[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
When they said they reserve the right to develop a nuclear program, which is clearly saying, “we don’t plan to live up to the Agreed Framework or the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.”
[/QUOTE]
I thought they withdrew from that treaty.
[QUOTE=col_10022]
I thought they withdrew from that treaty.
[/QUOTE]
The “Agreed Framework” is not the NNPT, if that’s what you’re thinking. It was the agreement between NK and US during Clinton’s term that we’ve been discussing here. It wasn’t a treaty-- just an agreement reached between two nations.
[QUOTE=col_10022]
if you asked most South koreans today if they would take the opportunity to reunite their country even if it meant difficult financial times ahead, most of them would say yes in a heartbeat.
[/QUOTE]
Only rabid nationalism could explain South Korea choosing to spoonfeed a basketcase like NK for the next 25 years. South Korea is already in intense competition with China economically. The last thing they need is a huge anchor tied to their feet.
That said, China’s leadership does not want a unified, nationalist, capitalist, militaized powerhouse at its front door, hence its ongoing blind eye to Kim.
When the smoke finally clears, China will not accede to a U.S. (or UN) -imposed quarantine or blockade. Nor will Kim. Everything Kim does is about saving face, intimadating and projecting machismo. To command loyalty, he has to be the toughest motha in his command or control. If he flinches, someone with a handgun won’t. Kim’s entire regime is based on brinkmanship, internally and externally. Box him in and he runs out of rational choices, but is nevertheless impelled to act decisively. Not an enviable situation for anyone.
[QUOTE=Carnac the Magnificent!]
That said, China’s leadership does not want a unified, nationalist, capitalist, militaized powerhouse at its front door, hence its ongoing blind eye to Kim.
[/QUOTE]
That’s an important point, and let’s not forget to add: Strong US ally.
It’s not just the refugee problem that troubles China about a destablized NK, but China absolutely doesn’t want a unified Korean peninsula unless it’s unified as Chinese client state-- and that ain’t gonna happen. So to understand what China is doing, you have to understand that it faces different choices and preferences that the US does. We basically don’t want NK to get nukes, and neither does China. But while that is our #1, #1 and #3 issue with NK, China has completely different set of priorities.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
It’s not just the refugee problem that troubles China about a destablized NK, but China absolutely doesn’t want a unified Korean peninsula unless it’s unified as Chinese client state-- and that ain’t gonna happen.
[/QUOTE]
The Cold War is over. Why does China need (or why do its leaders think it needs) a client state on its northeastern border?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
The Cold War is over. Why does China need (or why do its leaders think it needs) a client state on its northeastern border?
[/QUOTE]
For the last few decades, China has been working hard to unseat Japan as the economic powerhouse of Asia. South Korea is trying to do the same thing. Both countries have rapidly growing economies. A unified, vibrant Korea would be harder for China to compete with. Plus, dirt-poor North Koreans just might make for an even cheaper source of labor than the Chinese. It’s in China’s interest to keep Korea divided, and North Korea walled off.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
The Cold War is over. Why does China need (or why do its leaders think it needs) a client state on its northeastern border?
[/QUOTE]
The US-Soviet Cold War is over. The US-China Cold War may be ramping up; time will tell. Wall Street and Shanghai’s capitalists say no, but how many divisions have they?
As a Westerner living in a pluralistic society, you can’t begin to understand, but high-ranking Party officials and military officers wish to neutralize/contain all backyard strategic threats, no matter how theoretical or far-fetched. Having a pro-western economic and military powerhouse at your back door represents a grave perceived threat. When China’s military sees Japan, a re-unified Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, and India, they see an encirclement of potentially adversaries. The most conservative, possibly paranoid, officers rise through the ranks, not “one world” types.
[QUOTE=col_10022]
I was always under the impression that the only thing keeping China out of Taiwan was A) the USA and B) they don’t want to kill the golden goose.
[/QUOTE]
No, they could wreck Taiwan with short and medium range conventional ballistic missiles but they in no way, shape or form have the naval assets to successfully carry out a successfull resisted landing on Taiwan. They don’t have the ships, landing craft and it’s doubtful they’d have air superiority. They couldn’t even brute force it, there just isn’t the capacity and logistics to do it though they are slowly building in that direction. The PLAN is getting some major budget increases.
[QUOTE=xtisme]
You seem to be laboring under the impression that the leadership in NK makes the same calculations that you do…and that they are fully rational. Maybe they are…but maybe they aren’t too.
[/QUOTE]
The CIA and other Kim-watchers thnk he’s an entirely sane, calculating shrewd operator working in what he believes to be his own best interests, and there’s nothing the US or anyone else could have done to stop him acquiring nuclear weapons short of invasion (once Pakistan had sold them the technology of course).
[QUOTE=Askance]
The CIA and other Kim-watchers thnk he’s an entirely sane, calculating shrewd operator working in what he believes to be his own best interests, and there’s nothing the US or anyone else could have done to stop him acquiring nuclear weapons short of invasion (once Pakistan had sold them the technology of course).
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think he’s insane either…that wasn’t the point I was trying to make. I think that Kim et al use different criteria for calculating what is or is not a ‘good’ course, from there perspective, than what BG uses. And I think from our perspective his calculations aren’t very rational…though obviously from his own they are.
I also doubt we could prevent them getting nukes short of war…same with Iran. Whether or not a war is worth keeping nukes from such as they is another debate.
-XT
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Enriching uranium is not, in itself, a weapons program…especially if the result cannot be weaponized.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. If the NK’s were cheating it was taking small steps, hampered by the difficulty in getting equipment, down the more difficult pathe to a uranium bomb. Leaving plenty of time to develop an international response.
However once Captain Klutz desided that waving his dick around was a substitute for international diplomacy the NK’s hopped back on the plutonium express route to nukes.
We have traded the possibility they would have nukes somewhere down the time to the certainty they would have them pronto. And the Klutzmeister gave them the incentive of his Axis of Evil dick-waving combined with the Iraq example of what happens to those on the list without nukes.
And then, just in case he hadn’t screwed things up enough, he gave NK the demonstration of the Occupation that the USA hasn’t the competence to defeat a guerilla resistance even if it did invade.
A more clear demonstration of policy failure is harder to envisage.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I think people just need to face the reality that eventually everybody’s going to have the bomb, there’s nothing we can do about it and that’s probably just as it should be.
[/QUOTE]
This isn’t true. The world supply of fissile materials is neither large enough to support such a thing nor are the overwhelming majority of countries in the world willing to put through the financial resources required to make weapons grade material. It’s a very expensive and complicated process.
[QUOTE=tagos]
Exactly. If the NK’s were cheating it was taking small steps, hampered by the difficulty in getting equipment, down the more difficult pathe to a uranium bomb. Leaving plenty of time to develop an international response.
However once Captain Klutz desided that waving his dick around was a substitute for international diplomacy the NK’s hopped back on the plutonium express route to nukes.
We have traded the possibility they would have nukes somewhere down the time to the certainty they would have them pronto. And the Klutzmeister gave them the incentive of his Axis of Evil dick-waving combined with the Iraq example of what happens to those on the list without nukes.
And then, just in case he hadn’t screwed things up enough, he gave NK the demonstration of the Occupation that the USA hasn’t the competence to defeat a guerilla resistance even if it did invade.
A more clear demonstration of policy failure is harder to envisage.
[/QUOTE]
This is one of the more inaccurate analyses I’ve ever seen.
Do you really think the United States should have simply ignored mounting evidence that Kim was violating the agreed framework? We were paying quite a hefty sum to North Korea every single year so that they followed the agreed framework. How long were we supposed to continue providing economic and fuel support (and continue working on reactors for North Korea) to the DPRK while turning a blind eye to their violations of their agreement with us?
What would have been unconscienable would have been for Bush to do what you suggest, that being, ignore what Kim is doing.
I’m really not sure what you think should have been done differently once mounting evidence showed the DPRK was working towards nuclear weapons secretly. Either way, they were going to get nukes. The only possibility they offered up for not developing them was us giving them more aid negotiating with them bilaterally, we’d tried that in the past. I think America had funded Kim for long enough while he blatantly violated the agreement that lead to said funding.
It’s actually probably better for the United States that they have come out in the open with their nuclear program. Because it gives us the opportunity to deal with it directly. When it was done in secret not only could we not deal with it, we also still had to continue building them light water reactors and shipping them fuel each month.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
This isn’t really on point. It wasn’t weapons grade uranium and they still hadn’t turned their reactor on, so who cares?
The fact remains that NK stopped trying develop nuclear weapons between '94 and '02. the '94 agreement worked. Bush’s dick-waving undid all the progress which had been made under Clinton and Bush Sr.
[/QUOTE]
Lets appy a little logic here. They could have advanced their technology building a nuclear power plant or they could make nuclear weapons. I see the development of long range rockets. I see nuclear tests. Lets look at their power plant situation.
Kim Jong-il is a certified loon. He kidnapped a movie director and his wife from Hong Kong to make personal movies and he’s portrayed in the media as a living god.
Quit making it political and give it a rest already.
[QUOTE=Magiver]
Kim Jong-il is a certified loon.
[/QUOTE]
That sounds like you’re just making crap up.
Can you produce a certificate to validate your statement?
[QUOTE=Magiver]
Lets appy a little logic here. They could have advanced their technology building a nuclear power plant or they could make nuclear weapons. I see the development of long range rockets. I see nuclear tests. Lets look at their power plant situation.
Kim Jong-il is a certified loon. He kidnapped a movie director and his wife from Hong Kong to make personal movies and he’s portrayed in the media as a living god.
Quit making it political and give it a rest already.
[/QUOTE]
While I agree with your conclusions, let’s not get carried away with the Kim = loon hypothesis. He’s actually operating in a perfectly rational manner if we assume that his primary goal is to remain in power in one of the most repressive regimes that we’ve seen in the modern era. Assume he is a loon at your peril. I think the guy knows exactly what he’s doing.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
This is one of the more inaccurate analyses I’ve ever seen.
Do you really think the United States should have simply ignored mounting evidence that Kim was violating the agreed framework? We were paying quite a hefty sum to North Korea every single year so that they followed the agreed framework. How long were we supposed to continue providing economic and fuel support (and continue working on reactors for North Korea) to the DPRK while turning a blind eye to their violations of their agreement with us?
What would have been unconscienable would have been for Bush to do what you suggest, that being, ignore what Kim is doing.
I’m really not sure what you think should have been done differently once mounting evidence showed the DPRK was working towards nuclear weapons secretly. Either way, they were going to get nukes. The only possibility they offered up for not developing them was us giving them more aid negotiating with them bilaterally, we’d tried that in the past. I think America had funded Kim for long enough while he blatantly violated the agreement that lead to said funding.
It’s actually probably better for the United States that they have come out in the open with their nuclear program. Because it gives us the opportunity to deal with it directly. When it was done in secret not only could we not deal with it, we also still had to continue building them light water reactors and shipping them fuel each month.
[/QUOTE]
And how is the alternative policy working out for ya?
And as light water reactors they could not be used to produce bombs. Continuing diplomacy or dick-waving? Diplomacy please.
At risk of going rather off topic …
Last night I was listening to the BBC World Service, and I heard a broadcast about Iran that I must have heard before.
The jist was that after 9/11 they held candle lit vigils, they helped with Afghanistan and via the Swiss stuck all their cards on the table.
Their payback was the ‘Axis of Evil’ speech, which the BBC suggested was created by speech writers and nobody realized the implications.
My take is that most people are used to hearing dick heads spout off with lunatic rhetoric, for GWB to do so was really, really, odd - and indicated that he meant business.
It is like the little guy mouthing off, nobody takes any notice, but when the big guy ceases to speak softly, it is time to back towards the exit.
Realistically, we have seen since 2001, that it is very easy to destroy a state’s infrastructure, but virtually impossible to ‘occupy’ it.
North and South Korea have been doing a little mating dance for quite some time, things like unified sports teams look trivial, but are highly significant.
My take is that they were, and still are, edging towards re-unification with dignity.
The fact that the new GS of the UN is S. Korean indicates that others are trying to help, somehow I do not see it as a coincidence.
I reckon that if GWB and his pals backed off, preferably with a face saving manouvre, then things would quieten down.
With Iran I would offer a mutual defence pact, on condition that they stop supplying weopons to (especially) Hezbollah.
With N. Korea I would offer de-militarization, covert Swiss bank accounts and some sort of Marshall Plan to get them up to speed with S Korea.
The major problem is that the USA has started acting like kindergarten bullies in the playground. Understandable as the kids have knives and guns, but confusing to those who expect different behaviour.
My PR output would be Pax 21 (21st century peace) a total mutual defence pact for all regimes and zero criticism of internal repression, 'uman rites criticism etc, from controllable sources.
I
think
this
thread
has
run
out
of
l
o
g
i
c