The North Korean Problem

Great Debates
201

So, the existence of other hellholes justifies leaving the biggest one for our kids to deal with?

As compared to what? Frankly, I’d rather deal with a paranoid maniac when he has 0 to 3 nuclear bombs, than when he has 500 of them sitting on top of ballistic missiles.

What’s your solution to the problem? What do you think should be done, and what do you think the eventual outcome of your choice would be?

I’m getting tired of people around here constantly nitpicking everything this administration does, without offering alternatives.

Yeah, I’m sure that if Bush just praised Kim and said he was a great leader, Kim would suddenly see the light and free his people and we could all dance a big happy dance.

And what is the ‘Powell Approach’, and how does it differ from the administration’s approach? Do you really think Powell goes off and writes his own foreign policy?

202

Forgive me for not wading through all five pages of posts.

The reason I take the North Korean threat very seriously is because NK has a policy of selling arms for cash. Just a couple of weeks ago the US intercepted a shipment of NK skuds heading for Yemen. North Korea in all likelihood will do the same thing with nuclear weapons. They will sell them to Middle Easturn countries for cold cash. Can you imagine if one of the many enemies of Israel got ahold of a few of these? Can you imagine if a radical muslim group bought some of these and set them off for Allah?

203

Milo, how does the mere existence of an evil regime guarantee that a president always does a “good job” of dealing with said regime ? By your own logic, you must agree with me that Clinton did a good job of dealing with North Korea during his 8 years as president. Obviously things have changed for the worse. Do you also consider that to be a good thing ?
In other news, the president continues to back off his overly bellicose stand in an attempt to defuse the crisis. I certainly agree with you that that’s a good thing. Well done Mr. President. As usual, it has the feel of being too little, too late, but at least his heart’s in the right place, ehh ?

And millions of republicans think that the presidents farts don’t stink (see above). If you insist on people behaving rationally as a precondition to dealing with them, you’ll end up living alone, in a cave, in Canada. -The Canada part is probably for the best just now :slight_smile: However, calculatedly painful humiliation and semi-isolation is a bad approach to dealing with armed lunatics, unless you happen to have a large gun, and plan on killing them in the near future. Do the hawks in charge favor a sneak attack this summer, or are they just scoring points with more toughguy talk at the expense of international stability ?

204

Squink -

**
By no means does it.

The title of this thread, however, is “The North Korean problem,” and what can effectively be done about it.

Try to address that, in one of your posts, without your anti-Bush tourette’s syndrome acting up. I know it will be as difficult as willing yourself to take a deep breath while underwater. But try.

I provided you some good links on Kim Il-Jong, too. Pity you didn’t bother to read them. They were from such biased, pro-Bush sources as the U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea.

**
Guess I was just suckin’ up to Dubya, because I don’t happen to believe in coddling someone who’s done what Kim has done in the past month. Or his entire tenure as a despot in North Korea, for that matter.

BTW, it’s been pointed out repeatedly in this thread that the kinder, gentler approach you feel is so lacking now FAILED, as North Korea has been violating its agreements pretty much ever since it signed them. But it all looked good, and image was everything in U.S. foreign policy from about 1992 to 2000.

**
By “international stability,” do you mean North Korea continuing to develop nuclear weapons it said it wouldn’t in treaties, and the U.S. or any other country not saying or doing anything about it?

Might wanna ask Japan and South Korea how internationally stable that makes them feel.

And doesn’t “hawk” mean someone who advocates war? Who’s advocated the U.S. go to war with North Korea at this point? Certainly not me, and certainly not my government.

North Korea having nuclear-tipped missiles is intolerable, for both the U.S. and the Far East in general. Period. Do you agree with that statement, Squink and Chumpsky?

205

Haven’t been reading the papers have you Milo ? Japan’s been trying to get in with North Korea since the before the visit by the Korean kidnap victims this past summer. There are rumors that a meeting will take place in Russia next month in order to resolve the issue and move forward. South Korea has been publicly opposed to the president’s “Axis of Evil” label since day one. They just elected a president who, days before the election, proclaimed that Korea should work to prevent an American war on the peninsula. The White house is not happy about that.
No one likes North Korea. No one wants them to have more nukes, much less more nukes mounted on long range missiles. If you’re going to continue to accuse those who disagree with you of wanting the North Koreans to have more nukes, you’ll just end up looking ever more irrational. That’s not a speck of drrool on your lip, is it ?
Some people and nations have the moral strength needed to deal with countries they don’t like in a more constructive manner than name-calling, threats, and embargoes. We’ve done it with China. We did it with the Soviets. Claims of Stalinistic insanity notwithstanding, you’ve yet to supply a reason that the US can’t engage with North Korea in the same manner as other nations on the pacific rim ?

206

“I’m getting tired of people around here constantly nitpicking everything this administration does, without offering alternatives.”
Both I and elucidator have offered alternatives. It’s your side that seems to have the problems offering suggestions in this thread.

What do you suggest? Are you really saying the US should attack North Korea and trigger a war which will likely kill hundreds of thousands of South Korean civilians. Even when it’s completely clear that South Korea doesn’ t want such a war?

In any case that option is off the table for all practical purposes. Even “tailored containment” has been basically shot down by the South Koreans. That idea seems to have lasted for all of two days (next time round shouldn’t they check with allies before they announce grand plans). The administration has basically caved on the issue of talking to the North Koreans, it seems.

207

No, I don’t think North Korea should be invaded. I don’t think it CAN be invaded. South Korea would have to want that, and they sure don’t.

But I also don’t think you can buy North Korea off. That’s been tried. It failed. It will fail again. North Korea has shown itself many times in the past to be untrustworthy and unpredictable. You don’t sign treaties with people who keep breaking them, unless you have some way to verify them.

I would prefer an approach similar to Iraq, except with a carrot instead of a stick. In other words, offer to give them back their oil and other aid and maybe even go further - offer to assist them in exploiting their own oil in exchange for not starting their nukes - North Korea would really love to be an oil power, and more oil is always good for the world. Offer some development deals, as long as you can shut up the oil conspiracy nuts back home. And agree to a non-agression treaty, which is what North Korea says it wants. But ONLY do these things if they will agree to not only dismantle that nuclear reactor (not just shut it down, but destroy it so they can’t prepare their missiles then open it on short notice and produce a few bombs in a month). AND, there would be no deal unless there were enough U.N. inspectors to make sure their nuclear program wasn’t re-starting.

In addition, I would demand that all arms sales be approved by the U.S. or U.N. It’s intolerable for North Korea to sell ballistic missiles to unfriendly nations in the middle east or to terrorists. And I would also back that up by a demand to be able to stop North Korean ships and inspect them, or even have inspectors in port.

I could live with that arrangement. Unfortunately, I don’t think there is a hope in hell that North Korea will agree to anything remotely close to that. See, you guys are blaming Bush for this situation, and I’m blaming North Korea. THEY are the ones who decided to ship missiles into the gulf. THEY are the ones who are being belligerant. The U.S. was trying to negotiate with them - both directly, and behind the scenes by heartily approving of the overtures of Japan and South Korea.

So, I’d probably make an offer like that, and when North Korea refuses… I’m not sure. If negotiations start to break down, I’d probably start showing a little stick along with that carrot - move a carrier group into the Sea of Japan, build up some more forces in the DMZ, that sort of thing. Convince them that you’re not playing around, and they have no more room to negotiate.

If that didn’t work, I’d say the next step would be to bomb that nuclear reactor. Show strength. Let them know that you can be magnanimous, but if they won’t negotiate you’re prepared to do whatever it takes to stop them.

The problem is that Kim Jong-il is nuts enough to respond irrationally to having his reactor bombed. He could easily respond by firing missiles at South Korea, or doing something even more rash. Then we’ll be in a new Korean War, and no one wants that.

So… The other alternative is to do what the Bush administration is doing, which is to cut them off, completely. They want to play chicken. They should realize that they are driving a yugo and the U.S. is driving a Mack truck. So cut them off, make it hurt, and force them back to the bargaining table. Let them know who’s really running the show.

This strategy also has its dangers, but hell… What strategy doesn’t when you are dealing with madmen and nuclear weapons?

The one thing I DO know is that it is totally unacceptable for that nuclear reactor to go online. That must be prevented at ALL costs, up to and including war if it came to that. Because if North Korea can refine enough plutonium to make 50 bombs a year, there will be nukes all over the world before you can blink. al-Qaida will have them, Saddam will have them, Syria and Yemen will have them… North Korea has already shown its willingness to sell any weapon to any one. And it would even be in their interests to proliferate nuclear weapons, because it would be a disaster for the United States.

So that’s the bottom line. That reactor must not be active long enough to produce significant quantities of plutonium. Period.

The trick is getting North Korea to understand that their dream of having a nuclear arsenal is NOT going to happen, ever.

208

Well your initial proposal is pretty similar to mine though I am more confident that the North Koreans can be induced to accept it.

"behind the scenes by heartily approving of the overtures of Japan and South Korea. "
I don’t think this is accurate. IIRC the Bush administration was opposed to the “sunshine policy” ; that certainly seems to the opinion in the ruling party in South Korea.

As for “tailored containment” like I said it’s pretty much been shot down by the South Koreans. Whatever limited prospect there ever was of persuading the South Koreans has probably been blown away because of the way the administration handled the relationship.
“Because if North Korea can refine enough plutonium to make 50 bombs a year, there will be nukes all over the world before you can blink”
Not necessarily. You could have a permanent quarantine of North Korea where every vessel going out is checked by international forces. Even if it went on for decades it would probably be a lot cheaper than a single war and a lot less bloody.

And I suspect that the South Koreans and Japanese will never accept a pre-emptive war if it means sacrificing their capitals. I suspect the US wouldn’t either if New York and Washington DC were at stake.

209

BTW does anyone know if the US can even take out North Korean nuclear facilities from the air it it wants to? I would imagine that the N Koreans have take every possible defensive measure and put as much underground as possible. While I don’t think that an attack is realistic it might be useful to have as a threat.

210

Okay, so we’re fairly close on the first proposal. Now, what would you propose if North Korea WON’T accept it?

I don’t think containing North Korea’s nukes is a viable option. First of all, I don’t want the North Koreans to have nukes, period. They aren’t trustworthy. You only have to look at the long list of treaty violations and provocations from North Korea. Giving them the big hammer of nuclear weapons seems like an extraordinarily dangerous thing to do.

And I sure don’t want to trust external inspections to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of other rogue states and terrorists.

My main requirement stands - at all costs, that reactor has to be prevented from going online. Or at least, going online long enough to make enough plutonium for a bomb.

211

“First of all, I don’t want the North Koreans to have nukes, period”
Well that horse seems to have bolted already. Don’t the North Koreans already have one or two bombs according to the adminstration?

As for what happens if the diplomacy fails I would consider a containment strategy and maybe war as well.
The problem is I don't think the other regional powers will ever agree to the latter . So I just don't think that option is on the table unless you want the US to attack North Korea on its own (through aircraft carriers?). And as I mentioned ,I would first like to know how much  North Korea's nuclear facilities are vulnerable to air-strike in the first place.

So some sort of permanent quarantine may be the only solution though it’s not ideal either.

212

That is called a blockade, an act of war. North Korea has a navy much bigger than Cuba’s and they have used it before. That would start a war quicker than any suggestion I have heard. Your against tailored containment? What do you think this is? Its just a more extreme version of it. Make up your mind.

Yes I can answer this very easily. Not only could the US take out its nuclear facilities but it would be easy. Probably the only easy mission they could carry out in North Korea. Underground??? Underground is safe from what type of weapon exactly? North Korea currently has older Russian fighter planes much like Iraq that have no hope of maintaining air superiority, they have no way to accurately target stealth aircraft and that sums up their ground based defenses.

213

Um Knighthammer,
I suggest that you read more carefully. I made the suggestion of blockade as a last resort if diplomacy fails and North Korea acquires a significant arsenal and as an alternative to invasion. Therefore there is no inconsitency.

“Underground is safe from what type of weapon exactly?”
Most conventional bombs AFAIK. Which conventional bombs does the US have which can destroy underground facilities? Till what depth are they effective?

214

hougghh here is an old conventional bomb for you, something basic:

The Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28) Bunker Buster wasdeveloped for penetrating hardened Iraqi command centers located deep underground. The GBU-28 is a 5,000-pound laser-guided conventional munition that uses a 4,400-pound penetrating warhead.

A tests and real world combat experience proved that (one) bomb could penetrate over 20 feet of concrete after penetrating over 100 feet deep into the ground.

But just so you know the world military’s don’t have as much faith in underground facilities as you do there is an older weapon that could do the job better(not that we would use it/overkill). Two upgraded Iowa class battleships (The USS Iowa and USS Wisconson are maintained in war readiness Category B reserve as mandated by US Law.)

The impact crater of a 16" HC shell is 40 feet deep and 75 feet across, and the lethal schrapnel radius is 200 meters. The lethal concussion radius is 75 meters. The 16" DPICm munitions contain 882 cluster bomblets each. The ROF for the main guns is 2rpm, x 9 guns. So in one minute just one Iowa BB can deliver 24,840lbs of steel on target. In one hour, just one Iowa can deliver 1,490,400lbs of steel on target. That is the equivelant firepower of the ENTIRE US B-52 fleet. From one ship. Magazine capacity for the 16" guns is 1200rds.

This is from old technology (non-missile) so tell do you think modern US weaponry can’t deal with underground facilities?

Another question for you. Do you know what would happen if to a facility underneath a nuclear reactor if it was bombed???

215

I think we’re all agreed that North Korea is a very, very difficult problem. There are no really good options. Given that, I think the administration is handling this quite well at this point. I just saw Bush on TV saying that the U.S. is ‘confident’ that the crisis can be ended peacefully, and they are working the diplomatic track as hard as they can.

That may yet work. It’s no doubt the best chance to avoid conflict. And using a stick of economic isolation is a pretty powerful incentive - North Korea’s economy is barely hanging on by a thread now. My main worry is that this will just accelerate North Korea’s attempt to build an arsenal of nukes so it can threaten us before the money runs out.

Anyway, my condensed strategy would be: a) Try the diplomatic track, using whatever tools are at your disposal, but WITHOUT being seen as giving in to blackmail. And verification is a must. b) If that fails, bomb that reactor. Don’t let it go online. If Kim responds by attacking South Korea, Japan, or U.S. soldiers or ships, it’s time for a serious retaliation by air. Hopefully a full scale war could still be averted, but I’d respond to North Korean provocation by destroying some military assets and maybe bombing a palace or two. But I’d make sure the North Koreans knew the diplomatic option is still available. No one wants a second Korean war, especially now. Tying up the United States in Iraq and North Korea at the same time might make some other unstable nutbars think that this is the only chance they’ll ever have to do whatever it is that they want to do. I’d be worried about instability in Pakistan, Syria, and Iran. So let’s try to avoid another land war in Asia.

But I’ll repeat: That reactor can not go online. Yes, North Korea may have 1 or 2 nukes right now. That’s frightening, but maybe tolerable. What’s intolerable is a North Korea with 500 nuclear warheads sitting on top of long range missiles. And that’s where we could be in ten years if we try ‘containment’ while letting them build a nuclear arsenal at home.

The difference between one or two bombs and an arsenal of them is that North Korea dare not use its only bomb or two, because then it would have no deterrent threat to stop the rest of the world from stomping on it like a cockroach. But with 500, North Korea could believe that it could use them to attack South Korea, Japan, U.S. carrier fleets, etc., while keeping enough in reserve and aimed at major cities within range to keep an invasion force out. And they might even be right. That’s a horrible possibility to contemplate.

216

Thanks for the statistics but I am not convinced that the weapons you mention are necessarily sufficient for the job.

Check out this site about the Kumchangni caves which were suspected of hiding North Korean nuclear facilities.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/facility/kumchangni.htm

While the US government concluded that they didn’t have a nuclear reactor there in 1999, as the article says the North Koreans could support such a facility in the future with substantial modifications. (And of course the US might simply have been wrong)

If for the sake of argument we assume that the North Koreans do have nuclear facilities in those caves they could easily be deep enough beyond the reach of the weapons you described.

217

Here’s an interesting article that sheds a bit more light on the problem.

First, the Bush administration cut off the oil to North Korea after discovering a system of uranium enrichment facilities dispersed through the country, in violation of the previous agreement. And unfortunately, the CIA says it only know the location of some of them. So North Korea may be able to build nukes (albeit a smaller number) even if the other reactors don’t come back online.

Those reactors themselves are not underground - they can be bombed easily from a Carrier. But that doesn’t really solve the problem.

The other frightening thing is that North Korea is farther along with their missiles than I thought. Apparently, their last test in 1999 was a 3-stage missile that went 3,450 miles downrange, and would have put a small satellite in orbit had the third stage not failed. Even without that stage, that range is great enough to hit targets throughout Russia, Indonesia, the middle east, and eastern Europe. Hawaii as well. And if they perfect that missile, they have an ICBM that can hit anywhere in the U.S., apparently.

218

As for bunker busting, you may be right that conventional weapons won’t do the job.

But this thing would do the job.

Interestingly, the B61-11 nuclear bunker buster was rejected by Carter, Reagan, and Bush I, but was moved into production by the Clinton administration. How much you want to bet that this thing was produced precisely for potential use against North Korean underground nuclear facilities?

219

Yes I remember the article about those weapons a while back. Clearly the US wouldn’t develop such weapons if it thought that conventional weapons were enough.

But initiating an attack with nuclear weapons is a huge step and makes an attack even more problematic politicaly.

And if North Korea is attacked with nukes first that might make it more likely to respond in kind against the South and Japan. Te North also has chemical and biological weapons including smallpox according to the WP. If these are used in addition to the nukes and the artillery attacks you could be talking about millions dead.

220

Yep. I wasn’t saying that the thing should be used. I was just pointing it out because we were talking about whether the U.S. had the ability to dig out an underground facility.

But Knighthammer’s point about the battleships is valid as well. A single 16 in shell couldn’t penetrate those caves, but how about 1,000 of them, all dropped on the same spot? It’d be like the world’s biggest jackhammer.

Where are those caves located? Are they within naval bombardment range?