Here is the treaty: cite
Note, in particular, articles III and IV
“The U.S. will provide formal assurances to the DPRK, against the threat or use of nuclear weapons by the U.S.”
“Both sides will work together to strengthen the international nuclear non-proliferation regime.”
The U.S., in fact, did the exact opposite. In fact, the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review specifically mentions North Korea as a possible nuclear target.
No, merely to assert it - your terrible argumentation is not relevant. You specifically claimed that
I.e., you said that North Korea’s resumption of its nuclear program was a direct result of Bush’s cutting off relations with it. You can’t make that claim without any kind of cite (or even argument) in the first place, and then when I specifically refute it, call the validity of my cite into doubt. To be honest, I’m not even sure for what you believe there is a lack of evidence:
[ul]
[li]That North Korea has resumed its nuclear program[/li][li]That North Korea’s resumption of its nuclear program constitutes a violation of international agreements[/li][li]That North Korea resumed its nuclear program with Bush as US President[/li][/ul]
And also, what kind of source would you term “objective”? I’m not sure Z Magazine qualifies…
That third bullet should actually say “before Bush was US President”
No I didn’t.
I merely said that things were going well before Bush came into office. I made no mention at all as to precisely when North Korea started it’s nuke program. I suspect that it continued from the early nineties in ways that were not in violation of the 94 agreement. What’s the problem with that ? On the other hand, I do have a problem with a belligerent US foreign policy that provokes grandiose threats from unstable foreign leaders.
You quoted an unsupported assertion that the North Korean program was in violation of the 94 agreement. That may very well be true, but I’d like to hear the NPRK’s take on that as well as the administration’s.
So let me get this straight. Do you think that North Korea maintaining a nuclear weapons development program could rightfully be considered “things going well”?
Reminds me of two little kids bickering over who did it first.
Chumpsky, learn to read correctly. My OP deals specifically with North Korea’s violations, not America’s alleged violations. Do not hijack my thread. Consider this my only warning.
This CRS brief advances the mid-'90s take on things.
http://fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/IB91141.pdf
I think we can safely assume at this point that the '94 treaty just didn’t take. The report claims they made a weapon from the pre-'94 plutonium, but didn’t stop there - they played with uranium as well. Neither is encouraging to say the least.
There are some other interesting points, however.
U.S. intelligence had the idea this was going on as early as 1998. Regardless, Clinton continued to approach NK even as he conceded to Congress in 2000 that they were probably breaking the treaty.
Bush does not want ‘two crises’. The first of a four-point list of his reactions to NK’s revelation is ‘continuing priority to Iraq’.
The more I think about it, the less difference I see in the two Presidents’ approach to NK. Both steer well clear of potential military confrontation. That would be, well, messy. Clinton showed more carrot and Bush more stick, but their actual actions - embargoes, verbal finger-waving on treaty points - are pretty much the same.
Once one party has violated a treaty, the treaty is no longer valid, and the other party is no longer bound by the treaty.
Duh.
It was 21 years ago, on June 7, 1981, that 16 Israeli warplanes bombed and destroyed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear research facility near Baghdad, more than 600 miles from Israel’s borders. This radical step was taken to prevent Saddam Hussein from acquiring the means to make nuclear weapons. While it was roundly condemned at the time, I’m pretty sure everyone with an ounce of sense (I guess that leaves out some posters to this thread) is glad of it now.
This week, the North Koreans are recomissioning a nuclear power plant capable of manufactuing weapons-grade plutonium. This step is in clear breach of their commitments and treaty obligations. Shouldn’t the US administration take a leaf out of Israel’s book, and wipe this plant off the map before it’s too late!
Sure, things are good as long as the NPRK
a) doesn’t use nukes, or even threaten to use them
b) moves towards reforming its internal structures
c) develops tighter relations with other countries and begins to reintegrate with the South
Since it’s likely they possessed plutonium bombs back in the early 90’s, that left the US with only two courses of action that might produce a desireable outcome: Go to war with the bastards and take them out,or attempt to reintigrate the NPRK with the civilized world. Clinton chose the less destructive option. That leaves Bush with plan B, or nothing at all. It’s not obvious yet what he’s actually shooting for.
That said, I’ve screwed up my arguments badly enough that it’d take pages of wrangling and misunderstanding and nitpicking to correct matters. I think it’s probably for the best if I back off and let someone else have a whack at this.
You mean like in the Korean War?
I thought you were swearing up and down that there was no proof Saddam had WMD. Changed your mind?
Regards,
Shodan
So you are saying that it is violating a treaty if the US asks itself, “What do we do if the North Koreans violate the treaty and attack South Korea?”
Especially difficult to believe since violating the treaty is exactly what the North Koreans did.
Or are you trying to argue that by violating the treaty and developing nuclear arms, the North Koreans were actually abiding by the agreement against proliferation?
I give up. I can’t tell if I agree with you if I can’t understand what you mean.
Regards,
Shodan
Point of fact, there isn’t any such proof. He may very well possess such things, I suspect that he does, but my suspicions are of no more importance than your own, that is, none. My concern is the threat he may or may not pose to us. My opinion is that such threat as he may pose is not sufficient for us to abandon civilized behavior and launch a pre-emptive, which is to say aggressive, war.
You seem to specialize in pithy, succinct sarcasms without much in the way of explication. Do you expect us to gasp in awe and wonder? You are likely to be disappointed, most of us here expect a bit more in the way of argumentation. Facts, for instance, would be a good start.
Whether or not N. Korea is an honorable correspondent, in the sense of making and keeping agreements seems to me to be the lesser question. The real question is what to do about it.
We seem to be enamored lately of pre-emptive action, and I fear this is a very dangerous trend. It simply isn’t possible to prevent other countries from developing nuclear weapons, the technology is more than fifty years old, there is nothing to be done about it. If Pakistan can develop nuclear weapons, and they are as much a basket case as any nation on the subcontintent, then so can anyone. If Nigeria is determined to have such a weapon, they will.
Further, we simply cannot divide the world into friendly powers, who are permitted such development, and unfriendly, who are not. We lack the moral authority for such, and I doubt the rest of the world will stand for it. At the very least, they are likely to conspire against such high-handed hegemony.
NK is in desperate trouble, both economicly and politically. If we are smart, we will handle the situation with great caution. If we have to swallow a bit of pride, so be it, we are the greatest power on Earth, we have an abundance to draw on. If a minor diplomatic victory will cool their jets, fine. Next time SK hints they might like our troops withdrawn, let’s comply with alacrity, the less we have at risk, the better.
I agree with rampisad’s assessment and possible solution to the problem. North Korea seems to alternately shut down their nuclear program and turn it back on almost by whim. I think the U.S. should nuke North Korea’s nuclear facilities and then politely apologize.
Interesting. Are you contemplating the standard issue thermonuke, rumored to be about 35 megatons of stern diplomacy? How heavily populated is the area in question? This might have some bearing on the degree of politeness required, i.e., ten thousand dead, “sorry about that”, one hundred thousand dead “really very sorry” above that, “really dreadfully sorry about that.”
Perhaps we could send the remaining family members Christmas cards, with coupons good for attractive discounts on Amway products. Or informative brochures, like “So…You’re Children Are Toast!! Now What?”.
Let me rephrase this, in case it is too subtle: Are you out of your FUCKING MIND!!!
we can assassinate the scientist that work on it
elucidator: You know, I agree with you that blowing up the plant is probably not a good idea, but why do you have to resort to inflammatory rhetoric? Where did anyone advocate dropping a thermonuclear bomb on it? I suspect that one well-placed 2,000 lb JDAM could probably disable the plant for a long time, and wouldn’t hurt anyone outside of the plant’s perimeter.
That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. It’s important to remember that Kim Jong-il is NUTS. And he has nuclear weapons. People like that have to be handled very carefully. This is my argument FOR attacking Saddam - a Saddam with nukes become an incredibly difficult problem. Just like North Korea is currently an incredibly difficult problem.
Now that North Korea has nukes, the equation changes. You have to be very, very careful how you deal with them. Because if Kim decides to wipe out a major city in South Korea or Japan, or take out a major U.S. base along with 5,000 soldiers, all hell will break loose.
I’m very new here, and I’m not sure if this can be construed as a hijack, but I’m curious about the lack of media attention to the probable sources of North Korean nuclear expertise, for e.g., Pakistan.
I know that I will have to provide a cite :), thats the rule, so here it is:
How come there is so little nuclear non-proliferation hoo-ha, about where N Korea actually got its technology, and is thus able to play its “Axis of Evil” part now?
onlooker
Well, I presume that the realpolitik answer would be that since Pakistan is an ally in the War on Terror, that they are temporarily shielded from outspoken American criticism of their past actions. The key word here is temporarily, as it could plausibly come back to haunt them eventually.