Is N. Korea Just Stupid?

[cmkeller]

plnnr:

The potential fallout from the destruction of the reactor would poison the Korean peninsula (including our troops) and, given the prevailing winds, potential send a radioactive cloud over Japan.

Really? Did such a thing happen in the Mid-East in 1981? I’m not being skeptical, just curious. Was that different because Iraq hadn’t yet gotten any weapon-grade plutonium, but were merely too close to it for Israel’s tastes?

Chaim Mattis Keller

[flonks]

*are being fitted with more nukes instead of being decommissioned, the threat minimizes every day for the US. **

Hmm, could you tell me how these nukes will destroy the nukes NK could launch against SK or Japan? Or the US once NK has long range missiles?

Anyway, I think the motivation for NK is to be safe from US attacks (which are getting more and more probably with the current government), and the nukes guarantee that. I don’t see NK using them, since they know that the other nations would retaliate with nukes immediately.

[smiling_bandit]

Could they have crushed China in 1953? How powerful was China then?

Probably could have if we’d cared to. I mean, the Communists were ill-equipped, not really supported by Moscow, and had an equal force arrayed against them - in fact - by any rational military observation, CHiang Kai-Shek should have won. However, the moron managed to piss off the entire country. On the other hand, I imagine many Chinese had fond memories of the Americans, who drove back the Japanese. Whee.

I think they COmmnists could have been beaten. It woldn’t have ben easy - they were tough and used to hardship. Still…

[Bryan_Ekers]

Actually, by “crushed” I meant lobbing nukes at them, not necessarily invading and conquering them. If the Americans had destroyed a few key Chinese industrial centers and declared “Get out of North Korea”, I have little doubt the Chinese would have complied and the North Korean regime would have collapsed.

Of course, when China rebuilds in the 1970s, they would be seriously pissed, but that’s alternate history for ya.

[ElwoodCuse]

Well, they don’t have oil, so they need SOME way of making the U.S. notice them.

Michael Moore was on the Daily Show last night and was poking fun at this, saying that NK was tired of being the “third wheel” of the Axis of Evil. “Hello?! We’ve GOT the bomb! For real! No inspectors looking around or anything! We have it, right now! Pay attention to us!”

[Banquet_Bear]

*Originally posted by oldscratch *
**

SNIP

So is it any wonder at all? **

…wow, a comphrensive, logical, well-reasoned post that not only answers the OP, but gives us insight into both the US’s position, but the NK’s position as well, and as a consequence? It’s completely ignored by the rest of the posters!!! Good post!

[Saen]

*Originally posted by Banquet Bear *
**…wow, a comphrensive, logical, well-reasoned post that not only answers the OP, but gives us insight into both the US’s position, but the NK’s position as well, and as a consequence? It’s completely ignored by the rest of the posters!!! Good post! **

Not ignored. Just tired of it. Pretty much every time there is an international incident, the US gets blamed for it. And there is logical casus belli against the US every day of the week if you want to dig it up. I’ve heard it from the point that millions, upon millions died in WWII only because the US didn’t get in the war quick enough. And in the same breath we are monsters for trying to save millions and bombing Japan. Kosovo, Somalia, Vietnam, S. Korea, et al; would have been alot better off if the US would have just minded it’s own business. Rwanda should have not happened, if the US would have only done something.
The US does not play “fair” when it’s interests are concerned. No nation on the earth does. We can come up with theories all year long on how the US set up NK just to fail.

And paraphrasing an Op-ed piece by Maria Tomchick, who is a self procliamed anti-authoritarian activist (anarchist) really only gives us insight on how she feels, and little else. Now, I am not just dismissing her POV just because of her extreme views. I look at the substance. But, you know, you really can’t come to a conclusion and well-reasoned without looking at the big picture. Or at least another view of the predicament. But, then again, you can ask anyone here why OP-ed peices arn’t very popular in Great Debates. Mainly what they lack and what they are full of. Hint: Facts and conjecture.

[mswas]

Japanese Nuclear Option

They don’t need our Minutemen.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/EA14Dh01.html
I actually think that America SHOULDN’T get involved unless we have an economic stake. In fact I think it’s downright wrong of us to. If the people in Somalia starve that’s not our affair, and I think that it’s wrong of us to feed them if it requires a military force to do it. We don’t have a moral obligation to save the world.

But that’s a hijack.

Erek

[flonks]

*Originally posted by Saen *
**Not ignored. Just tired of it. Pretty much every time there is an international incident, the US gets blamed for it. **

Rephrased: let’s discuss these matters (since we are here for it), but let’s not blame the US because that could hurt us.

I also quite like oldscratch’s posting and reasoning. I wouldn’t call NK an ideal state, it is one of ruthlessest dictorships, no question. But if I was the leader of NK, I would try to get the bomb to deterr the US, whose current government makes no secret of its future plans (if you are not with us then you are against us).

[Saen]

*Originally posted by flonks *
**Rephrased: let’s discuss these matters (since we are here for it), but let’s not blame the US because that could hurt us.

I also quite like oldscratch’s posting and reasoning. I wouldn’t call NK an ideal state, it is one of ruthlessest dictorships, no question. But if I was the leader of NK, I would try to get the bomb to deterr the US, whose current government makes no secret of its future plans (if you are not with us then you are against us). **

How about: Let’s not blame the US just because it’s an old standby.

Regardless of whether Bush, or Clinton, or Ghandi is POTUS, the NK will want nukes. Their national pride holds that thier nation has an “army-based policy”.

http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm

http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2003/200301/news01/16.htm#1

Working people vow to bring about new surge in production

They underscored the need to honour the national economic plan ahead of schedule in the revolutionary spirit of soldiers and the spirit of the “arduous march”, considering the great idea and line of giving top priority to the army as a maxim of their life and struggle, and thus glorify this significant year, the 55th anniversary of the DPRK.

They consider the NNPT, and the IAEA as a threat to their national soveriegnty because it, in effect, deters them from their military might, wich conflicts with that army-based policy.

Union members, youth and students vow to vent their spite

The speakers hailed the statement as a legitimate self-defensive measure to protect the sovereignty, the right to existence and the dignity of the country and the nation and a bomb-like declaration made by the militarily powerful country led by the man born of Mt. Paektu who pursues an army-based policy, stricking the U.S. warhawks hard in the face.

KCNA hails DPRK’s withdrawal from NPT

http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2003/200301/news01/14.htm#6

This is an important measure taken to protect the supreme interests of the DPRK and the country and nation’s sovereignty, right to existence and dignity. It is also a legitimate self-defensive step against the U.S. moves to stifle the DPRK and the unreasonable behavior of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which is being used as a tool for executing the U.S. hostile policy towards the DPRK.

The United States instigated the IAEA to adopt a “resolution” against the DPRK on January 6 in the wake of a similar “resolution” made on November 29, 2002. The IAEA termed the DPRK “a criminal” and demanded it scrap its “nuclear program” at once by a verifiable way.
After the adoption of the “resolution”, the IAEA director general did not hesitate to make an ultimatum-style remarks, even setting the deadline for its implementation.
In the recent “resolution”, the IAEA insisted on the unilateral demands of the United States, keeping mum about its gross violation of the NPT and the DPRK-U.S. Agreed Framework.

The DPRK Government vehemently rejected the “resolution” of the IAEA as a grave encroachment upon the country’s sovereignty and the dignity of the nation.

The present military situation on the Korean Peninsula is reminiscent of the touch-and-go situation created by the U.S. hardline policy to stifle the DPRK ten years ago.
Under this situation, the people and the army of the DPRK are filled with the strong resolution to increase the self-defensive military capabilities under the uplifted banner of the army-based policy and decisively repulse the intervention and provocative pressure of the hostile forces seeking to encroach upon the sovereignty of the country and the dignity of the nation.

**Rodong Sinmun on DPRK withdrawal from NPT[b/]

The whole army and people of Korea fully support the statement of the DPRK Government, determined to foil the Yankees nuclear racket, firmly defend the people-centered Korean-style socialism and build a powerful nation of Juche at an early date.
Since it is evidenced that the U.S. is desperately trying to stifle the DPRK and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is used as a tool of the U.S. hostile policy toward theDPRK, the DPRK was compelled not to remain tied to the NPT any longer.
**The DPRK will never be regretful for its withdrawal from the treaty and advance more bravely and confidently along the way chosen by itself, unbound by anything. **

You see, they justify their nuclear goals because, ultimately, the ones to blame for nuclear proliferation is the US, wich invented the bombs to begin with.

KCNA holds U.S. chiefly responsible for nuclear proliferation and threat

Then, who is chiefly accountable for nuclear proliferation and threat between the DPRK and the U.S, parties concerned responsible for the solution to the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula? Proliferation of nuclear weapons in our planet was started by the United States. in 1945 the U.S. produced three a-bombs and tested one of them in its mainland and dropped the other two on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, inflicting nuclear holocaust on Japanese for the first time in human history.

Is it far fetched to think that a society that gives “top priority to the army as a maxim of their life and struggle”, would not ultimately desire nukes to enhance that army?

The US has stated that they know NK has nukes. The Clinton Admin had an idea, if not knew about NK’s nuclear weapons program even after '94. Bush became hard line on wmd proliferation, especially after 9/11. The Admin called the NKoreans on their violations and the IAEA had to back them up. The NKoreans may have been felt cornered. But to blame the US for the wrongdoings of NK is as superfluous as ultimately placing the blame on Ossama and his cronies for getting the US so uptight to begin with.

[Saen]

Hit submit too soon.

Playing “see-no-evil” does not insure stability. All it does, as it is proven today in Iraq and NK, is delay the inevitable. And exacerbates the problem.

I am happy for you that you “quite like” oldscratch’s paraphrasing of someone elses work. And hurray that you like her reasoning. And, while, it may be “logical” to some, it is in no way “comprehensive”, as Bear wants to believe, unless you look at the whole picture.

[Squink]

*Originally posted by Saen *
Playing “see-no-evil” does not insure stability.

What kind of partisan crack is that !? Bush’s refusal to talk with the North Koreans was based as much on revulsion for a guy who “starves his own people” as on America’s innate moral superiority. The president obviously perceived the Evil of the north Koreans, and that’s why he wouldn’t let our negotiators go see them. Would you have had him temper his morals in the cause of peace on the Korean peninsula ?

[Saen]

*Originally posted by Squink *
**What kind of partisan crack is that !? Bush’s refusal to talk with the North Koreans was based as much on revulsion for a guy who “starves his own people” as on America’s innate moral superiority. The president obviously perceived the Evil of the north Koreans, and that’s why he wouldn’t let our negotiators go see them. Would you have had him temper his morals in the cause of peace on the Korean peninsula ?
**

Obviously :smack:

Temper his morals, sure. Turn a blind eye to Nuclear weapons proliferation by a rogue state like Clinton seems to have done? And when they threaten to use them if the US doesn’t sign a non-agression pact who’s ultimate goal is to ensure US troops leave the penensula to “assure world peace”? Nah.

[Firebat023]

My take (as mostly repeated above, and this is only opinon, so don’t expect any cites):
Il has no real cards left to play. He’s a ruler of a country that has massive problems with logistics and supply of food and power, and he rules one of the few communistic powers still in existence. Not to back Chumpsky’s rant in the Pit (which I’m inherently neutral on, but it was a hell of an interesting read), but he also finds himself stuck between keeping isolated or relying on captialistic governments to help him with his problems, and Il has seen over the last few decades that when capitalism is introduced to a country, unless it is quickly put down, it begins to spread. And I’m going to take a whack-ass guess here, but if Il lost his power I can’t believe that he would survive for more than a week among the poorer people he has ruled.
Added to this, it’s my opinion that Il had some qualms about Bush’s “Axis of Evil” speech. He named Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, and shortly thereafter turned his full attention to Iraq. Il might have assumed that he was next in line, and needed a chip to bargain with. (Remember, according to the news at the start of this mess, the first thing he wanted was a non-aggression treaty with the United States that was forthrightly denied by the accusations of blackmail).
So, as consequence, he again continues with his brinkmanship tactics. Fortunately (although unfortunately for him) I don’t think much is going to come of this. If things went south and he attacked Japan or South Korea with the nuclear arsenal we think he has (which CNN reported as two missles a few days ago), he would become the world’s pariah. I don’t believe that China would back him–North Korea, to my knowledge, doesn’t have much to benefit China, and I can’t believe that China, despite having the same form of government, would back a country that bombed another. Nuclear aggression would cause retaliation from the world community, and a fair part of North Korea would, I believe, shortly be uninhabitable for a few centuries. He has nothing to gain at this moment and everything to lose, and I think that given a few weeks of dipolmatic negotiations, there will be some sort of agreement. What kind, I can’t say.

[Firebat023]

Although, I’ll admit whole-heartedly that the Marine in me wants to go and say something to the extent of “Kill the son of a bitch–not for the nuclear threat, but for the simple reason that he’s ground his people to dust.”
But that’s usually not the voice of reason.

[Tuckerfan]

*Originally posted by Bryan Ekers *
**Actually, by “crushed” I meant lobbing nukes at them, not necessarily invading and conquering them. If the Americans had destroyed a few key Chinese industrial centers and declared “Get out of North Korea”, I have little doubt the Chinese would have complied and the North Korean regime would have collapsed.

Of course, when China rebuilds in the 1970s, they would be seriously pissed, but that’s alternate history for ya. **

Bryan, are you familiar with what MacArthur wanted to do when the Chinese started pouring over the border to help defend the North? In addition to nuking the bejeezus out of everyone, he wanted to line the border with radioactive material to keep anyone from ever crossing it again. (And people wonder why Truman fired the guy?)

mswas, the US does have an economic stake in SK. The largest shipyards in the world are there. Even a conventional war is going to seriously screw the world’s economy.

[Virgowitch]

Isn’t NK controlled by China anyway? All this saber rattling sounds like someone over there is running for office on the Evil America bandwagon. If NK is threatening us, isn’t it really CHINA behind it?

[Tuckerfan]

*Originally posted by Virgowitch *
**Isn’t NK controlled by China anyway? All this saber rattling sounds like someone over there is running for office on the Evil America bandwagon. If NK is threatening us, isn’t it really CHINA behind it? **

Nope. Even the Chinese are saying NK’s nuts and are trying to get NK to drop it’s whole nuke program.