The North Korean Problem

Great Debates
261

Yes, the plutonium was there before the agreement. I should have been clearer about that. But you don’t just make a nuclear bomb overnight, even if you have the plutonium. Unless they had finished bombs in their inventory in 1994, they still had to build them.

Do you really, honestly believe that there is not enough evidence of the existence of a nuclear program before Bush came to power? Really? If so, I don’t know what else to say. It’s not just ‘the suspicions of some Senators’. It was the opinion of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Congress, the CIA, the Chinese, Japanese, and the Clinton administration itself. Why else did they start the Perry initiative?

If you’re looking for a picture of a smiling North Korean holding a device with ‘Nuclear bomb’ stenciled on the side, in font of a 1998 calendar, then no, there’s no proof. But I think reasonable people have looked at the evidence and concluded that the program is there, and has been there for years. That includes the officials of both the Clinton and Bush administrations.

I find this constant nit-picking in the face of overwhelming evidence really tiresome. Maybe someone else can convince you.

262

In typically smooth diplomatic fashion, Mr. Bush today declared that the reclusive North Korean leader today is “somebody who starves his people.” No doubt he expects the parallel to his remarks about Saddam “somebody who gases his own people”, to be lost on madman Kim. I’m sure he could help defuse this crisis by proclaiming that “he has no war plans on his desk”, but he said that about Iraq just a few months ago.

263

If the evidence is overwhelming, as you say, then surely someone can produce a small piece of it that we might examine for ourselves. I for one am not a fan of all this president’s faith based initiatives, and I see no reason to head down the road to another war on the basis of hearsay and innuendo. I’d like to see that all the i’s get dotted and the t’s get crossed. Is that so pedantic given the stakes here ?

264

Maybe not acceptable. Unavoidable may be more to the point.

Does Libya have plutonium? Syria? Damn good bet Iran does.

So what do we do, Sam? Declare a world wide hegemony? If you don’t love us, you can’t have technology 50 years old? How are we to enforce the Stone Doctrine?

265

I have offered a fairly long description of what I think might be a prudent course of action, but that’s another issue. The issue I’m addressing here is the notion that North Korea was being a good citizen, abiding by its treaties, until that renegade cowboy George Bush came along and scared them so badly that they decided they needed to protect themselves by re-starting their weapons programs.

The truth is that North Korea has always been belligerant, and it signed an agreement in 1994 that it clearly had no intention of keeping. Instead, it just moved its programs underground, and continued with its missile program (there can be NO doubt about that, since they very publically fired one off in 1998). The Clinton administration admitted all this, and announced a new plan to stop them. North Korea balked, and Clinton let it slide.

Now Bush comes along, and he ISN’T willing to just let it slide. So he went public with the facts, North Korea finally admitted what it had been doing all along, and now there’s a showdown.

Those are the facts, as best as we can tell. I don’t think reasonable people would dispute them. We can argue over whether the Bush policy is correct or not, but the essential facts are really not in dispute by anyone except certain partisans who want to desperately believe that George Bush is responsible for everything bad going on in the world right now.

Squink wants ‘hard proof’. He hasn’t said what that proof is. I have offered about as good a set of facts as are possible in situations like this. After all, North Korea is the toughest country in the world to see inside. It makes Iraq look like a garden party. But the facts and timeline I cited above are not in serious dispute by any party I know of, and there is independent confirmation from a number of other countries including the Chinese, who I think we’d all agree are not excited about the possibility of a conflict.

And elucidator, your attempt to try and make North Korea look like just one of the boys, another indistinguishable dictatorship, just won’t wash. North Korea isn’t Syria or Libya. North Korea is a frighteningly bellicose state, with a real nutbar running it. North Korea has missiles that can hit the United States. North Korea has 1 million men under arms, a reserve of six million more, 11,000 artillery tubes pointed at downtown Seoul, and a history of selling arms of any sort to anyone who wants them.

You know, there’s a reason why North Korea, Iraq, and Iran were singled out by Bush. They truly are in a league of their own in terms of threats to the world.

But to answer your question - if Libya or Syria suddenly started up a nuclear reactor and planned to make 50 nukes a year, the U.S., Britain, or Israel would demand that they stop immediately, and would smash their reactor if they didn’t. Remember Iraq’s attempt to do what North Korea is doing? We all know what happened there, courtesy of Israel. Thank God.

It sounds to me like you’re saying we should just give up on nuclear proliferation. Is that it? The genie is out of the bottle, there’s no going back, so we might as well just lie back and accept it?

266

Certainly not, Sam. I wouldn’t consider such a passive acceptance. I plan to follow your plan to prevent such proliferations.

Which is what, exactly?

267

There are two sides to this debate, but they have absolutely nothing to do with Clinton & Bush. When it comes to national security, most American presidents mostly agree on most issues.
So what are the two sides?

From the point of view of the rest of the world:

1 - The U.S. is the only power in the world that has ever used nuclear weapons. Further, those weapons were used not defensively but as a first strike against a non-nuclear power.
2 - The U.S. and the other Western powers have refused to adopt a “No First Use” policy on nuclear weapons. This is in sharp contrast to China, which has consistently stated that it will not use nuclear weapons first. Of course, now we’ve been joined in the nuclear club by Pakistan and India, and Israel almost certainly has some nukes as well.
So from the POV of NK, they see no reason why they can’t have them either, I’m sure, especially given the downright belligerent stance of the Western powers re their own policy towards the use of their nukes.
Cites:

http://www.ceip.org/programs/npp/brief17.htm
http://www.nti.org/db/china/nfuorg.htm

The U.S. side:

Basically what Sam Stone said, except that he’s not stating it as bluntly as it should be stated re NK. NK is, as someone else pointed out around here, technically still at war with SK. It’s pretty obvious that everything they do re their foreign policy is directed towards the single goal of taking over South Korea. There would be no other reason to keep so many men under arms, nor to have so much artillery positioned in such a deliberately provocative manner.
The previous SK president maintained a “sunshine policy” towards NK. NK correctly figures that it can drive a wedge between SK and the U.S., and as far as I can tell, they’ve succeeded. If they can get the U.S. to withdraw its troops, the field will then be clear for them to take over the South.
There is zero doubt in my mind that as soon as the last American soldier leaves the South, the North will rapidly invade with everything they’ve got.
My question is simple: why do we care? The North only takes the attitude it takes towards us because as far as they’re concerned we stand in the way of their goal of reunifying the peninsula on their terms. As far as I can tell from all the rioting going on in the South, we’re not welcome there anymore. So let’s leave. I mean, even the big SK conglomerates are dying to do more business with the North.
Let them. Let them see how long “business” would last under a Korea reunified by force by the North.
I honestly don’t know why we care. As far as I’m concerned, neither of the Koreas are worth the life of a single American soldier or American tax dollar.

268

Because people will die? Is there a better reason?

269

Sooner or later, someone will die.
Why in heaven’s name do they have to be Americans? The war was 50 years ago. The Cold War is over. There’s no reason to be there.
It’s not our affair. The South Koreans are being quite emphatic in saying so.
So let’s just get out.

270

That’s a good one. Also because we have made a commitment to defend South Korea, and they haven’t asked us to abrogate it.

And also because Japan would freak out, having a Stalinist Korea across the Sea of Japan.

And also because North Korea would gain immediate access to South Korean technology and money, which would not be a good thing. The main limiting factor to North Korean ambitions right now is the terrible state of their economy. What would a Korea be like run by Kim Jong-il, and with even half of the GDP of the current two put together?

Also because South Korea is an important player in the world economy, and the disruptions would be dramatic.

It’s hard to imagine a situation more dangerous and destabilizing than the invasion of South Korea by North Korea.

Abandoning South Korea would be an extremely dangerous thing to do. It would be less dangerous to simply engage North Korea militarily (not that I’d recommend that either…)

271

Oh, and let’s add the biggie - South Korea is capable of defending itself, which means that I believe such a conflict would result in North Korea using whatever nukes it has. We’re talking millions dead, huge economic shocks, and in the end the U.S. would probably have to step in and end it anyway, except the cost now would be huge, both in lives and money.

“let the ungrateful South Koreans fend for themselves” makes for a good sound bite for some, but the reality is that pulling out of South Korea would be a disaster.

272

You know whose problems those are? China’s. They’re big enough to deal with them, it’s in their backyard, so they’re the ones who should be handling this.
Our stance should be to park an aircraft carrier or two, along with a few battleships, close enough to NK to make the point that if they attack Japan, they’ll have to answer for it. Big time.
As for the destabilizing effect of losing access to SK technology: that’ll be a blip at best. Anything SK can provide can also be provided by Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, and probably some other countries I’m not thinking of right now. It would be a problem, but hardly a big one.
We have interests just like any other country. Those interests shouldn’t include defending a country that doesn’t want us to. It quite simply is no longer any of our business what happens on the Korean peninsula.

273

Your interests are all intertwined. Free democracies in today’s world are an interrelated web of shared interests and investments. Many American companies have invested heavily in South Korea. Many Americans live there. Many Korean immigrants living in the United States have relatives in South Korea. There may be South Koreans reading this thread. They are your friends, even if the relationship is going through a tough time.

274

Taking that one by one:

1 - Companies that invest abroad do so fully cognizant of the risks. If not, it’s not the problem of the U.S. government. It’s not like all of this stuff isn’t blatantly public.
2 - Americans living there should of course be evacuated if they so choose. I don’t know if it’s our policy to compensate people for economic losses in cases like these, but I can’t imagine that something wouldn’t be forthcoming.
3 - Korean immigrants made a choice to live here, not there. 'Nuff said.

We should have cordial relations with Korea, in whatever form that country winds up taking. The form Korea takes should be left up to the Koreans. The problems that get caused by whatever form it takes are, as I said before, China’s. To a lesser extent, Japan’s, but as Japan is a far more important country to us and are restricted by treaty from having anything other than a strictly defensive military force, we should continue to extend to them all the protection they need against any possible belligerence from Korea.

275

Geeze Sam, finally you say something that makes sense. What happens to South Korea is important to us. The trouble I’m having here is that this confrontational posturing which you support is likely to have severe consequences for South Korea. Can you supply any evidence that the administration has taken this into account with its “tailored containment” strategy ? Apparently we’re still refusing direct talks with the North Korean’s so there’s no chance of working out a revised 94 type agreement. Are you content to have the on the US wait on the sidelines to see how it works out, and to pounce if that reactor starts up, or do you think we could do better ?

276

Hey, if I could solve this problem I’d be earning the big money. I’m not trying to claim I know all the answers. All I’m saying is that I’d rather be a realist about the nature of the North Korean regime and deal with it for what it is, and not what I wish it would be.

BTW, George Bush has been all over the media in the last couple of days, saying that he has faith that this can be solved diplomatically. No one is interested in a war here. Most especially the Bush adminstration. If they are forced to talk tough and take a hard line, I’ll just have to accept that they believe this approach represents the best way to handle the situation. But so far, they’ve been avoiding the tough talk. Since the weekend, the administration has been sounding quite conciliatory.

I guess we’ll see.

277

I’d agree that they seem to be trying to move in that direction, but Bush’s remarks about Kim being a guy who “starves his people” was made on 2 Jan. I guess it sometimes takes the president a little extra time to get with the program. I’m all for taking a realistic approach to the crisis, but that requires that we also take into account the differing needs of our friends and rivals in the region. Maybe that’s starting to happen, but it’s not yet certain.

278

This is a great debate, it’s changed my opinion on the matter more then a few times. A quick question in regards to the quote above. Does the rest of the world support that view? I don’t feel that they do, as they seem to be quite casual about it. I realize the US has a lot at stake in this situation, however I get the impression from the above that entire world would be effected.

279

This sounds to me a great deal like saying, “So what if North Korea invades South Korea? We will send our diplomats to Pyongyang as soon as the dust settles.”

And I would be interested in why the arguments for defending Japan don’t apply to South Korea.

Regards,
Shodan

280

I haven’t been following the world press a whole lot, so I have no idea what the people think around the world. But rest assured that other western nations almost certainly agree about defending South Korea. The Korean War was a multi-national effort.

No one’s about to abandon South Korea.