Interesting theory but if China is indeed doing what you suggest then they are being extremely short sighted and I for one thought short-sightedness wasn’t an accusation normally levelled at Chinese who seem to take a longer view than most.
[ul]
[li] They are creating trouble on their own doorstep. If you want to distratc the authorities you set a fire a few blocks away…not on your front porch.[/li][li] They are playing with nukes here and I am reasonably certain China would like to be the only nuclear armed country in the region if at all possible.[/li][li] While NK and China are allies and friends even China knows NK is…unpredictable…at best. I can’t see the Chinese being thrilled at NK adventurism.[/li][li] If China is trying ot distract the US from the Middle East then it isn’t working anyway.[/li][/ul]
I think the idea with the theory is that China effectively controls NK, so it’s China’s nukes, China’s control over NK’s “unpredictableness.”
You’re right about the Middle East distraction. That would only be an effective strategy if the US was well aware that China was 100% behind NK’s nukes, and prepared to use them to stop the US getting full oil control.
Korea as a whole really fascinates me. This tiny, impoverished, backward “rogue” state having such a huge lever. The other theory banging around is that NK already has nukes and has had them for a while, hence America’s extreme egg-shell tiptoeing compared to their mega hardline stance on Saddam. I am trying to remember who recently declared that NK is far, far more dangerous than Iraq… Schroeder?? Some leading international figure anyway.
The overall issue though is that NK is a hell of a lot closer to nukes than Iraq, if not already there. And whatever China’s involvement, NK must have got materials and expertise from somewhere. If not China, then who?
“If not China, then who?”
Pakistan. In return for North Korean help with their missiles.
I don’t really buy the China theory. The fact is that China won’t control the nukes so it has no interest in a nuclear North Korea. And North Korean nukes may well trigger a nuclear arms race in East Asia if Japan decides to go nuclear.
China probably has factions trying to work every side of this thing.
They can look very good by brokering a deal. But, brokering that deal might just keep us tied up for a long time and cost a lot of money. So, they might simultaneously participate in and drag out any settlement. In the meantime, NK can sell weapons to other nations or groups and occupy us even more.
According to a NY Times (Free Registration) published today, Rumsfeld has ordered “24 long-range bombers on alert for possible deployment within range of North Korea, both to deter ‘opportunism’ at a moment when Washington is focused on Iraq and to give President Bush military options if diplomacy fails to halt North Korea’s effort to produce nuclear weapons, officials said today.”
It appears the Administration is publicly upping the ante with North Korea.
Does Bush & Co. really think this will scare North Korea? Or will this increase tensions?
No. Yes, a little. Problem is, there is the issue of military necessity. If NK continues with the overtly bellicose rhetoric, even for a Stalinist backwater, the DoD would feel remiss if it did not try to up its forces somewhat.
Note, “long-range bombers.” That is like saying to NK: we are not creating any capacity to invade, but rather to punish you for invading or attacking. Well, that is if you buy into the whole diplomacy through military maneuver stuff, which I do to a point. Once the escalation gets out of control, which it can, who knows?
I think the specific threat here is, “Put those rods back where they belong, or we’ll be forced to destroy your processing facility.”
The U.S. may in fact have to do that. The only problem is that they can only bomb the plutonium processing facility. There is a parallel uranium program, but it’s hidden so the U.S. can’t bomb it.
But taking out the plutonium facility would probably stop North Korea from getting more nukes for at least a couple of years.
Sam, what do you think the North Koreans will do if we drop even one bomb on their heads?
My thought is that the North Koreans use their huge numerical advantage on the ground and attempt to unify the Koreas into one autonomous worker’s collective. “Resistance is futile.” Take my MSNBC a few posts back and click the link on the left called “military balance.”
I don’t know. The North Koreans could do something very bad.
On the other hand, how do you like the thought of having a North Korea with, say, 50 nuclear weapons and making 20 a year?
How would you like the lunatic in Pyongyang to have the ability to wipe out a hundred million people and throw the entire world into a depression by obliterating Japan and South Korea?
Or having a terrorist group get their hands on a nuke courtesy of a suddenly-invincible North Korea?
This is some serious stuff we’re talking about here. None of the currently available options are in any way desirable. If diplomacy fails, I don’t know what’s going to happen, but I’m keeping my fingers crossed.
If I understand it correctly the North Koreans can use the fuel rods to make bombs even if the Yongbyon reactor is taken out. So bombing the reactor now won’t really stop North Korea from going nuclear . Frankly the Bush administration doesn’t have any policy. They aren’t offering any diplomatic deals. They don’t have any credible military threats. They seem to be hoping the problem will go away. All in startling contrast to their silly bluster a year back which lead to the current escalation. What exactly was the point in making threats and talking tough if they had no way of backing it up? Pure stupidity.
No, what the U.S. can bomb is their plutonium processing facility. The fuel rods are not weapons-grade right now. They would need to be processed to make weapons-grade material. Bombing the processing facility would buy some time.
Unfortunately, once the plutonium rods are there, bombing the facility runs the risk of spreading plutonium all over the place, which would be a bad thing, and probably enough to deter an attack.
And the other big reason why that may not work out is because North Korea has a hidden, parallel uranium-based nuclear program, and we don’t really know how far along that is. Bomb the plutonium plant, and you give them even more incentive to make a uranium bomb.
I wish I knew the solution, but I don’t have a clue.
But now that they have taken the fuel rods away can’t they process them elsewhere? Do they have only one re-processing plant? The Kaplan article seems to suggest otherwise.
Ironically Bush’s bellicose rhetoric may have made a limited military option more difficult. If the Yongbyon plant were ever bombed it would be important that the North Koreans not interpret it as the begining of a full-scale invasion. However that is precisely what they will now think because of the whole “axis of evil” rhetoric.
This may be why Bush has apparently taken the military option off the table which basically means that his current policy is more dovish than Clinton’s and the North Koreans have gone further than they ever dared under Clinton.
Well, the thought is that NK actually has nukes already, whereas Iraq is still nowhere near, so it’s a much more delicate situation to deal with Pyongyang than Baghdad.
I am not fully up to speed on all the evidence, but as well as these spent fuel rods, they already recently used fresh fuel rods, IIRC. It may be (any ballistics experts?) that the use of spent fuel rods implies they are stockpiling up on nukes, creating a massive amount of them.
Incidentally, just as the newswires are flooded with excerpts of Colin Powell’s speech on Iraq’s non-cooperation as he’s still talking, we’re also getting flashes that:
Is anyone aware when this “speculation” or “possiblity” because probability or fact?
Because up until today, I thought they were officially at least a month or so away, and it was only very tenuous rumour/conspiracy theory that nukes already existed.