousands die. It probably stems from a racist lack of concern for people of color of persons of other religions. See Rwanda, Bosnia (not to be confused with Kosovo, which falls under Option 6, above).

MattJ

 

[BPSCG]

I think you should look at this which seems to be a more complete list of options, and the (strawman) arguments that a hypothetical uber-Leftist America-hater might make. Or, AUP might make them. Or he might have made them.

What should we do about a repressive regime?

* Option 1) Military Aid. Obviously wrong. We are providing the weapons that kill the innocent. See Israel, Turkey, Columbia, Reagan-era Iraq, etc.

* Option 2) Economic Aid. Wrong. We are financially propping up the regime. See Egypt, Indonesia, etc.

* Option 3) Humanitarian Aid. Still Wrong. By relieving the regime of its financial duty to feed its people, we free up their money for military uses. See Afghanistan, where the US supported the Taliban by providing $43 million in humanitarian aid in exchange for the Taliban not exporting Heroin, thus sacrificing 12 million women to the alter of the failed War on Drugs.

* Option 4) Trade / Constructive Engagement. Wrong. This is merely an excuse for US corporations to profit off of the regime's repression of its own people. See China and Reagan-era South Africa.

* Option 5) Economic Sanctions. Wrong. The economic sanctions in Iraq have killed 6,000 people a month for the past 11 years, or nearly 800,000 victims of US foreign policy.

* Option 6) Military Attack. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong! War! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing! See every military conflict that the United States has every engaged in. (Caveat: There may be a possible exception for the US Civil War, which will be considered obviously justified if you are talking to any white person born in the former Confederacy.)

* Option 7) The Prime Directive. Wrong. It is intolerable for the most powerful nation in history to sit by and do nothing while thousands die. It probably stems from a racist lack of concern for people of color of persons of other religions. See Rwanda, Bosnia (not to be confused with Kosovo, which falls under Option 6, above).

MattJ

But you know, if you don't look at each of these objections as being showstoppers, you can maybe get somewhere. If you take the approach that there's no perfect solution, it helps to at least identify what the objections are to each one, and then decide which one gives the best chance of success coupled with the minimum objection.

Even the U.S. Civil War above could be subjected to that kind of cost/benefit analysis.

That's a useful approach, whereas the "every solution is wrong" approach is useless.

 

[aerocontrols]

MattJ
But you know, if you don't look at each of these objections as being showstoppers, you can maybe get somewhere. If you take the approach that there's no perfect solution, it helps to at least identify what the objections are to each one, and then decide which one gives the best chance of success coupled with the minimum objection.

Even the U.S. Civil War above could be subjected to that kind of cost/benefit analysis.

That's a useful approach, whereas the "every solution is wrong" approach is useless.

We tried a combination of 1, 2, and 4 with South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, and Iraq (others, too) during the latter part of the cold war. In the cases of South Korea, Taiwan, and Philippines, the effort seems to have born fruit. In the case of Iraq, such efforts to prop up his regime were clearly wicked. Perhaps it should have been obvious.

I wish there was some way of knowing which oppressive regimes we should cut off from 1, 2, and 4 today.

 

[aerocontrols]

Why do you say so? I've never even heard this speculatively.

I've heard rumors of this for years. Even back in 1994 when Jimmy Carter went over there, I was hearing (and still hear) that the Chinese lean on North Korea to shut down their nuclear program mostly because China fears that a North Korean nuclear test on Tuesday will result in a "we've got the Bomb now" announcement from Japan on Thursday.

It wouldn't be that difficult for Japan to keep some enriched uranium or plutonium cores in one spot on an Japanese air force base, and some working, but unloaded warheads in another spot, would it? I wouldn't be (very) surprised to hear even that they've got submarines at sea that could assemble and launch without coming back to shore.

It's not as if this 1940s technology is beyond them.

For the record, I think it's more likely that Japan has no such program, but the world (it seems to me) benefits from the fact that China can't be certain that they don't.

MattJ

 

[BPSCG]

It wouldn't be that difficult for Japan to keep some enriched uranium or plutonium cores in one spot on an Japanese air force base, and some working, but unloaded warheads in another spot, would it?

Five words: Tom Clancy, Debt of Honor

Synopsis: Just as the United States and the Soviet Union sign a treaty to destroy the last of their nuclear weapons, Japan finishes work on their secret project to build their own, along with ICBMs to deliver them.

A trade war between the U.S. and Japan spirals out of control into a shooting war, with bad results.

Fortunately, Jack Ryan saves the day.

Far-fetched? So is Clancy's 1991 sequel, Executive Orders. Synopsis: Terrorist attack on Washington, D.C. - fully-fueled 747 is deliberately crashed into the U.S. Capital during a joint session of Congress, killing the president and almost everyone else in the building. The vice-president escapes, and is confronted with multiple crises, including a biological attack against the U.S. by a middle eastern theocracy, and sleeper terrorist cells attempting, among other things, to murder the president.

 

[varwoche]

I've heard rumors of this for years. Even back in 1994 when Jimmy Carter went over there, I was hearing (and still hear) that the Chinese lean on North Korea to shut down their nuclear program mostly because China fears that a North Korean nuclear test on Tuesday will result in a "we've got the Bomb now" announcement from Japan on Thursday.

It wouldn't be that difficult for Japan to keep some enriched uranium or plutonium cores in one spot on an Japanese air force base, and some working, but unloaded warheads in another spot, would it? I wouldn't be (very) surprised to hear even that they've got submarines at sea that could assemble and launch without coming back to shore.

It's not as if this 1940s technology is beyond them.

For the record, I think it's more likely that Japan has no such program, but the world (it seems to me) benefits from the fact that China can't be certain that they don't.

Everything you say makes sense.

Still, I can't even google it.

 

[Kerberos]

Five words: Tom Clancy, Debt of Honor

Synopsis: Just as the United States and the Soviet Union sign a treaty to destroy the last of their nuclear weapons, Japan finishes work on their secret project to build their own, along with ICBMs to deliver them.

Nah, US and the Soviets give up their ICBMs, not their nukes, the option of nuking Japan with cruise misiles/stealth bombers, is discussed in the book.

A trade war between the U.S. and Japan spirals out of control into a shooting war, with bad results.

Fortunately, Jack Ryan saves the day.

Far-fetched? So is Clancy's 1991 sequel, Executive Orders. Synopsis: Terrorist attack on Washington, D.C. - fully-fueled 747 is deliberately crashed into the U.S. Capital during a joint session of Congress, killing the president and almost everyone else in the building. The vice-president escapes, and is confronted with multiple crises, including a biological attack against the U.S. by a middle eastern theocracy, and sleeper terrorist cells attempting, among other things, to murder the president.

So because one of Clancy's books has a plot that later actually happened, this somehow makes all the plots plausible? Does that also mean that the heart-beat detectors from Rainbow Six actually works?

 

[BPSCG]

Nah, US and the Soviets give up their ICBMs, not their nukes, the option of nuking Japan with cruise misiles/stealth bombers, is discussed in the book.

Okay, it's been many years since I read it, and obviously I lost some of the details.

So because one of Clancy's books has a plot that later actually happened, this somehow makes all the plots plausible?

Sure. Don't you know Tom Clancy is God?

 

[Reager]

What I'm saying is that without some prefered course of action, you aren't so much criticising as harping. And that's rather useless. This isn't a rule, it's an observation about reality.

Let's pretend you are building a house. I say, "You know, that frame isn't strong enough to support the roof. I'm not sure what the best alternative is to make it strong enough...but as it stand now your roof will cave in." I suppose you would call that "useless harping." Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

And yet you can't name one. Go figure.

Sure I can name lot of potential actions, a number have been brought up in the thread. What I can't do is say which would be the best course of action, I don't pretend to be an expert. But the experts I hav read all agree that Bush's foreign policy decisions over the past 3 years have increased the likelihood of a catostrophic terrorist attack. If you disagree with that contention, we can debate that in this or another thread.

Hardly. The Iraq invasion is what convinced Libya to give up its weapons program, a program the IAEA said didn't exist. That led to cracking open the AQ Khan network, perhaps the biggest problem for nuclear proliferation we faced.

Assuming that is correct (after all, we had been negotiating with Lybia for YEARS to abandon their programs), you are honestly arguing that the Iraq war was worth spending hundreds of billions and sacrificing thousands of lives...all so Lybia would get rid of it's WMD program?!?! That is pretty sorry, even for a Bush apologist.

As for North Korea, have you ever heard of the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI)? It's a multilateral cooperation to help prevent the spread of nuclear and ballistic missile technology, primarily from North Korea. Funnily enough, we've gotten a lot of cooperation from other countries involved in the PSI, including (quite significantly) Russia. These other countries aren't idiots, they may not like what we did in Iraq but they know damn well (better than you evidently) that their own interests lie in cooperation on non-proliferation efforts.

They may know it..but does our president?

Wait... let me get this straight. You read that the Iraq invasion has made us more vulnerable to nuclear terrorism? You haven't followed the logic through yourself, examined the facts before you, and come to your own conclusion, rather that's what you keep reading so you just figure it's true?

It's nice you're here to tell me how I reach conclusions...

Sorry, buddy, but you only come to a conclusion like that if your sources are narrow. You'll have to do better than that for an argument.

I prefer nonpartisan sources, narrow or not. If you wish, we can compare sources. I'll start compiling a list of mine.

Do you know what the issues are with regards to securing Russian nuclear material? Do you know how it's done? Do you know how much time it takes, and what steps we could be doing to make it go faster? I doubt you do, and you have given no indication otherwise. In the absence of such knowlege, your criticism is meaningless. Yes, I'd like it to happen faster too. But unlike you, I'm not so presumptuous as to assume I know who's to blame that it isn't. My view of world politics extends a little further than my presidential candidate's sound bites during the debates.

Now you are pretending to know who I vote for? For someone who claims to not be "presumptuous" all I can say is, "Hello, Pot? Meet Mr. Kettle."

Mike