On the other hand, starting a blockade would be an act of war.
hell yes. Very few americans, especially those at a political decision making level have any kind of understanding of Asia. What also gets blown way out of proportion are vitrolic comments meant for domestic consumption. Christ, it’s not like Asian leaders look to the Sun or World Weekly News for information, but some unregulated newspaper/chat room babble in Asia can be splashed across the US press as the policy of the Asian leadership (okay, slight exaggeration, but only slight). The Hainan plane incident being a case in point.
N. Korea obviously thinks somehow it will be to their advantage to do what their doing now. Maybe it’s keeping the people in line by creating a crisis, maybe they are playing the loony card and hoping that Japan or the US will bring a better carrot to the table. Who the fuck knows? Of course, no one knows. It’s not like the N. Koreans have a handle on what’s going on in the US or how GWB likes to play his game. With the possible exception of a few aid agency people, no American has even been to N. Korea and vice versa. You wonder why there is miscommunication, especially when one side demands pre-conditions for talks instead of holding regular talks?
For those who have forgotten their history, because Rusk or was it Achenson (sp?) snubbed Zhou En-lai and the Chicom’s were isolated, China’s warning during the Korean war went unheaded. They sent a message via India that encroaching on the Yalu river was in their sphere of influence and don’t do it. China didn’t have a lot of choices for a messenger and simply didn’t realize that India lacked credibility in Washington. China then entered the war, almost pushed the UN forces to the sea, miracle of miracles the Inchon landing was successful and then stalemate on the 38th (?) parallel for 50 years. Maybe just maybe if there had been State to State communication, that all could have been avoided.
Not only is he a former UN Ambassador, he’s also my governor (for whatever that’s worth.)
Ummmm, Inchon was before China entered the war.
It was the NK’s who almost drove the U.N. into the sea. China didn’t get nearly as close. I believe they went down as far as the SK capital but then lost it. Hardly almost driven into the sea.
**
I didn’t know people still bought the Reluctant Dragon theory.
North Korea pushed us to the sea. It was the success of Inchon that led allied troops to be so close to the Chinese border. China did not fight anyone to a stalemate on the 38th parallel. We stopped there because we didn’t want to escalate the war not because China stopped us.
Marc
Macarthur drove to the Yalu against Truman’s orders, which got him sacked. Probably drunk over his success at Inchon.
It’s probably true that the Chinese tried to warn us off trying to drive to the Yalu. The warning wasn’t needed though; everyone but Macarthur agreed that Chinese entry into the war would be assured if we tried, and that this would be a very bad thing.
As I posted in another NK thread, I think the simplest explanation is best regarding Kim’s motives: he wants to take over SK, and he’s attempting to drive a wedge between us and the South. We’re in his way and he wants us out.
I no longer think we should get out; Sua above had a good point about us having to deal with the North’s craziness regardless. This is especially true now that they’re no longer bound by the non-proliferation treaty.
What about this strategy: China and Russia have a lot to lose by having a nuclear North Korea in their part of the woods. For one thing, that might cause a nuclear buildup in places like Japan, Indonesia, Australia, etc. Especially Japan. It will probably also mean American anti-missile defenses going to Japan and South Korea. And if a war does break out, China could wind up with multiple nuclear detonations around it.
So why not involve them? China is probably the best hope for ‘reasoning’ with North Korea in the first place. The U.S. could go to both of them and say, "Here’s the deal - North Korea is your creation. Fix it, or we are going to have to build up our forces in the region, big time. And we will not allow this guy to build nuclear ICBMs. If we are forced to, we’ll bomb his reactors and destroy his missile factories. And that probably means a war, and you guys are going to pay a huge economic price for that.
I’m just tossing out ideas here, because I think this is a huge problem. Unless something is done about North Korea, in ten years there will be nuclear weapons all over the place.
And we can’t blockade them - ElvisL1ves is right. The North Koreans will definitely treat that as an act of war. Hell, they are claiming that even sanctions will be considered an act of war. If the U.S. blockades North Korea, at the very least I see them retaliating by attacking U.S. vessels and aircraft. A nuke on a carrier group could be seen by the twisted North Korean regime as a legitimate military operation - I hope they realize that a nuke fired at any American interests anywhere will kick off a war.
It’s nice to see the discussion staying away from partisanship here. Really, this shouldn’t be a partisan issue. There is no Democratic or Republican tilt to North Korean policy, and it’s a tough enough situation without political squabbling entering the equation.
I don’t understand China at all. If NK goes nuclear, Japan would probably be nuclear inside of a year on sheer paranoia, and I’m sure the Chinese don’t want that. The Japanese are the only people in the world to have suffered a nuclear attack. I very much doubt they’d sit still for nuclear weapons in the hands of a nutcase like Kim.
Seems to me this issue is about oil. Again. (Among other things)NK gets caught ramping up a nuclear program, gets exposed, gets oil tap shut off. Immediately following that, comes the unbelievable saber rattling, threats of war, WWIII, nuclear strikes, WE WILL BURY YOU… WE ARE LEAVING NNPT…
(Of course, if you resume our oil shipments, we may reconsider. )
The “reconsider” quote came today.
Is this not pretty much what happened in 1994? Did we not offer to supply oil until the light water reactors were up and running, provided they cease all other nuclear programs? Did they not threaten to pull out of the treaty back then as well? Wasn’t it the oil that brought them back?
It’s simple extortion.
The right thing to do, as has been mentioned, is to say to hell with them. They broke their word, no more oil. Sadly the repercussions we’ll have to deal with, as was mentioned, is the possibility of them selling nukes in their desperate bid for money or oil. Tough spot to be in.
I’ll go waaayyy out on a limb here, and predict that WWIII won’t materialize out of this. I’m also gonna guess, that sacrifices to our principles will be made, and some type of backroom deal will be struck whereas we provide some type of fuel shipments again.
And they say crime doesn’t pay. Hmmmph.
Else a little prodding on the construction of those light water reactors, with the understanding that we get to blow up (or otherwise disable) their “research” reactor once the “replacements” are complete. That’d kill most of the nuclear threat, plus IAIR the plants are being built by a japanese/korean consortium, so the US could plausibly deny having given in to extortion.
“There is no Democratic or Republican tilt to North Korean policy”
Whatever made you think there was ? 
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by MGibson *
I didn’t know people still bought the Reluctant Dragon theory.
Opps, stand corrected on the Inchon thing.
I didn’t know people in the US still bought the “we could have won if we had wanted to” theory.
I’d have to look it up, but the Korean war stalemated along the 38th parallel for a long time. Sure, maybe the UN forces could have moved north if they did a massive escalation, but they again China had the numbers and the shorter supply lines. Heck, you can claim the US would have won Viet Nam if we had escalated there as well. That’s neither here nor there, fact is stalemate on the 38th parallel.
Like um, where the hell did you pull that notion from? Any chance of you looking at say, an atlas? Or are you thinking along the lines of the US providing Australia and Indonesia with nuclear hardware? Put another region on a MAD footing?
Maybe you should leave out the diplomacy Sam, you ain’t cut out for it.
Yes, please look it up. There were other reasons to stop at the 38th that didn’t have anything to do with the Chinese army. Although the Chinese army had a shorter supply line they were on average not as well equipped as a UN soldier. China had the numbers and the shorter supply lines so why didn’t they take over the whole of Korea? You can’t really claim that they were only interested in protecting their border because that really isn’t true.
Since the fall of the USSR we’ve gotten all sorts of information about what was happening during the cold war. The USSR, China, and North Korea conspired to take over South Korea. Sure, I know China and the USSR had their own problems with one another but sometimes they did work together. After all US planes were engaging Chinese troops on the ground and Soviet pilots in the air.
Marc
I think NK is just talking smack… I really don’t think they are stupid enough to sell nukes or anything, because the intelligence community would “catch” them hopefully. If they USE a nuke, it’s game over for NK. I would guarantee you, if they nuked a Carrier battle group, the nukes would be flying within 20 minutes of confirmation. Period. There would be no ground war. There would be no more NK. The American People wouldn’t tolerate anything less than total annihilation. The north Koreans realize this too. I don’t think they are really that stupid. We should be hard here, don’t give into their demands, they will be forced to back down.
I’m sure that threw subterfuge and sabotage, their nuclear reactors can be neutralized. NK is one of the poorest countries in the world, if you give some people some money, and the necessary materials, they will do anything you want. I wouldn’t be surprised if you hear about “rebels” destroying the nuclear reactors within 6 months.
This will probably become a massive CIA operation, involving lots of incited rebellions.
McArthur could’ve won, but he was too radical for Truman. He wanted to expand the war to open bombing of China, and finally nuclear attacks. He planned at winning at all costs. We really could’ve won, if we had wanted to. Same with Vietnam. The beaurecrats start interfering with military operations, and you lose the war. In Vietnam, Johnson was ordering each individual bombing mission for the most part. He would’nt expand the war to Cambodia and Laos, which were supplying the North Vietnamese.
Gee, thanks for that stirring debate, Adlai. The threat of a new nuclear arms race in the far east wasn’t just thought up by me on this message board, y’know. Do you seriously think Japan is going to sit around and let a Stalinist North Korea arm itself with nuclear missiles, without coming up with a defense? Either the U.S. will put anti-missile defenses there, or Japan will develop its own, or it will arm itself with nuclear weapons.
Which was, in my opinion, the whole point of the exercise with the shipment going to Yemen. We let them know that regardless of their attempts to disguise their intentions, we know what they are doing and are very aware of what they are shipping, to whom, when, and for what purpose.
Just like the Chinese in 2001, the Koreans are seeking to deal with someone who is more malleable than those in the current administration. I think it is funny that they all are thinking, “hey, whatever happened to those easy Americans, lets go back and talk to the Clinton guys again, they could be bought at least”.
Speaking of Richardson… I’m listening to him right now in an exclusive interview with CNN, and he says he thinks the administration has been handling the North Korean situation ‘very well’, and he gives the Bush administration kudos for being open-minded and for taking what Richardson thought were exactly the right steps in negotiation.
I’m sure glad no one has tried to inject any partisan slams into this debate!
That about evens it up. Can we get back to the debate at hand?