Do WMDs justify war?

Great Debates
21

OK… in the interests of context, let’s imagine this quote was from an imaginary Straight Dope Message Board in 1938, and that the author was a “lefty” who lived Britain, and that instead of North Korea, they were instead talking about Hitler’s Germany. Let’s imagine the author was also attempting to persue a Neville Chamberlainesque “Peace in our Time” position…

Here’s the redraft…

OK, in my imaginary quote above, all I did was change the term “WMD” to “military buildup”, and I changed references of “North Korea” to “Germany”.

In my opinion, in one fell swoop it demonstrates how disingenuous the OP in this thread truly is. I know, I know… a shitload of people over the next 6 months are going to try and link the North Korea angle to the Iraq angle etc etc, and the goal of such attempts will be to portray the USA’s public statements on North Korea as somehow being inherently invalid.

May I point out some things though - North Korea is an economic basket case. In a land with immense rainfall and fertile arable regions, she has nonetheless managed to become a land of almost permanent famine. China is apparently receiving thousands of refugees over the shared border each week. And yet, in amongst all of this destitution and despair, we have a country which ALSO is managing to find the funds needed to embark upon a nuclear weapons program - as well as an intercontinental missile program. You know what sort of signal that sends to me? It sends a Hitleresque signal - namely, whipping up a country into an overtly hostile military buildup simply creates a jingoistics state of hysteria.

China is far, far more worried about North Korea than first appearances would have us believe. The refugee problem is truly becoming a major headache now.

I’m not going to buy into the “should we or shouldn’t we” aspects of Iraq - I honestly believe they are different situations due to them being different cultures and different parts of the world. And the stimulii leading up each situation is profoundly different.

But mark my words… all of the rhetoric emanating from North Korea is eerily similar to that which preceded Hitler’s remarks in 1938. And it doesn’t matter if Germany was the superior country in terms of technology, and industrial capacity. What counts this time is that there are nuclear weapons involved, and I’m not seeing any signs whatsoever that North Korea is thinking rationally at the moment. It’s as though a culture of persecution has become the state religion.

None of it is healthy, in any shape or form. In particular, China is acutely aware that even if North Korea never fires a shot in her direction, nonetheless, a nuclear shooting war is going to end up in millions of her people being killed regardless. So it doesn’t matter if North Korea poses a “direct threat” - what counts is that her actions, and her rhetoric, are resulting in a consequential domino threat, and the results are the same.

Ergo, North Korea needs to be reigned in - either by diplomacy, or by force.

In this modern day and age which is full of bizarre mass murders and massacre shootings etc, if a nation state is openly threatening the use of nuclear weapons as part of their daily rhetoric, we are eminently entitled to appraise that threat as being very, VERY real.

In short, the threat posed by North Korea is extremely real, and extremely volatile - given the region in which she lives. It’s good that this thread exists for us to debate such things. My position is that to sit back and do nothing will condemn us to living in a perment state of terror in the region as a crackpot dictatorship stumbles from disaster to disaster with all of OUR lives being the hostages.

22

So far no other answer to my questin then the remark posted by Otara.

How come people can’t answer these questions = recognize that the present government of the USA makes the WMD the USA has and is readu to develop at this very moment the greatest danger to world peace.

23

So far no other answer to my question then the remark posted by Otara.

How come people can’t answer these questions = recognize that the present government of the USA makes the WMD the USA has and is ready to develop at this very moment the greatest danger to world peace.

24

Boo Boo, thank you for the Godwin. :rolleyes:

Hitler has done a grave disservice to political debate for evermore it seems, and Nazi Germany is destined to be dragged into every discussion of every flea-bitten dictator and the humble reader tortured with nonsensical analogies groaning under the weight of their non-applicability. I will point out although it should be obvious that your substitution of Germany for North Korea is meaningless. The problem posed to the world by Nazi Germany in the 1930s wasn’t that it was odious though it was, but that it was in addition especially powerful. Unlike North Korea, Germany was an economic powerhouse and military giant with the open ambition of establishing a new world order through conquering eastern Europe to the Urals. That was her goal, she had potentially the strength to achieve it and nearly did so. North Korea is by contrast militarily obsolescent and as you yourself realise an economic basket case, she just does not have the ability to be Nazi Germany even if she wanted to, thus rendering your ‘point’ irrelevant. Hitler is dead dude, rhetoric doesn’t substitute for national strength and the North Korean hordes aren’t coming.

25

“Are you saying that the perception of threat is wrong,
or are you saying that there is something other than the perception of threat that distinguishes one country from another in regards to NBC weapons?”"

Yes.

That is, it could be either, eg a case of being misguided or deliberate misuse to further other ends. My guess is its a bit of both.

Otara

26

Going back to the OP:

With the exception of Iraq, which was prohibited from possessing such weapons by the UN, the only restrictions on nations from developing and possessing WMDs is entirely self imposed. Israel has never signed the NPT and thus is not pledged to the UN to not develop or own nuclear weapons. It maintains silence on the issue and the US turns a deliberate blind eye so as not to be forced by its own legislation from imposing mandatory sanctions. Syria has never signed the CWC and thus is under no compunctions to not produce or store chemical and biological weapons. In my opinion attempts to prevent proliferation by force will in the end be folly. The US (which is really the player in invading nations in the name of preventing WMD proliferation) won’t be able to keep such weapons out of the hands of unfriendly nations or regimes. Pakistan is the perfect example for this. Currently the regime is acceptable to the US, but that could easily change in a decade or two. There is also the issue of Article VI of the NPT, which pledges the US (and other current nuclear powers) to move towards disarming itself of nuclear weapons, though there is little realistic hope of this ever happening.

**The term WMD has become the ‘rogue nation’ of today’s political speak. I’d stick with the older NBC as a shorthand to describe these weapons, but I doubt that it’s as commonly known and would lead some people wondering why I’m claiming that nation X possesses a US television station.

27
28

The flaw in your logic is that the North Korean’s are openly, and blatantly, developing an airial borne nuclear delivery device - and further - they are demonstrably belligerent about it. Moreover, it’s accepted that North Korea has currently the world’s 4th largest standing army I believe. I’m happy to stand corrected on that point, but one thing’s for sure - it’s a huge standing army by any yardstick. Accordingly, I feel justified in making the comparison in light of the destructive consequences the North Koreans are openly talking about.

Now, here’s your problem Eolbo - I conceded earlier that threads like this are great threads because they enable all sorts of informative debate. But man… what was the point of “rolleyes” earlier? Seriously? That says to me that you’re happy to read anything which adheres to your general philosophy, but you reserve condescending disdain for anyone who’s philosophy dares to differ. Dial it back mate. We’re all buddies here. No offence intended.

So… back to your OP… the issue here relates around perceived threat. You personally choose to dismiss it… I personally perceive it as being very tangible, and at the very least, the North Koreans present a woeful example of nuclear blackmail to get their negotiating positions without feeling the need to demonstrate any good faith on THEIR part in turn. That we disagree is no big deal. That we can take the same analogy and perceive it differently is, again, no big deal.

But please, spare me the condescension. Collounsbury has just had a 300 post thread about his condescending style in the BBQ Pit and everyone agrees it’s not the way to go. It’s not necessary my friend.

29

Boo Boo the only comment I want to make to your personalisation of this topic is that when I made my :rolleyes: at your comparison of the North Korean threat with the threat posed by Nazi Germany its because its a silly comparison that deserved a :rolleyes:, and should you ever wish to :rolleyes: at me then go for it and :rolleyes: away, its not important so to quote you dial it back mate. :slight_smile: North Korea is not Nazi Germany, nor is Iran, nor is Syria and nor any other tinpot third world regime that we dislike. None of those states possess the power of Nazi Germany or the ability to remake the world map that she had. The disparities in power make the comparison absurd. Bomb or no bomb North Korea is a friendless backwards impoverished nation surrounded by wealthier, stronger and more advanced states. This is a nation with a GDP and GDP per capita both less then half of that of Iraq according to the CIA World Factbook. No invasion she could take could improve her position and if she nukes someone she will be instantly destroyed as we all know.

You wrote that North Korea is ‘demonstrably’ a threat therefore it can be demonstrated so what is the evidence? You mention that Korea has the 4th largest army in the world. However that army is an old fashioned soviet-style army with obsolescent doctrine and equipment of dubious serviceability and operated by a state that is plagued by fuel shortages. Recent history suggests this qualitative aspect is more important then crude numbers and its worth noting that the Iraqi army defeated so decisively in 1991 was of comparable size and better equipped. Both Gulf Wars are a useful example of how weak such armies really are in the face of a modern enemy, and the Iraqis at the very least had a plentiful fuel supply. On the historical precedents the North Korean army could not continue organised resistance for more then a few days of combat versus modern American, Japanese and South Korean forces. As for nukes it is not clear to me why conservatives who have so oft lectured me as a would-be nuclear disarmer on the manifest virtues of deterrence imagine that these laws of consequence somehow do not apply to non-democratic regimes.

The world has recently been through a situation of government deceit, war for false pretences, and the deliberate fostering of fear for political ends and human beings in Iraq are still dying as a consequence of that deceit. Speaking personally it frightens me to see the same politicians speaking the same old rhetoric all over again. You will have to forgive me if I don’t take the assertions about the ‘threat’ from the likes of Bush, Blair, Howard et al seriously. It’s a credibility thing and known liars don’t have any.

30

Well here’s hoping you’re right then Eolbo. Here’s hoping then that your arguements for inaction and essentially letting North Korea continue her bizarre ways without the threat of punitive action will prove to be wisest.

I would submit, nonetheless, that a case for “inaction” and “diplomacy” is a perilous case to press on certain occasions.

The debate in this thread, as it seems to me, is whether North Korea represents a perilous danger to us, or at the very least, the South Koreans.

I would respectfully suggest that todays exchange of machine gun fire demonstrates that the region is inarguably a tinderbox waiting for the wrong spark. To allow the arrival of nuclear weapons to be thrown into the mix invites all sorts of dangers that (if I were a South Korean) would truly prefer not to face.

Accordingly, if we were to accept your assertion that the case for inaction is overwhelming, I would put the onus of responsibility of wisdom back on yourself… namely, in terms of securing a lasting peace for South Koreans and Japanese, besides a course of military inaction, what would YOU propose that we do?

You’re obviously a well learned person - and no doubt you’ve heard the famous quote (I believe by Milton but I’m probably wrong) that all that evil needs to triumph is for a few good men to do nothing. And THAT you see was the basis for my comparison to Nazi Germany. My arguement was, and remains, not that North Korea represents the same sort of quantifiable threat that Nazi Germany did in 1938 - rather, my arguement is that YOU are making an arguement for inaction - in the same vein as Neville Chamberlain and many others did in 1938.

It matters not whether North Korea can reak the same sort of far reaching havoc that Adolf Hitler did - what counts is that her nuclear missile program, and her belligerance to South Korea makes for some terrifying possibilities - and you are arguing for inaction you see.

I rather think that history hasn’t been too kind to people who argue for inaction. It rarely seems, with hindsight, a proactive kind of philosophy. So, may I repeat, what would YOU propose that we do to somehow lower the heat in the oven?

31

seems to me, atm, all the aggression is coming from the USA.
the ‘imagined’ enemy, ‘next on the list’ NK, is merely trying to prevent/prolong thier eventual demise at the world dictators hand, same as Irak and SH did .
NK’s stance is - dont mess with us, we actually have WMD, unlike Irak, who only it would appear, had aspirations of possessing WMD, to perhaps defend itself against Americas overwhelming military might.
personally, i dont even think Irak even had dreams of possesing WMD, like America does, they had given them up years ago, but America just had to make us believe they did, coz it made thier illegal invasion of Irak, seem just that more palatable.
America falsified the evidence for going to war, this much is rock solid fact.

but it was all a dream, Irak had nothing to fight off the invaders, not a chemical or nuke to be seen, not no wheres, not no-how, but America wasted them anyways huh?
my question is, who gave America the right to determine the future of this planets peoples?.
no-one cept themselfs.
sorry boo, your initial stance of the USA’s unquestioning rightousness is debatable, America is only rightous in its own eyes, the rest of the world dont see it that way.
in fact, most of the world sees them as greedy, too well fed, too comfortable, and consume way too much of this planets resources, care to debate that simple fact?

Zanthor

32

Fair enough Boo Boo here is my view on Korea. First off though I just want to say that I reject the notion that its either confrontation or ‘inaction’. I didn’t use that term and I don’t think that way, there is a whole spectrum of alternatives and I haven’t claimed the ‘inaction’ with which you have painted me. What I also reject is the notion that nuclear weapons are the problem, they are a symptom. I see the desire for nuclear weapons as a defensive response to fear of attack. If you threaten someone enough they will arm themselves with a stick, and if you also have a stick they will want a bigger one.

It is abundantly clear that North Korea is terrified of being attacked by the US, in my view they are right to be, you may disagree although I recall from your earlier post you indicated your own willingness to see them disarmed by force and you are not alone. I note that a number of US officials are known to be in favour of ‘regime change’, Donald Rumsfeld being one. In this regard I will suggest that the public announcement by the US that North Korea is part of an ‘axis of evil’, coupled with then invading another of the alleged ‘axis of evil’ members Iraq is unlikely to calm them down any. So, they are frightened.

What do they want? It seems they want to talk directly with the United States, presumably because as we all know the US is the chief player here. And what do they want to talk about? They want energy of which they are desperately short. They don’t want sanctions. Above all they want a non-aggression pact with the US.

North Korea wants Non-Aggression Pact

I am uncertain myself whether their nuclear weapons program is intended to actually provide nuclear weapons or whether it’s merely a convenient bargaining chip for them, and note my use of the term bargaining chip rather then the emotive and inflammatory term blackmail being bandied about is quite deliberate. I also suggest the US doesn’t know either. For all the confident assertions made before and since the war about Iraq, it transpired that the US in fact didn’t really have a clue about what was happening inside that country. That’s worth keeping in mind in coming days as our leaders probably don’t really know what’s happening inside North Korea either. We don’t yet know what is guesswork, and what is deception and exaggeration.

The intelligence ‘black hole’ over N Korea

Since I mentioned emotive terms and you mentioned North Korea’s belligerent rhetoric I will point out that rhetoric may take on a decidedly different nuance depending on the context. For instance in February North Korea threatened pre-emptive military action against American forces. Aggressive no? Or is it? The circumstances made clear they were again worried about an American attack. They noted they reserved the right to attack first if they were about to be attacked. Hmm that has a familiar ring… Again in February they threatened total war with the US. Blood-curdling militarism and Hitler-esque speech? The full quote was they would wage total war in response to any American attack ie its a defensive reaction.

US is told: turn on us and you get total war

N Korea threatens US with first strike

So what would I do? I would tone down on the belligerent rhetoric and all the threats of sanctions, blockades and war. That doesn’t help, it drives up the tension level as was seen today with the exchange of fire at the border. I would desist with any axis of evil propaganda. I would God forbid, talk directly with the North Koreans, its not an unreasonable request. Most of all I would try and keep my beak out of it and recognise that South Korea is better placed to understand the situation then I. I would encourage and aid and work for a revival of the sunshine policy for all its problems.

How S. Korea’s view of the North flipped

Sunshine in Korea: The South Korean Debate over Policies Toward North Korea

Finally I just want to write that I am under no illusions as to the nature of the North Korean regime. It’s a nasty one, and if nothing else one need only point to the earlier revelations this year about kidnapping of Japanese citizens to indicate its stature. But nasty and suicidal are different things, and I don’t fear for the world from a North Korean attack. I do though work from the premise that policy that makes things worse rather then better is bad policy, and in my view the interests of the two Koreas aren’t served by war. War to remove the possibility of nuclear weapons just isn’t worth the high cost of lives that war on the peninsula would involve. My preferred option is peace, and if that can be maintained and nuclear weapons kept out of the picture I’m happy with that, if the price of peace is a North Korea with a nuclear deterrent then so be it. I mean its not like you and I haven’t been under ‘threat’ from Russian, Chinese nuclear weapons every minute of our lives already is it?

33

Although neither relevant to North Korea I just wanted to add that though I sense the comparison to Chamberlain is perhaps not meant to be a flattering one :wink: that to class him as being inactive in 1938 while being part of popular mythology isnt accurate, a crass distortion rather. An excellent book dealing with the pre-war period is The Road to War by Richard Overy who illustrates well the constraints under which Chamberlain operated, and the actions he did take.

34

Excellent post.

Eminently reasonable.

And please note… I’m no hawk… not by any stretch.