When South Korea asks us to.
Crappola
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/10/16/us.nkorea/index.html
Is this something we already knew? Is Kim Dae-jung sane enough to be permitted to have an active nuclear arms program, while Saddam Hussein is not?
Thoughts?
When do we go to war? Not in the foreseeable future. But I confidently predict the White House will seek a Congressional resolution in late August of 2004.
You mean Kim Jong-Il. Kim Dae-jung is the President of the Republic of Korea (South Korea); the Comrade Great Leader Kim Jong-Il is the Holy Exalted Supreme Panjandrum (but not the President; that honor still belongs to his late and highly lamented father, Kim Il-Sung) of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea).
It is imperative that one keep one’s Kims straight when discussing Korean affairs.
This must be our Kim-lucky day.
Didn’t the North Koreans volunteer this information today? I suspect that this may actually be a *good sign. This, plus the new ‘capitalist’ zone, the thawing of relations with South Korea, and finally the rapproachment and trade deals with Japan may be a sign that North Korea is trying to straighten up and fly right, precisely because they DON’T want to be the next Iraq.
Hopes spring eternal eh Sam?
However the NYTimes article says:
“One senior official said today that North Korea was “belligerent,” rather than apologetic, in its declaration and that it would not end its program.”
Doesn’t sound like they are being cowed down by US Iraq policy.
It then goes on to mention two theories within the administration about why N Korea made its declaration: one that they are trying to send a warning to the US and two that are trying to use it lever to extract more aid. No one seems to be saying that this declaration is a good thing caused by US policy towards Iraq; on the contrary the article talks about how this will complicate US policy in the region.
We don’t go to war. They have nukes. You don’t go to war with countries with nukes unless you want to get nuked yourself (you fight proxy wars). This is why the argument makes sense to knock off Saddam BEFORE he gets nukes.
So which is the carrot and which the stick again ? 
This September 24th article in the Asian Times gives a factual basis for Rumsfeld’s accusations against North Korea. It seems the Holy Exalted Supreme Panjandrum has finally decided to admit that our worst fears are true. He probably figured he’d never get the power plants from Bush anyway; and now everyone knows that he is not to be trifled with. Since he is now officially one of the worlds most brutal dictators in possession of the worlds most powerful weapons of mass destruction, I guess we’ll just have to reinstate the draft and try our hand at fighting a 3 front war.
The instant N. Korea makes an acceptably threatening move, like joining OPEC.
Yep, I totally misread that one. I was going off a news bulletin I had just seen on my office TV, and got the tone of the message wrong. I thought it was aa conciliatory, “Hey, U.S., we have a confession to make…”. But nope. Looks pretty damned belligerant to me.
This could be a pretty serious development.
Yep. 
N. Korea was doing it to say “Fight us again and we will show you the true meaning of axis of evil”.
They can’t hit the mainland from here. Playing nuke dodgeball with us would be suicide: the closest targets they could plausibly hit are Japan and Korea and our bases there. That would be a tragic loss, but they’d be utterly wiped out for it. Why would they bother?
The real scary thing is if they SELL nukes to really unstable people. They’re certainly that desperate for cash… if there was anywhere to spend it.
Only if you believe that Shrub’s real reasons for pushing war with Iraq are the ones he’s been claiming. Given how loose Bush has facts and reasons for war up until now, it’s pretty unlikely that WMD is his real motivation.
This development could be deeply embarrassing to him. He’s left with a choice of admitting that his reasons for going after Hussein are bullshit, or starting a war with a newly self-described nuclear power.
Then again, it might be just the thing to keep the American people sufficiently scared to vote for Republican’s come november. In fact, it’s interesting to note that this comes to light on the very day that the vote on use of force with Iraq has ceased to be front page news. Could it be that Junior needed a new story to push the economy off the front page and the Koreans were willing to help out? Nah… too much of stretch. Bush is one lucky son of a bitch, ain’t he?
What are you saying? That the Bush administration pulled levers in North Korea to get them to release information about their nuclear program so that it would help Republicans in the polls?
I never took you for a conspiracy theorist, but I guess I’ll have to rethink that. You’re really going far, far out of your way to try to pin everything bad in the world on George Bush.
**
Nah… too much of stretch. Bush is one lucky son of a bitch, ain’t he?**
For the reading impared… :rolleyes:
Although… I should point out that it’s not really beyond the realm of possibility that Bush had a hand in the timing of the news coming out. It was his father, after all, that arranged for Reagan’s October surprise, and that was a far more ambitious operation. In that case he did quite a bit more than just maniuplate the timing of an announcement, he actually convinced the Iranians to keep the hostages and release them on the day of Reagan’s innaguration.
So I wouldn’t be surprised to learn, some years hence, that this is another october surprise orchestrated by Bush Sr. But at this time, I don’t think that would be the smart way to bet.
If Bush can solve this problem, he deserves re-election. Note that the prior administration’s ineffective policy was to bribe North Korea to not develop nukes, even though it was known that they were continuing to do just that.
Obviously, North Korea’s nukes make Bush’s point that “time is not on our side” in getting a regime change in Iraq. It also means that that the US will probably build a missile defence system (which I disapprove of.)
This could get really ugly in several ways:[ul][li]Having built one bomb, North Korea can and probably will build a large number of them.[]Given time, they can buy or build delivery vehicles.[]They can use nuclear blackmail of the West to continue economic support of the current, horrendous regime. []They can blackmail South Korea in various ways.[]Sooner or later Korea’s nukes and/or their nuclear technology might be transferred to others – terrorists, criminals, other rogue nations – who knows?[/ul]All in all, the chance of a nuclear attack somewhere in the world suddenly became a lot greater.[/li]
As for what to do about it, it’s unthinkable to mount an all-out attack while their arsenal is still small. So, all we can do is try to deal with each crisis as it arises and hope nothing terrible happens. Hope isn’t much of a policy.
The alternative is that old strategy from the height of the Cold War:
*Assume the crash position, place head between knees and kiss your ass goodbye. *
NK could also hit Beijing with any proposed nukes. As NK’s major aid provider, and a ‘fellow’ Communist country, China’s influence over Kim is very, very important.
If the West can get China onside in a strong, carrot-and-stick diplomatic axis (pardon the choice of terms) that unites Japan, China, S. Korea, and the US, it could go a long way to getting rid of the insane bozos running the country, as well as their WMD.
Um…no. Only in some sort of far left-wing logical fantasy.
Like I said earlier, nukes are a whole different animal than just chemical weapons. Once a country gets nukes, it becomes nearly impossible to directly go to war with them. For obvious reasons.
Bush is hardly in some sort of logical trap. He can still say (like he has for a while now) that the threat of Iraq getting nuclear weapons is a good reason to go to war with it now instead of after it actually gets them. In fact, expect this development to cause him to push that message even harder now.
In fact, Bush can draw parallels to the situations if he likes. It would be entirely consistent for him to say, look, we can no longer have a military confrontation with North Korea (not that we really could have before with China backing them, but whatever) and so that makes it that much more urgent that we cause regime change in Iraq before Hussein acquires nuclear capability and it becomes impossible to deal militarily with him.