Lots of people love to argue that terrorism had no great part in our recent economic decline. I suggest that one more pivotal attack might make this current commercial downturn look like a Sunday picnic.
There is another more important concept to understand here. While I maintain that North Korea is operating several fuses short of a mains enclosure, their nation has only one specific military goal. Similar to China’s position with respect to Taiwan, the conquering of their subject intact remains their only viable alternative. China shall only gain global opprobium if it obliterates the Republic of China during a takeover. Similarly, North Korea will only cripple itself further if it immolates South Korea during any sort of assimilation.
This remains one of the central issues in dealing with North Korea. They have no real trump card. Using atomic bombs represents one sure way of promising their own complete and total annihilation. Use of biological weapons should represent the exact same. North Korea should be presented with a completely no-win situation. Their goverment and population’s continued existence must hang in the balance of any decision they make. Had they not made themselves such a complete and utter threat to the entire region’s stability, I would not (and could not) advocate this concept in any way, shape or form.
This world (as Tuckerfan so capably points out) cannot afford the least further crippling by irrational elements. If we must endure mass destruction, so be it. What shall we have? A world pockmarked by radioactive pits every so often? Shall we lose a particular portion of our most important cities to nuclear terrorism? This is what we are faced with. I challenge any of you to provide some sort of viable solution that does not include the need for immediate disruption of agressive intention. Do not paint the moronic efforts of Shrub’s current cabinet into this scenario. These are some of the most misguided and sadly well intentioned folks I have ever seen at America’s helm. The world must unite in physical and military rejection of the thuggish elements attempting its takeover. Please do not confuse this urgent agenda with anything an imbecile like Shrub seeks to do. The stakes are much greater than his pathetically small mind can imagine. There is little choice in dealing with North Korea…
(I am well aware of the irony in what I say. Many will think that it is amusing of me to advocate a no-win situation as any sort of alternative. Few realize that North Korea shall onlt permit a no-win solutio to all it does. Do not believe me and see what Iran does with its first nuclear bomb. What do you want?
I think there is little doubt that war on the Korean peninsula would be disastrous for all concerned, even if NKs chemical or nuclear arsenals do not come into play.
That said, something must be done. A nuclear armed NK is a threat to regional and global security like nothing faced since the fall of the Berlin wall. Hell, NK are enough of a threat as it is, what with significant stocks of chemical and biological weapons, and the technology to deliver them.
So, what can be done, without provoking Kim Jong-Il to war?
Perhaps a naval blockade. Perhaps targetted sanctions.At the least, heavy diplomatic pressure should be exerted upon the Chinese to use whatever influence they have left.
These measures will reduce the flow of weapons in and out of NK, as well as the materials and money to make them.
Hopefully, NK will thereafter collapse.
Then we have political anarchy in a nuclear armed NK, which is also not a good situation, albeit better than the alternative.
However, all this is assuming that Kim Jong-Il is a stable, rational sort of fellow, a conclusion which his rhetoric leads me to doubt.
-Oli
There were no talks about reunification. There were talks about improving relations, but reunification was never on the table.
The talks centered on three things: family visits; a rail link between North and South; and a summit between Kim Dae Jung and Kim Jong Il.
One family visit occured, which was actually simply a short visit by about 100 North Koreans to the South to see relatives. IIRC a planned second family meeting foundered.
The talks about a rail link have never gone anywhere, before or after the “Axis of Evil.”
The summit did occur in 2000 (before Axis of Evil), but only after a secret and illegal $100 million payment was made to North Korea by the South Korean government through Hyundai.
Call me naive, but when one side demands a nine figure payoff just to meet, I don’t think reunification is on the horizon.
They might have usable nukes, especially given any delay.
We might not get U.N. support for an attack.
We wouldn’t have many allies.
They are led by a brutal dictator.
They are a threat to their neighbors.
They may lead to the proliferation of WMDs to people we wouldn’t want having them.
Is this North Korea or Iraq? Now you’re not sure if we should attack? It can only be because they can fight back. The Bush pre-emptive strike policy seems pretty wimpy in the light of day, huh? At least, it doesn’t make me feel very proud and honorable.
Perhaps we should have been engaging in negotiations with North Korea from the beginning. Perhaps we should have not been fucking around with the “We won’t talk to you, China should talk to you” strategy. Perhaps Clinton’s method of dealing with North Korea wasn’t so naively blind and pussy-like as was recently portrayed by neo-cons and cons alike. At least during that time, we were talking about Sunshine Policies and didn’t have storage seals being removed and semi-trucks driving up carting off nuclear material. For all his statesmanship, Powell achieved dick during his last visit to the region. The other side of the red line was a lot more comfy, and cost us only a bit of oil. Maybe we can attribute all of that to Alan Greenspan and the dot.com bubble, too.
During the Sunshine Policy/Clinton era, the North Koreans were violating the 1994 oil-for-nukes deal and developing nuclear weapons. That didn’t start during the Dubya Administration.
No, they weren’t breaking storage seals and carting off nuclear material - they were making more nuclear material elsewhere.
The US is not saying “don’t talk to us, talk to the Chinese.” The US is saying, “this matter should be addressed on a multilateral basis, including through the UN.” Isn’t that what critics of the Shrub Administration say the US should do? Gosh, Becky, I thought going outside the UN and acting unilaterally was a bad thing.
Not only can they fight back, they can cause massive numbers of civilian casualties to South Korea.
Perhaps you would have preferred postponing the attack until Saddam had nukes. Then the Iraq war could have killed millions, but at least it would have been a fair fight.
I am proud of Bush for having the good judgment to avoid all these deaths. YMMV.
Maybe. Or, looking in the retrospeciscope, maybe we should have overthrown their rotten government twenty years ago, when they had fewer weapons.
But, we cannot go back and re-do the past, even if we agreed on what we wish we had done. We have to deal with the problem as it exists today. Frankly, it’s too tough for me.
Just to point this out, enforcing sanctions through the UN is one thing, but a blockade is an act of war. North Korea would be justified in international law for any military response to it.
Psst, Sua. 1. The North Koreans recently said that that is what they were doing. Were they really? Got a cite for their developing the material elsewhere? Why would they do that when they had all that stuff just sitting about, and little resources available to be redundant like that? On that note, I am still waiting for your cite for your assertion that Saddam Hussein gassed civilians after Gulf War I. (I believe you said that he gassed the Marsh (or Swamp, IIRC your term) Arabs. I’ll save you some time and let you provide both citations at once. If you have any.
Gosh, Becky, aren’t we free from the constrictions of what the UN would have us do, when we realize that it is in our best interests to act alone? In reality, obviously, it will be ideal for us to act multilaterally on this point. Perhaps we can lead on the matter rather than saying, “You go first. No you. No you.” Besides this, Seoul has already been trying to talk with them despite our foot-dragging.
Well, perhaps I wouldn’t have been happy having my great-great grandchildren having to go to war, but then again I would have been willing to wager that we would have had a more capable leader at that point. (Could hardly be worse, anyway).
Besides, to continue more along the lines of your, um… point, given the impression we were given, Saddam Hussein could have caused massive civilian casualties in Saudi Arabia and Israel - within 45 minutes.
I think that your ability ot be proud of what Bush has wrought speaks volumes for your ability to reason through any issue. I would have been proud if he had a shread of sense and had chosen to intervene when North Korea was saying, “Hey - look at us! Come talk to us, or we’re gonna start causing problems.” I thought he was a shithead for failing to act then. You’re proud. YMMV. Try a tune up and some higher octane.
Yes, let’s overthrow all rotten governments before they can actually fight back. Or perhaps let’s engage the world community with some of the humility that candidate Bush spoke of, as world leaders representing democracy, humanity and reason. Let’s not blow all the positive political capital that being victimized gave us on being shitheads. Hell, we even had the French saying “We are all Americans.” Fiscal surplus, worldwide good will, whatever you’ve got, Bush can spend it - and quick. No wonder he ran those companies into the ground.
Here’s a hint, if you really are stuck, said by a well-known conservative. “Quit being part of the fucking problem and be part of the solution.”
It was tried 50 years ago and China prevented it. What makes you think China (and the USSR) would have allowed it 20 years ago? It goes against everything I know about China and the USSR. i think you are dreaming.
I see a lot of round robin argument going on in this thread with little being mentioned in the way of solutions. I’m confident that all of this discussion’s more important cards are on the table, so let’s get down to some real constructive debate instead of hand waving and finger pointing.
What can be done? Here are some scenarios:
1.) Propaganda campaign[ul]This should be initiated immediately. North Korea’s military must be made aware of the dire consequences awaiting the least attempt at aggression or military retaliation. It should be explicitly spelled out to them that the deployment of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons will result in nuclear retaliation. Whether or not that card ever gets played, it must loudly be put on the agenda. This is one of the few ways to get North Korea’s military to begin considering the ultimate upshot of their own leader’s bellicose rhetoric.[/ul]
2.) Interdiction and blockade[ul]North Korea’s perimeter, air space and sea lanes must be contained. Those crying “foul” need to consider that North Korea has continually violated world law with kidnapping, theft, possible drug distribution and numerous other transgressions. The aforementioned propaganda campaign should warn of military consequences if any attempt is made to thwart this blockade.[/ul]
3.) Military stand down[ul]North Korea should be put on notice that any mobilization of troops or materiel will be construed as an act of war. Any detonation of high explosives or testing of a nuclear device will result in an immediate and massive military strike. Continued operation of their nuclear facilities are prohibited and they are subject to attack without notice should they continue to be operated.[/ul]
4.) Nuclear site inspections[ul]Immediate access to all nuclear facilities must be given to the IAEA. Monitoring devices and cameras must be put in place and full accounting of the 8,000 fuel rods or their contents shall occur.[/ul]
5.) Bilateral talks[ul]North and South Korea must reinitiate substantial negotiations at once. Implementation of Sunshine Policies must be a cornerstone to all discussions. A roadmap towards reunification must be a central point.[/ul]
If none of you are willing to begin fruitful debate concerning possible action about this situation, this thread should be locked and thereby prevented from wasting further bandwidth at these boards.
Hentor, I indeed have a cite for the fact that the North Koreans were developing nuclear materials elsewhere - as you acknowledge, the North freakin’ Koreans. If they admit that they were doing something that they had agreed not to do, that’s good enough for me. If it’s not good enough for you, nothing I can do about it.
You are mistaken, BTW, about the Ma’dan (Swamp Arabs) - I never asserted that Hussein gassed civilians after Gulf War I. I asserted that Hussein had committed genocide against them. And I provided cites for that.
If you need them again, here’s Human Rights Watch http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/marsharabs1.htm
And a reference to the European Parliament’s 1995 determination that the Ma’dan were victims of genocide. http://www.gcc.edu/news/faculty/editorials/kengor_saddam_2_5.htm
Actually, the US is leading on the matter of negotiations with North Korea, and we aren’t foot-dragging. Ya see, the problem has been that the other nations involved, Russia, China, South Korea, Japan, have been against a multilateral approach, and wanted the US to deal with the problem by itself. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/02/19/1045638358939.html , which of course has been what the North Koreans wanted as well.
If anyone engaged in foot-dragging, it was Russia - it opposed the referral of the issue to the Security Council by the IAEA, as mandated under the NPT, which delayed the referral by several weeks. In the end, Russia abstained rather than voting for the referral. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78483,00.html http://www.inq7.net/wnw/2003/jan/24/wnw_1-1.htm
Hentor, try using Google once in a while. It may help you learn the facts about subjects on which you post.
You’re assuming that there is a split between the military and the bellicose rhetoric coming from the leadership. They are one and the same.
The aforementioned thorough blockade is an act of war if conducted unilaterally. North Korean misconduct does not excuse this. You won’t have to worry about threatening military consequences in this case; they will be forthcoming regardless.
This is patently absurd. A surprise invasion of North Korea may as well be launched and this whole list of demands foregone. For that matter, we may as well take out the whole country in a nuclear first strike. No nation would ever accept such demands.
This is the first sane thing on the list so far.
Again a good idea, but you can’t force North Korea to the table. The current fight is that North Korea is demanding bilateral talks with the US and a non-aggression pact, while the US rejects the pact and bilateral talks, insisting on larger talks encompassing South Korea, China and Japan.
So is this the ‘If they don’t agree with me that immediate action must be taken then the thread is a waste of bandwidth’ school of debate?:dubious:
Aside from thrusting the responsibility of providing a solution upon the shoulders of the United States, both China and Russia have been pouring gasoline on the fire by providing North Korea with critical high technology needed for weapons development. This must cease immediately.