How serious is the nuclear threat from N. Korea?

[kimo55]

ok. show of hands.
does this even remotely bother anyone?

North Korea:
"we got nukes. and we will use them."

where dey goin use em?
where would YOU?!

at da obvious targets:
Ay mur ick cun Nuclear Arms Storage facilities.
what datchuh say?
No boddah me cuz we safe heah.

BUT.
(and it's a big but.)
Nanakuli, Waianae... etc... is a major U.S. military Nuclear Warhead arms munitions repository.
This is a very likely target.




what say you?

[1stwahine]

ok. show of hands.
does this even remotely bother anyone?

North Korea:
"we got nukes. and we will use them."

where dey goin use em?
where would YOU?!

at da obvious targets:
Ay mur ick cun Nuclear Arms Storage facilities.
BUT.
(and it's a big but.)
Nanakuli, Waianae... etc... is a major U.S. military Nuclear Warhead arms munitions repository.
This is a very likely target.




what say you?

Stop making the others scared! If it hits, so what. We won't feel a thing! I'll see Heaven Faster... :cool:

[helen]

Depends on the number of nuclear warheads that North Korea has. If they got 10 or less warheads I wouldn't be too worried about it.

[kimo55]

Depends on the number of nuclear warheads that North Korea has. If they got 10 or less warheads I wouldn't be too worried about it.

even though NK is assumed to have anywhere between 2 to 15,

all we need is one.


then Henry will not resemble a precious stone as much as sizzlin bacon in da fryer.
We'll experience a few levels of hell slower before we see any heaven faster.

But thanx for da optimism and geography lesson anyway.
denial is still a river in Egypt.

[Miulang]

Maybe the North Korean government is just playing chicken with the US by finally publicly admitting that it has at least one nuclear weapon, hoping it can force the White House into bilateral talks rather than the 6-way talks that were going on, and maybe the majority of Americans are saying, "so what?" , but the people in Hawai'i should be alarmed, very alarmed. It is known that the North Korean missile carrying that payload has a long-enough range that it could theoretically hit either Hawai'i or Alaska.

So since the N. Koreans have a nuclear weapon and we never did find any WMDs in Iraq, why aren't we threatening to invade N. Korea, too? Could it be because The People's Republic and Pakistan are good friends of the N. Korean regime? The best way to disarm the N. Koreans is not through war. Its people are starving to death. Feed the people and the problem with that kooky Kim Il Jung just might take care of itself.

Miulang

http://www.qctimes.com/internal.php?story_id=1045299&t=Nation+%2F+World&c=26,1045299

[Glen Miyashiro]

I'm no geopolitical expert, but I would think North Korea would target Seoul or Tokyo first before any USA cities.

[Miulang]

This could go either in the Iran or N. Korea thread (or a Pakistan thread, which I fear will need to be created soon :mad: ), but unbeknownst to all of us loyal, taxpaying Americans, the White House has quietly been going about gathering steam and supporters for the creation of something called a "Modern Pit Facility", which is a place where they would make the plutonium "pits", which are the trigger for nuclear bombs. This plant could produce up to 450 "pits" a year. The government was also considering building smaller pit facilities which could produce 125 or 250 pits per year. Right now, we have a plutonium pit facility at Los Alamos, NM, which has a production rate of 50 pits per year.

According to a 2003 report by the Western States Legal Foundation, Los Alamos Study Group, the government says the pit facilities are necessary to replenish our current nuclear arsenal and to "insure that the US has the ability to build new kinds of nuclear warheads if the government decides they are needed..." :eek:

What this report tells me is, even though production at the new pit facility is not scheduled to start until 2011 (the government was only in its initial planning stages for this new pit facility at the time of the report), the Bush Administration had already decided to ramp up the production of nuclear warheads in a time of peace.

So what gives? It's OK for us to be armed to the teeth, but it's not OK for anyone else to have nuclear warheads? Is this how we maintain our superiority over everyone else? Then it's no wonder all these so called "Axis of Evil" countries feel they have a right to defend themselves by acquiring nuclear warheads, too.

Again, history has its precedents in the nuclear buildup that lead to the Cold War. Jeez. I thought as a society we were evolving; instead we're going backwards! Will they put up the Berlin Wall again, too? I'm convinced the United States doesn't want peace in this world; all we know how to do is make war. :mad:

Miulang

http://wslfweb.org/docs/mpfinfo.pdf

[helen]

If we are building new warheads to replace aging warheads and still keep the same number of warheads then this should be okay.

[Miulang]

If we are building new warheads to replace aging warheads and still keep the same number of warheads then this should be okay.
Warheads don't go "stale" every year; we're currently replacing them at a rate of 50 a year via the Los Alamos site. What the intent is is to build up a bigger arsenal and to have the capacity available for "anytime the government decides we need to have more warheads."

Miulang

[Miulang]

When the US and other signers of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty met last year to discuss progress with meeting the accord that was signed over 30 years ago, the US stated that it was in compliance with the terms of the Agreement.

The Western Legal Front produced a report with facts that showed that the US was not meeting the terms of the Agreement. This is very disturbing because it gives countries like Russia even more reason not to believe us.

http://wslfweb.org/docs/uscompliance04.pdf

Miulang

[Miulang]

When things get too tense in the Middle East or if an attack on Europe is imminent, the White House has developed a plan to ship nuclear warheads to countries which currently do not have the weapons as a way to weasel around the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.

The AFP article below about a Natural Resources Defense Council report says that 180 nuclear warheads we have today in Europe are deployed at air force bases in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey and Britain. 300 of them are still housed in the US and would be delivered by US F-15s and F-16s fighter jets.

"The report also sheds light on a secret 1994 US Air Force document that lists 15 nuclear bombing ranges scattered all over Europe, including one in Suippes, France, despite the fact that France is not part of NATO’s nuclear command structure. Moreover, it lists one such training range in the North African nation of Tunisia that is not a member of Western military alliance at all.
"...[The Report] ...argues that preparations for delivering the 180 nuclear bombs are taking place in peacetime, and “equipping non-nuclear countries with the means to conduct nuclear warfare is inconsistent with today’s international efforts to dissuade other countries from obtaining nuclear weapons.”

“If China deployed nuclear bombs in North Korea, equipped North Korean aircraft with mechanical and electronic devices to deliver the weapons, and trained North Korean pilots to draw up nuclear strike plans, there would be hell to pay, and rightly so,” said Hans Kristensen, the author of the report. “Yet that is precisely what the United States is doing in Europe.” The Defense Department declined to comment on the report, citing its longstanding policy of not publicly discussing deployments of nuclear weapons. "...

Everytime the government "declines" to comment on something, you know it's probably at least 90% true.

"...According to the report, the start of President George W Bush’s first term in office was marked by a quiet withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from Greece, a full-fledged NATO ally. In April 2001, US Air Force headquarters in Europe issued a secret order to move 20 nuclear bombs out of Araxos Air Base in Greece to an unknown destination. "...

So we're outsourcing our nuclear weapons so we don't get our hands slapped?Too bad most of the leaders of the "Axis of Evil" and other places that don't believe in our brand of democracy are too smart to fall for that shell game. And so far, Iran, Pakistan and N. Korea have all called our bluff.

Miulang

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_11-2-2005_pg4_1

[scrivener]

I'm no geopolitical expert, but I would think North Korea would target Seoul or Tokyo first before any USA cities.

I'm with Glen. An attack on the U.S. would not be in North Korea's best interest. Is North Korea likely to use what it has? I say yes--something else we don't hear anything about is that North Koreans are hungry. Hunger breeds desperation, and desperation causes people to do unpredictable things. A hit on someone we care about (Japan or South Korea) would force us to do something.

Even if North Korea doesn't strike, it will use the threat in order to get what it wants, which is not land, power, or anything like that. The nuclear threat is not a military-minded threat. It's a leveraging threat, aimed at getting us to help North Korea with feeding and caring for its people.

[helen]

Warheads don't go "stale" every year; we're currently replacing them at a rate of 50 a year via the Los Alamos site. What the intent is is to build up a bigger arsenal and to have the capacity available for "anytime the government decides we need to have more warheads."


They don't, but you don't replace all the warheads at one time either.

[Miulang]

They don't, but you don't replace all the warheads at one time either.
Precisely, Helen, and that's why this plan to create another facility that can produce another 450 plutonium pits annually (if the plant was just operating under normal 8 hour days) doesn't make sense unless it is a definite plan to ramp up nuclear warhead manufacturing. And why would we want to do that if we signed a nuclear nonproliferation agreement? What excuse will we use? That we aren't keeping those weapons for ourselves but are arming every other "friend" of the US with the capability of blowing up the world? That, in itself is a violation of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.

Miulang

[pzarquon]

An attack on the U.S. would not be in North Korea's best interest.North Korea is not a country known for reliably acting in its best interests. Mr. Bossman is just a wee bit unstable, and it's frightening to think that there is, in fact, a button somewhere for him to press.

[subsailor]

I'm with Glen. An attack on the U.S. would not be in North Korea's best interest.

In rejecting talks with North Korea (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/02/11/nkorea.talks/index.html) I think the US is being very foolish. And not exhausting all diplomatic options prior to any use of force is very dangerous when dealing with a belligerent nuclear-capable adversary.

As concerned as I am about North Korea's nuclear weapons, I think it very foolish to reject calls for talks initiated by North Korea. Bush is being his usual stubborn "my way or the highway" self, and while North Korea may need to be dealt with by force someday, he's committing the same idiotic error that got us into Iraq (with no WMD's even being there)...he is not exhausting all other avenues to resolve the situation. A war in North Korea before bilateral talks have been attempted would be wrong on many levels. Only imminent threat or the absolute failure of all other options would justify military action. And if indeed North Korea has the nuclear weapons they claim to have we would need to be very careful in any action we take; hasty, ill-planned, and foolish actions (like we took in Iraq) could be much more deadly to us if Pyongyang lobs a nuke our way...which, if faced with an imminent US invasion, they just might.

[Miulang]

Sometimes diplomacy makes no sense and is totally stupid, but if all Kim Jong-Il wants to hear from Mungo Bush and Condeleeeeeeeeza Rice is that the US has "no hostile intent (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/022205D.shtml)" toward N. Korea, why are they putting us and the rest of the world on the precipice of catastrophe by not uttering those 3 little words??? :eek: The President has skirted around using those words all along, as has Condi. The only US representative who has ever said those 3 little words to the North Koreans was Colin Powell, and he's out of the White House now.

Miulang

[kimo55]

Next stop: Pearl Harbor.


"N. Korea Fires Missile Into Sea of Japan" ;


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/05/01/international/i075737D32.DTL

[Miulang]

Well, I guess we could now stop speculating and say for sure that N. Korea (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003295701_koreapost09.html)can be a nuclear threat to Asia and Hawaii and the West Coast unless the White House starts acting like a nation that wants to prevent nuclear proliferation rather than only talking like one.

I never have understood how we and the other nuclear powers of the world (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/100906A.shtml) can insist that other countries without the technology should never have access to it while we hold on tightly to our own weapons of mass destruction.:mad:

Miulang

[Leo Lakio]

Well, I guess we could now stop speculating and say for sure that N. Korea (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003295701_koreapost09.html)can be a nuclear threat to Asia and Hawaii and the West CoastThough we should still await independent confirmation (http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/dn10256-scientific-world-gathers-data-on-nuclear-test.html) that the test actually was nuclear.

[Miulang]

Current information (http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=ja06norris)on the number of nuclear warheads in storage around the world. The US and Russia own about 97% of them. On the other hand, it would only take the explosion of one of these to change life as we know it for thousands of years into the future. Rather than just obsoleting our stockpile, the Defense Dept. has contracted some companies to come up with a next generation nuclear device.

Miulang

[Miulang]

Though we should still await independent confirmation (http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/dn10256-scientific-world-gathers-data-on-nuclear-test.html) that the test actually was nuclear.
Seismic activity (http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/national/news/20061009p2a00m0na028000c.html)from an artificial explosion was detected on a seismograph in Japan yesterday (today for those over the Intl Dateline).

Miulang

[Leo Lakio]

Seismic activity (http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/national/news/20061009p2a00m0na028000c.html)from an artificial explosion was detected on a seismograph in Japan yesterday (today for those over the Intl Dateline).As the New Scientist article noted:Only careful analysis of data returned by seismic or atmospheric sensors will determine whether the blast was a success or a damp squib, they say. Nor could they rule out the possibility of a scam, in which North Korea blew up a huge stock of conventional explosives to bolster its claim to have joined the nuclear club.Just because Prez Dumbya says it happened...well, you probably have as much faith in the truth behind his statements as I do, Miulang.

[christa]

ok. show of hands.
does this even remotely bother anyone?

North Korea:
"we got nukes. and we will use them."

where dey goin use em?
where would YOU?!

at da obvious targets:
Ay mur ick cun Nuclear Arms Storage facilities.
what datchuh say?
No boddah me cuz we safe heah.

BUT.
(and it's a big but.)
Nanakuli, Waianae... etc... is a major U.S. military Nuclear Warhead arms munitions repository.
This is a very likely target.




what say you?

*raises hand*
has bothered me for a while. always thought if they were gonna "try it out" they would do a U.S.-held "territory" that would cause horrible damage but a place remote enough so as to "see just how bad" the fallout would be............. like....... here.

but as auntie said. eh. it would be fast. and afterlife would be grand. i think?



*continues to live in happiness bubble of immediate and easily controlled surroundings*

[Leo Lakio]

afterlife would be grand. i think?Those of you who follow this belief - thanks, but please don't invite me along.:D
(Besides...I think I'd fail the entrance exam.):rolleyes:

[christa]

thus the words "would" and "i think"

like anyone really knows!

[Leo Lakio]

like anyone really knows!Wisely put, cw. That's where you turn to "faith" to guide you; whether I share the same faith with you or not is irrelevant. (Or, if we can laugh about the differences, irreverent.) I meant my comment with the lightest of hearts, and respect for the many HT posters who have any level of belief in an afterlife, especially since most of them also show respect for my lack of said belief.

[glossyp]

I never have understood how we and the other nuclear powers of the world (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/100906A.shtml) can insist that other countries without the technology should never have access to it while we hold on tightly to our own weapons of mass destruction.:mad:

Miulang
The only reason the North Koreans have the ability to do what they have done is because we gave them the technology to build light water reactors, ostensibly for power generation. Your attitude that every country that wants nuclear technology should have it because, gee whiz, it's just not fair to keep the club so small, demonstrates a truly simplistic world view. Guess you really think Iran and North Korea are responsible world citizens on a par with Japan and the U.S. Or, is it because you believe unilateral disarmament is a good idea?

[Miulang]

The only reason the North Koreans have the ability to do what they have done is because we gave them the technology to build light water reactors, ostensibly for power generation. Your attitude that every country that wants nuclear technology should have it because, gee whiz, it's just not fair to keep the club so small, demonstrates a truly simplistic world view. Guess you really think Iran and North Korea are responsible world citizens on a par with Japan and the U.S. Or, is it because you believe unilateral disarmament is a good idea?
Guess what? We're also in the process of giving nuclear technology to Egypt, too (except this hasn't been made too widely known in this country). And guess where Zarqawi and his successor hail from? EGYPT.

Did you know that Iran signed the nonproliferation treaty, too? So did North Korea, in 1985. The Clinton Administration had come close to totally disarming N. Korea right before the end of its term, but when the Bush White House came into power, it disavowed any intentions of honoring the Clinton agreement (part of which included allowing N. Korea to develop nuclear technology for civilian use and sending aid to help feed its people) by naming N. Korea as one of the "axis of evil", so N. Korea became the only country to renounce its participation. Since 2001, Bushco have insisted that they would not "talk to the enemy", and since N. Korea is a desperately poor country with lots of hungry mouths to feed, what else could a deranged despot do but try to develop something (i.e. nuclear capability) that it could sell to terrorists or other countries seeking nuclear parity? What do you think Pakistan did with its nuclear secrets?

South Africa and Kazakhstan (and I think Kyrghzstan recently) are the only nation states of the NPT signatories who have voluntarily declared they will be nuclear free zones and have fully disarmed.

P.S. Glossyp to answer your question, yes, I believe in TOTAL disarmament, or its corollary, total armament for every country so no one can get into a pissing match like N. Korea and Iran have done with us. The kinda funny thing is, now Bushco HAS to talk directly with N. Korea, which is one of the things N. Korea wanted in the first place (bilateral talks with the US) if it was to disarm.

Miulang

[Miulang]

South Korean intelligence (http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/SITE/data/html_dir/2006/10/10/200610100049.asp)reveals that Pyonyang may have enough fissile material to construct somewhere up to 7 nuclear bombs. If attached to a Taedong-2 missile (like the one that failed during launch last summer), such a payload could hit Hawai'i or the West Coast.

Miulang

[Miulang]

Though we should still await independent confirmation (http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/dn10256-scientific-world-gathers-data-on-nuclear-test.html) that the test actually was nuclear.
And here are some of the ways (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/09/AR2006100900543.html)they will determine whether the test was successful. There is a Commission that's been set up to monitor such things (the CTBTO). In reading some of the information contained in this article, I wasn't surprised to see that of all the countries in the world, the major holdouts to ratifying the agreement were the UNITED STATES, Pakistan, China, India, Israel and North Korea.

So Pakistan sells its secrets to Iran and Syria, and we help arm Egypt and Israel. Sounds fair to me.:p

Miulang

[glossyp]

Did you know that Iran signed the nonproliferation treaty, too? So did North Korea, in 1985.
That makes us all feel so much better. They both have such wonderful track records of keeping agreements.
The Clinton Administration had come close to totally disarming N. Korea right before the end of its term.
That is a completely false statement. Do you really think they got to the point of having an active weapons program less than year after Clinton left office (they announced this in October 2001)? That they only started the program when Bush took office? The Clinton admin essentially rewarded the North Koreans for breaking agreements and then returning to the status quo. It could be easily argued that Clinton pushed off the heavy lifting with NK through this policy. Not that the Bush admin is doing a great job but to believe that the NK's politicos are poor beleaguered folks is naive in the extreme. The problem with our overall foreign policy towards NK is that we fail to grasp that negotiation and dialogue don't work.
N. Korea is a desperately poor country with lots of hungry mouths to feed, what else could a deranged despot do but try to develop something (i.e. nuclear capability) that it could sell to terrorists or other countries seeking nuclear parity?
Yes, heaven forbid that poor Kim Jung Il should do something other than develop weapons capability to help the people of North Korea. The people of NK are starving because of him. At least you recognize that he is a deranged despot.
What do you think Pakistan did with its nuclear secrets?
Let me guess. Sold them to the highest bidder, right? And, it wasn't because the government was starving its people, it was individual scientists overcome with greed or filled with Islamic fundamentalist belief. The government turned a blind eye but was not directly responsible.

The kinda funny thing is, now Bushco HAS to talk directly with N. Korea,
Why?

[Miulang]

The US has refused to ratify the NPT. Does that make us right to demand another country should do something we won't do ourselves?

Miulang

[glossyp]

The US has refused to ratify the NPT. Does that make us right to demand another country should do something we won't do ourselves?

Miulang
I would say that ratify or not ratify the NPT is simply meaningless. It's a red herring. Not unlike your post which avoids answering the question of exactly why we should be talking with NK. Better yet, what do you think a realistic outcome of bi-lateral talks would be?

[Miulang]

I would say that ratify or not ratify the NPT is simply meaningless. It's a red herring. Not unlike your post which avoids answering the question of exactly why we should be talking with NK. Better yet, what do you think a realistic outcome of bi-lateral talks would be?

If what Kim Jong Il wanted was recognition that he was a world power, then the foreign policies that Bushco have been following certainly played right into his hands. What he said he wanted all along was bilateral talks with the White House, which were repeatedly turned down. If we had offered to talk with him bilaterally to begin with and offered some some aid so he could help feed his people, if he then balked, then we would have good reason to go after his government with sanctions.

He's backed into a corner now (kind of like a little kid who's craving attention from parents who are too busy with his siblings to pay any attention to him, so he acts up), so pulling off a little submegaton test certainly got the world's attention, didn't it?

What are more sanctions really going to do? He's already cut off from most of the rest of the world as it is. I say kill 'em with kindness because we can't afford another round of regime changes like we did in Iraq.

Offer him some carrots...a private meeting with Condoleeeeza and Dubya, a state dinner, a couple of million dollars' worth of food assistance in return for the IAEA being able to visit test sites anytime they wanted to, without notice. The man would have to be more than deranged not to want to help feed his people, because he knows if the people get restless, he could be deposed.

Men of short stature have this complex about needing to act bigger in order to be recognized, and that's what I think Kim Jong Il is doing right now.

The South Koreans are the ones who are really scared right now. The US is redeploying large numbers of the 20,000 soldiers stationed in Korea and sending them over to the Middle East. Rummy and Co. believe that the "tripwire" defense US troops are providing for the South Koreans can be handled as effectively with 3,000 as with 20,000 bodies. And this is also scaring lots of the small business people who provide goods and services (!:eek: ) for the military at our bases in South Korea, because fewer troops means less money for them, too.

The Chinese are about the only ones who have any influence over North Korea, but I think even their harsh reprimand won't convince North Korea that it shouldn't keep doing what it's doing now. After all, what else does it have to lose at this point?

Our only hope and salvation will be that when the analyses of the blast are finally released, that the test was more of a failure (like their launch of the Taepodong-2 rocket) than a success, which would give the world more time to figure out how to calm the situation because it would mean that the PRNK nuclear program was still in its rudimentary stages as the Russians predict.

P.S. The fact that the US has not ratified either the NPT OR the Kyoto Protocol on global warming makes us look like a nation of hypocrites (isn't the Foley fiasco enough evidence of that already?)

Miulang

[glossyp]

If what Kim Jong Il wanted was recognition that he was a world power, then the foreign policies that Bushco have been following certainly played right into his hands. What he said he wanted all along was bilateral talks with the White House, which were repeatedly turned down. If we had offered to talk with him bilaterally to begin with and offered some some aid so he could help feed his people, if he then balked, then we would have good reason to go after his government with sanctions.
So your position is that the UN has no case for sanctions and it's the our fault for not talking to him? Never mind that he violated his agreement (made with the Clinton admin) to not use the technology for weapons development.

What are more sanctions really going to do? He's already cut off from most of the rest of the world as it is.
Here we agree.

Offer him some carrots...a private meeting with Condoleeeeza and Dubya, a state dinner, a couple of million dollars' worth of food assistance in return for the IAEA being able to visit test sites anytime they wanted to, without notice. The man would have to be more than deranged not to want to help feed his people, because he knows if the people get restless, he could be deposed.
Have you paid any attention to the history of this man? Every concession or reward is simply met with more threats, additional demands and bad behavior. Clinking glasses with Madeleine Albright during her visit to NK wasn't enough to make him honor agreements. Granted, she is much less attractive than Rice but somehow I don't think meeting Rice or Bush or granting his demands will change his pattern of behavior.

Men of short stature have this complex about needing to act bigger in order to be recognized, and that's what I think Kim Jong Il is doing right now.
I think you just managed to insult many of the men on this board!

The South Koreans are the ones who are really scared right now.
Well they have been all keen to get the US military out of there - do you recall the massive demonstrations to that effect just this year Getting rid of US military was also a big issue in the recent elections there. I always thought we should give them what they want.

And this is also scaring lots of the small business people who provide goods and services (!:eek: ) for the military at our bases in South Korea, because fewer troops means less money for them, too.
I too feel for these people who are seeing their source of livelihood shrink.

P.S. The fact that the US has not ratified either the NPT OR the Kyoto Protocol on global warming makes us look like a nation of hypocrites (isn't the Foley fiasco enough evidence of that already?)
I don't give a rat's ass about the NPT, that so effective document, or the Kyoto protocol but I know that these are sacred cows to some. However, what on earth does the Foley fiasco have to do with us being a nation of hypocrites? No, don't answer that - I can just imagine the convoluted logic that will ensue!:D

[Miulang]

I'm wondering if this was the "October surprise (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/09/greenfield.changing.subject/index.html)" that Karl Rove has been predicting? I mean, world outrage at a rogue nation conducting verboten nuclear tests surely must trump the coverups and implosion of a US political party, right? Now comes time for the White House to muster all good Americans to rally round the White House. Let's see if Tony Snow can somehow connect PRNK's latest actions with the war on terror and allow the Republicans to remain in control of Congress.

I'm not as outraged by who Foley is and what he did (he'll be punished if he broke any laws) as I am pissed off by how many others in a position to do something about it did nothing and covered it up to protect their status quo. Those people wouldn't know what ethical behavior was if it bit them in the okole.

Miulang

[glossyp]

For a moment there I thought you were claiming that Karl Rove was behind the nuke test! Or whatever it was. A good laugh followed when I read it more carefully. I mean Rove is clever and all, but...

I think I'm going to go rent Team America and watch it tonight for some much needed comic relief.

[TuNnL]

I would say that ratify or not ratify the NPT is simply meaningless. It's a red herring. Not unlike your post which avoids answering the question of exactly why we should be talking with NK...What I get from you so far glossyp, is your put-downs are escalating. You have continually slammed Miulang for basically providing her opinion on the very serious situation facing Asia at this moment. So what is your solution? I dare say you likely have none. Maybe if you spent half the time you do trying to dismiss Miulang’s possible solutions, you just might come up with one of your own. Then again in your 420+ posts, a true display of intelligence has been a rare occurance thus far. :(

[glossyp]

What I get from you so far glossyp, is your put-downs are escalating. You have continually slammed Miulang for basically providing her opinion on the very serious situation facing Asia at this moment. So what is your solution? I dare say you likely have none. Maybe if you spent half the time you do trying to dismiss Miulang’s possible solutions, you just might come up with one of your own. Then again in your 420+ posts, a true display of intelligence has been a rare occurance thus far. :(

It's good to see that you have read all my posts - I am so flattered that a person of your high self-regard is paying attention!

Miulang and I are fine and she hardly needs you to defend her. You fail to note that my main purpose is to point out the outright inaccuracies she states, which is why my responses to her have been point by point. The solutions she offers have been tried and failed. She hasn't asked for my solutions which I would be happy to provide, if she is interested.

[timkona]

Everybody be nice. North Korea just needs more love, and feel-good therapy. Just like the Muslims. After all, the big, bad United States is the evil force by forcing North Korea into a corner.

Kim Jung Il, Osama Bin Laden, - just good men, in reality. Perhaps they need some Prozac, or encounter sessions, or hypnosis, or a trip to the petting zoo. I bet it's their childhood experience, or their alienation by peers, or their lack of opportunity for education, or their economic plight, or maybe their underwear is too small, or they can't handle emotional stress, or need more medication.

No matter what, IT'S NOT THEIR FAULT.

When I grow up, I want to be an apologist liberal, who get's killed in a terrorist attack.

[Leo Lakio]

I do wonder where you get your sarcastic logic sometimes, Tim.

No one says any of these men (and you should include Saddam Hussein as well) are nice, misunderstood guys, who just need hugs to straighten them out. We're all in agreement as to the cruel nature of many of the world's dictators - where we disagree is in how they should be handled.

In many cases, no matter what action or inaction we take, it seems that the same people suffer consequences, and those are the people of the nations under said dictatorships.

But the current administration is inconsistent in what it says and in what it does. In Iran, for example, declaring a desire to follow diplomatic solutions, yet not allowing those solutions to be implemented; instead, ignoring our own intelligence reports and making up a "weapons of mass destruction" boogeyman in order to scare the Congress and the American populace into permitting "pre-emptive" war (And doesn't that go against your own value of "don't hit first," Tim?)

But in North Korea, we see an unstable leader who says he has nuclear weapons, states that he will continue to develop nuclear weapons, is presently trying to prove he has nuclear weapons --- and we rebuff years of requests to discuss diplomatic solutions. What choice have we given him, but to escalate the stakes?

I hear "Axis of Evil" from the White House, and all I can think is "takes one to know one..."

[beaker]

ok. show of hands.
does this even remotely bother anyone?


I wonder how long Kim Jong's emaciated slaves had to rub those blocks of low-quality uranium together to get them to go BOOM.

[joshuatree]

A quick recap of events.

Agreed Framework between US and NK signed in 1994
-Graphite moderated nuclear plants which can produce plutonium to be replaced with light water reactors
-Oil for heating and electricity to be provided to NK until first LWR is completed
-Both sides move toward full normalization of political and economic relations
-US provides formal assurances to NK against use or threat of use of nuclear weapons
-NK remains party to NPT and Korean Peninsula Denuclearization Declaration
-IAEA ad hoc and routine inspections resume for facilities not subjected to freeze
-Existing spent fuel rods be stored and disposed without reprocessing in NK
-NK comes under full compliance with IAEA before delivery of key components of LWR

So what happened? NK shut down its Yongbyon reactor and halted construction of two larger reactors. 500,000 tons of heavy oil was provided annually at no cost to NK. However, this agreement was always controversial with some elements of the US gov which is why it's only an agreement, not a treaty so it did not need to be ratified by the Senate. When the Republicans took control of Congress, funding for the agreement was not always provided in sufficient amounts so as early as 1996, delivery of oil was sometimes late. By 1999, when sanctions still had not been lifted and full diplomatic relations had not been established, NK warned the US it will resume nuclear research if the US did not keep up to the end of its bargain. In 2002, the US confronted and discovered that NK had been pursuing a highly enriched uranium program and issued a joint statement with Japan and SK to cease and desist though no timeframe was mentioned. While the '94 agreement did not specifically ban uranium enrichment, this was implied by adhering to NPT. A month later, the US stopped all oil shipments and NK perceived the US as nulling the agreement. IAEA was kicked out and Yongbyon was reactived. In 2003, NK withdraws from NPT.

Let's fast forward to 2005 now. New agreement where North Korea agreed to abandon its nuclear weapons program for economic cooperation and assistance, repeating its right to "peaceful uses of nuclear energy", while the U.S. recognized North Korea's sovereignty and stated that it had no intention to attack. The provision of a nuclear light-water reactor would be discussed later at "an appropriate time". Four days later, US Treasury imposed sweeping financial sanctions against NK designed to cut off the country's access to the international banking system. NK has walked out of the six party talks since.

So now we have missile tests and the nuclear bomb test of 2006. Clearly, the financial lockdown is hurting NK so it is raising the ante and demands bilateral talks with the US.

Seems to me each side has violated their agreements so neither side's a saint. But what is the big deal with Bush and his administration on talking with NK? Diplomacy is a tool to resolve issues with friendly and hostile countries. Bush seems to regard diplomacy as a reward to countries on good behavior instead. You don't have to agree to anything in a talk with NK. You can always meet in a neutral country say Switzerland. Where's the harm? By at least talking to NK, you at least can get an idea of what their thinking is, not to mention defusing the tension.

[timkona]

No worries Leo. I have finally grown up and seen the light.

America is bad, bad, bad. I am quite ashamed of being American. I can see the value inherent in allowing dictators to subjugate their people. I no longer have any concern for those people because I realize that to get involved would be head-strong and ill-advised. It has taken many years, but perhaps I am a slow learner.

I can now celebrate mass gravesites. I can now tolerate chemical annihilation of whole towns. I can understand the importance of allowing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, especially in nations where extremist radicals run the show. In fact Leo, if you were getting the snot knocked out of you by somebody, I know that I could sit back and watch, with no guilt, or incentive to save you. And it won't bother me anymore. To endanger myself in an effort to save you would be stupid on my part anyway, right? (gosh, that one is so simple, I can't believe I didn't get it before)

I am mature enough now to admit that I was dead wrong for so many years. It is liberating to live without the pain of guilt, or the moral imperative of action in the face of bad situations.

:cool:

[Leo Lakio]

That's what we love about'cha, big guy!:D

[sinjin]

The notion that we really care about the N. Korean or Iraqi people is true immaturity. While I'll take our aholes over theirs I have no illusions about why we act as we do.

[glossyp]

I am no fan of the Bush administration but equating Bush and the regime of Kim Jung Il obscures the reality of life under the Kim regime. From the most recent Human Rights Watch report - hardly an organization that loves Bush or the USA:

"The regime of leader Kim Jong Il, the subject of an intense personality cult, is among the world’s most repressive. North Korea (The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, DPRK) in 2005 stepped back from the previous year’s efforts and made little progress in human rights: the country’s dismal human rights conditions, including arbitrary arrests, pervasive use of torture, and lack of due process and fair trials, remain of grave concern. There is no organized political opposition, labor activism, or independent civil society. There is no freedom of information or freedom of religion. Basic services, such as access to health care and education, are provided according to a classification scheme based on the government’s assessment of an individual’s and his/her family’s political loyalty."

Another telling quote:

"North Korea would rather forego Western food aid than have to discuss human rights with donors."

Read the entire report. (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/nkorea12255.htm)

Another aspect of this situation is the very real possibility that the Japanese will amend their constitution to allow for a more aggressive military and foreign policy. New prime minister Shinzo Abe is on the record as favoring such a move. Best estimates on how long it would take Japan to gear up to nuclear weapons capability varies from a couple of weeks to a few months.

I believe we should actively encourage NK citizens to flee. Already the South Korean government provides a nice stipend for refugees and offers citizenship. The number of NK citizens able to escape and avail themselves of this is very small but it could be facilitated.

While I share the view of sinjin that our government is not motivated by concern for individual citizens of North Korea or Iran, I'm don't think it's the role of government to care about these people. The job of our government is to provide for the security of its citizens.

[1stwahine]

The threat is REAL. As a mom and a grandmother I worry.:(

Whatevas'.....

hEY! Did ya see how the N.Koreans march? Wow! Dey must get problems with their legs, backs and necks!:eek:

Auntie Lynn

[pzarquon]

Okay, glossyp, a question, and of course you know I love you to pieces. But (1.) if North Korea is a clear threat -- not just to regional stability but directly to the U.S. -- and (2.) if sanctions harm civilians more than the government, and (3.) if things like treaties and non-proliferation agreements and diplomatic approaches are indeed a waste of time when it comes to a madman... what's next? Unilateral "defense of American interests" via a military strike on Pyongyang?

I don't doubt that pre-emptive military strikes are the only option in a number of international scenarios... I just get the funny feeling that our current administration has come to that conclusion a few too many times. I wouldn't expect action in North Korea to turn out half as messy as Afghanistan or Iraq, but it would be messy, and we haven't got the best track record in the "fix by force" department.

That said, I'm curious. Short of direct military action against Pyongyang, what would be the preferred solution? Anything we haven't tried? I'm usually the kind of liberal timkona likes to rail against, but even I want to push the button sometimes.

[timkona]

Who Me?? Naaahhhh, you got the wrong guy.

I'm born again. Peace loving, granola eating, sportin Hemp clothing, and a Greenpeace sticker. I have stopped taking bath's, using deoderant, or brushing my hair. Gettin spiritual healing from the local bagwan, and my chart done. My chakras are aligned, and my tarot cards are new. My crystals are charged from the moon, and my drums are tuned and ready. Plus, I met a fat girl in a blue dress.

Khum-bai-ya baby.

[joshuatree]

Okay, glossyp, a question, and of course you know I love you to pieces. But (1.) if North Korea is a clear threat -- not just to regional stability but directly to the U.S. -- and (2.) if sanctions harm civilians more than the government, and (3.) if things like treaties and non-proliferation agreements and diplomatic approaches are indeed a waste of time when it comes to a madman... what's next? Unilateral "defense of American interests" via a military strike on Pyongyang?

I don't doubt that pre-emptive military strikes are the only option in a number of international scenarios... I just get the funny feeling that our current administration has come to that conclusion a few too many times. I wouldn't expect action in North Korea to turn out half as messy as Afghanistan or Iraq, but it would be messy, and we haven't got the best track record in the "fix by force" department.

That said, I'm curious. Short of direct military action against Pyongyang, what would be the preferred solution? Anything we haven't tried? I'm usually the kind of liberal timkona likes to rail against, but even I want to push the button sometimes.


I say re-engage NK. Give them the bilateral talks (again, I don't see where the shame is with just sitting down and chatting), offer similar deals as we did in 94 (honestly, the terms from the 94 agreement really don't really seem like the US lost anything) but this time, state the LWR reactors will be built in SK and we'll just merely string power lines over the border for them. And most importantly, actually open up trade with them. I know a lot of people will feel this is like appeasement. But trade with NK will actually integrate them more into the global economy and make them think twice about saber rattling. You don't have to trade high tech with them, start with something simple, like shoes or clothes, I dunno. Better yet, buy agriculture from them. I know they got practically none right now but give the people something to work towards which would help their food supply too.

[glossyp]

I have no confidence in good results from talking with them. Joshuatree's plan is very nice but it ignores the reality of who we are dealing with. Kim Jung Il has never abided by any agreement, ever. Arguments can be made that if we just give him what he wants, we can all get along. The facts speak otherwise. The harm of direct bi-lateral talks is that we are rewarding threats which means we are negotiating from a position of weakness. It's hard for rational people to understand people who only respond to/understand force. Kim Jung Il does not respect weakness and in this situation getting along is meaningless. They have abused every instance of foreign aid by funneling funds into the military while the people starve.

The NK's have walked away from every negotiating table dating back to the Kim Il Sung era claiming they are under threat from (take your pick) the Japanese, the Americans, the South Koreans. The truth is they are the threat and are a more serious threat than they have ever been before.

If we take the threat of the NK's using or selling nuclear weapons seriously, we must be prepared to take military action in concert with the Japanese. It's a stark choice, but everytime I hear Bush or someone else say 'we aren't going to use a military option', I see Kim Jung Il emboldened. If a military option isn't on the table, we have absolutely zero leverage.

We give him a deadline of 30-days to return to six-party talks. The consequences of not returning to the table are strategic air strikes (conventional weapons) against all suspected nuclear sites and military bases. During the 30-day run-up we blanket the countryside with leaflets, maps, and basic supplies to launch a major education campaign to tell the people what is going on and encourage them to flee. We then need to be prepared to accept and help a flood of refugees. We do not send ground troops, we do not occupy the country - we eliminate the threat. Let the South Koreans take care of their brothers. The SK's are partially reponsible for encouraging Kim's bad behavior with their Sunshine policy which has just rewarded and funded the NK's without any reciprocity.

Not pretty, but the threat is either eliminated or they return to six-party talks and we continue to hold a dagger to their throats until we get the results we want - not what Kim wants.

[Miulang]

Well, there's always the Christians in Action option...that's the only one that hasn't been given serious discussion (at least not publicly).:rolleyes:

Also, the White House and State Dept. could use some of the millions of dollars the White House has set aside for "the spread of democracy" (some of which was used in the Orange Revolution victory of American friend Prime Minister Yuschenko of the Ukraine who was nearly poisoned to death by pro-Russian agents) to assist the resistance movement in North Korea. (http://www.korealiberator.org/2006/07/09/can-they-do-it-a-brief-history-of-resistance-to-the-north-korean-regime/)
The cheapest option (in terms of cost of human lives and materiel), would be to encourage a coup. Hell, we've done it before (in Iran, Cuba, Chile, Panama, Iraq, some of the -stans in Central Europe among other places) why not now?

Miulang

[glossyp]

Well, there's always the Christians in Action option...that's the only one that hasn't been given serious discussion (at least not publicly).:rolleyes:
What's this one? I'm picturing people joining hands along the DMZ praying. Do tell. A coup is not a bad idea at all. We just need to be ready to fill the power vacuum. Those guys at Free Korea/Korea Liberator are definitely worth a read.

[Miulang]

What's this one? I'm picturing people joining hands along the DMZ praying. Do tell. A coup is not a bad idea at all. We just need to be ready to fill the power vacuum. Those guys at Free Korea/Korea Liberator are definitely worth a read.
"Christians in Action" is a euphemism for the Central Intelligence Agency. They were called "Christians in Action" during their Cambodian escapades.;) But then again, during the Vietnam era, they appeared to be more professional and clandestine than they are today.

Miulang

[glossyp]

"Christians in Action" is a euphemism for the Central Intelligence Agency. They were called "Christians in Action" during their Cambodian escapades.;) But then again, during the Vietnam era, they appeared to be more professional and clandestine than they are today.

Miulang
Learn something new everyday! I actually googled Christians in Action and got an evangelical group that leads missions around the world. :eek: Perhaps a front for the CIA...hummm...

[Miulang]

Learn something new everyday! I actually googled Christians in Action and got an evangelical group that leads missions around the world. :eek: Perhaps a front for the CIA...hummm...

Heh, that would be funny if it IS a CIA front (and there ARE Christians in North Korea (http://www.kcgm.org/north_korea.htm)).

There was a very notable Central Intelligence Agency cover organization operating in Laos and Cambodia and Vietnam: it was called Air America (http://www.air-america.org/About/About.shtml)(remember the spoof movie with the same name?) and it ferried supplies and US personnel into places where we weren't supposed to be...fascinating story about how it evolved and what it did.

Miulang

[Composite 2992]

Well, as far as anyone knows, there was an underground explosion of some sort detected in N.Korea. And the estimated power is less than a kiloton, which is very small for a nuclear device.

The first atom bomb to be tested had a 20 to 22-kiloton yield. The bomb that devastated Hiroshima was about 13 kilotons.

No confirmation yet regarding what kind of explosion it was. For all anyone outside of that project knows, it could have been a massive concentration of conventional high explosives with multiple detonators.

And as for delivery systems, their current missle has enough range to threaten the east coast of North Korea before it falls apart in flight.

So personally, living in Hawaii, I'm not worried.

But if I lived in S.Korea I'd be concerned. They wouldn't need a missle to hit a target. Just a well-shielded Toyota minivan.

[joshuatree]

I have no confidence in good results from talking with them. Joshuatree's plan is very nice but it ignores the reality of who we are dealing with. Kim Jung Il has never abided by any agreement, ever. Arguments can be made that if we just give him what he wants, we can all get along. The facts speak otherwise. The harm of direct bi-lateral talks is that we are rewarding threats which means we are negotiating from a position of weakness. It's hard for rational people to understand people who only respond to/understand force. Kim Jung Il does not respect weakness and in this situation getting along is meaningless. They have abused every instance of foreign aid by funneling funds into the military while the people starve.

The NK's have walked away from every negotiating table dating back to the Kim Il Sung era claiming they are under threat from (take your pick) the Japanese, the Americans, the South Koreans. The truth is they are the threat and are a more serious threat than they have ever been before.

Again, I have to question equating bi-lateral talks as rewards. Diplomacy is a tool to be used to avert war, it's not a reward for a "good" country. Sitting down and chatting doesn't mean you agree to anything. I think the US would gain a lot more credibility just by sitting down. At least the US can say, look we've talked with NK but they are just absolutely making unrealistic demands. If you speak of weakness, the fact that the US insists in only talking to NK via six parties can also be held as a sign of weakness. What? Too chicken to talk to NK alone? It's all just perception.

I don't disagree that NK did not abide by their agreements but the US did not completely abide by their agreements either. I have no love for NK but you have to look at it from a neutral point of view.

If we take the threat of the NK's using or selling nuclear weapons seriously, we must be prepared to take military action in concert with the Japanese. It's a stark choice, but everytime I hear Bush or someone else say 'we aren't going to use a military option', I see Kim Jung Il emboldened. If a military option isn't on the table, we have absolutely zero leverage.

It is because we are taking the threat of NK using or selling nukes seriously that re-engagement should be a viable option. It is a pragmatic approach to removing the nukes from that country. People say the 94 agreement was a failure but look at it this way. NK could have tested and possessed nukes as early as 94 or 95 but the agreement stalled that development till 06. So we play the agreement dance again and they don't abide. With all the talks and showmanship, maybe we can stall them another 10 years. By then, who knows what the situation will be with NK. Kim Jong Il will be 75 then, heck maybe he won't even be alive then. He certainly doesn't look like the athletic type.

We give him a deadline of 30-days to return to six-party talks. The consequences of not returning to the table are strategic air strikes (conventional weapons) against all suspected nuclear sites and military bases. During the 30-day run-up we blanket the countryside with leaflets, maps, and basic supplies to launch a major education campaign to tell the people what is going on and encourage them to flee. We then need to be prepared to accept and help a flood of refugees. We do not send ground troops, we do not occupy the country - we eliminate the threat. Let the South Koreans take care of their brothers. The SK's are partially reponsible for encouraging Kim's bad behavior with their Sunshine policy which has just rewarded and funded the NK's without any reciprocity.

Not pretty, but the threat is either eliminated or they return to six-party talks and we continue to hold a dagger to their throats until we get the results we want - not what Kim wants.

So basically you have no option but the military one then? And it's a very simplistic and cavalier approach too. First off, encouraging the people to flee. What makes you think China or SK want/can absorb the numbers? SK doesn't want to admit in the open but the truth is, they don't want immediate reunification. The disparity between the two is so stark it would collapse the SK economy. So instead of destroying one country, you take out two? China's got massive rebellions in its Northeast region. The transition from state economy to market has made a lot of average folk unemployed and with no social net. Any more refugees flooding the area will destabilize the area.

Second, we do precision strikes on nuclear sites and bases and insert no troops. Ok.....what do you think that's gonna do since Kim and cronies are still in charge? Maybe lob it's conventional armament at Seoul? Seoul's got half of SK's population and is only 30 miles from the DMZ.

Third, you be almost foolish to run a military action in concert with the Japanese. No one in East Asia trusts a militarized Japan considering it's been 60 years since the end of WW2 and Japan can't even come to terms with it. Schoolbooks that whitewash historical events. Yakasune. The US should be in concert with SK and even China if there is any military action. Remember, Korea was under colonial rule by the Japanese. Any semblance of a Japanese military on Korean soil and all bets are off.

I like the concept of a coup but this is why re-engagement is necessary. We have absolutely zero contact with whatever anti-Kim forces that exist. Re-establishing an agreement and some sort of economic trade may seem weak but it's a long term strategy. You're actually trying to undermine Kim and cronies by exposing the average NKer to the outside world. You get enough of that and you have a viable coup option. The only caution to a coup is that whatever post Kim power that is in place, it better not be pro-US. It should be neutral. If it's pro-US, you will see China get its hands dirty like during the Korean War. China was actually okay with SK troops crossing the 38th parallel during the Korean War because they saw it as a civil war, that's their business. But they warned that if UN forces crossed the 38th, they will jump in. The US believed China was bluffing and well, we know how that played out.

[TuNnL]

It's hard for rational people to understand people who only respond to/understand force.Are you implying that Kim Jung Il responds to or understands force? We deployed 30,000 troops (some who have left to fight our “other” wars) to the N-S Korea border. Has that in any way phased him? His nuclear program is in full swing, and just the other day (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/07/ap/world/mainD8KJQFV8P.shtml), his peeps were playing “chicken” on the border.If we take the threat of the NK's using or selling nuclear weapons seriously, we must be prepared to take military action ... If a military option isn't on the table, we have absolutely zero leverage.The problem with your thesis, is that when you threaten military force, you need to be able to back it up. We need to consider that Kim will call the U.S.’ bluff. Then what do we do? Are we prepared to declare war on North Korea with China waiting in the wings to nuke us? :eek:

[glossyp]

Again, I have to question equating bi-lateral talks as rewards. Diplomacy is a tool to be used to avert war, it's not a reward for a "good" country. Sitting down and chatting doesn't mean you agree to anything. I think the US would gain a lot more credibility just by sitting down. At least the US can say, look we've talked with NK but they are just absolutely making unrealistic demands. If you speak of weakness, the fact that the US insists in only talking to NK via six parties can also be held as a sign of weakness. What? Too chicken to talk to NK alone? It's all just perception.
Gain credibility with who? The only party that we need to have credibility with is NK. NK has always made unrealistic demands, we can point to 50+ years of such. Six party talks engage the people most threatened by NK - their neighbors.

I don't disagree that NK did not abide by their agreements but the US did not completely abide by their agreements either. I have no love for NK but you have to look at it from a neutral point of view.
I don't look at it from a neutral point of view. To me that implies some sort of equivalency. We won't talk to them, they launch missiles. The Japanese impose an embargo, they scream 'act of war'.

People say the 94 agreement was a failure but look at it this way. NK could have tested and possessed nukes as early as 94 or 95 but the agreement stalled that development till 06. So we play the agreement dance again and they don't abide. With all the talks and showmanship, maybe we can stall them another 10 years.
Given the point they are at now in development and with the forces unleashed by the world events of the past five years, we don't have 10 years.

So basically you have no option but the military one then?
Read it again. What I said is if we don't have a military option on the table we have absolutely zero leverage.

And it's a very simplistic and cavalier approach too. First off, encouraging the people to flee. What makes you think China or SK want/can absorb the numbers? SK doesn't want to admit in the open but the truth is, they don't want immediate reunification. The disparity between the two is so stark it would collapse the SK economy.
Whether SK wants the refugees is irrelevant. They will deal with it. Why do you think the SK economy would collapse? It's one of the most robust in the world.

China's got massive rebellions in its Northeast region. The transition from state economy to market has made a lot of average folk unemployed and with no social net. Any more refugees flooding the area will destabilize the area.
With proper assistance (monetary and humanitarian) the impact can be lessened. I did not say this was an easy or happy project. If it was easy, it would have been done before.

Second, we do precision strikes on nuclear sites and bases and insert no troops. Ok.....what do you think that's gonna do since Kim and cronies are still in charge? Maybe lob it's conventional armament at Seoul? Seoul's got half of SK's population and is only 30 miles from the DMZ.
If it ever even got to this point, which I truly don't believe it would because Kim would back down if faced with a real threat of military action, he would have fled the country already. If we take out all of their military capabilities, what are they going to lob at Seoul?

Third, you be almost foolish to run a military action in concert with the Japanese. No one in East Asia trusts a militarized Japan considering it's been 60 years since the end of WW2 and Japan can't even come to terms with it. Schoolbooks that whitewash historical events. Yakasune. The US should be in concert with SK and even China if there is any military action. Remember, Korea was under colonial rule by the Japanese. Any semblance of a Japanese military on Korean soil and all bets are off. Yes, the threat of a militarized Japan would be enough to get both the Chinese and Koreans to do what needs to be done to contain NK. That is precisely why you do it.

I like the concept of a coup but this is why re-engagement is necessary. We have absolutely zero contact with whatever anti-Kim forces that exist. Re-establishing an agreement and some sort of economic trade may seem weak but it's a long term strategy. You're actually trying to undermine Kim and cronies by exposing the average NKer to the outside world. You get enough of that and you have a viable coup option.
We agree on this. It's unfortunate that this approach wasn't undertaken 20 years ago.

If it's pro-US, you will see China get its hands dirty like during the Korean War. China was actually okay with SK troops crossing the 38th parallel during the Korean War because they saw it as a civil war, that's their business. But they warned that if UN forces crossed the 38th, they will jump in. The US believed China was bluffing and well, we know how that played out.
The players were vastly different then (Soviet Union backing NK, China under Mao and the UN running the war) so I think the assumption that it would play out the same way is somewhat flawed. Of course, if we hadn't compromised with the Soviets at the end of WWII, we wouldn't even be having this conversation as the country would never have been divided.

[joshuatree]

Gain credibility with who? The only party that we need to have credibility with is NK. NK has always made unrealistic demands, we can point to 50+ years of such. Six party talks engage the people most threatened by NK - their neighbors.

Uh..how about with the rest of world? We've squandered away much of our credibility with this war in Iraq. At the end of the day, all NK wants is formal reassurances of no US pre-emptive attacks, and normalized diplomatic/economic realtions. It's not that unrealistic for any country to want that. Six party talks did produce results, but the US blew that away. In 2005, everyone at the talks actually reached an agreement to suspend NK's weapons program but guess what, the US threw it all out the window couple days later by imposing financial sanctions. You reach a deal with the opponent and then you turn around and piss them off a couple days later?


I don't look at it from a neutral point of view. To me that implies some sort of equivalency. We won't talk to them, they launch missiles. The Japanese impose an embargo, they scream 'act of war'.

It is this lack of looking at things on an equal basis that causes so many of the problems the US faces abroad. Do as I say, not as I do. This form of double standards won't get us any positive results.

Given the point they are at now in development and with the forces unleashed by the world events of the past five years, we don't have 10 years.

So let's get off the high horse and re-engage them.

Read it again. What I said is if we don't have a military option on the table we have absolutely zero leverage.

Okay, let me translate your politician answer. All other options = zero leverage, therefore are not viable. So we only have military option. So to answer my original question, yes, you are saying we only have a military option.


Whether SK wants the refugees is irrelevant. They will deal with it. Why do you think the SK economy would collapse? It's one of the most robust in the world.

Slick, let's just marginalize our allies while we are at it. And one wonders why there are growing elements in SK that are anti-American. Why would SK economy's collapse if a massive NK refugee influx occurred? Let's see what happened with the German reunification. West German to East German per capita ratio was 3:1. Population was 60 mil vs 17 mil. Yet with those numbers, the German economy still is struggling 16 years after reunification. Unemployment of up to 25% in some areas. Now let's look at SK vs NK. Per capita ratio is 18:1. Pop is 48 mil vs 22 mil. Those numbers are far worse than the German ones.

With proper assistance (monetary and humanitarian) the impact can be lessened. I did not say this was an easy or happy project. If it was easy, it would have been done before.

So if China and SK came calling on debts the US owes in order to help stablize their countries due to refugee influxes, the US should not have anything to gripe about then right? China holds $941 billion in USD as part of their foreign reserves. SK holds $228 billion. A lot of this is in US bonds. I like to see how we will pay that up in hard currency if they decide to call us on it. Definitely not an easy or happy project.

If it ever even got to this point, which I truly don't believe it would because Kim would back down if faced with a real threat of military action, he would have fled the country already. If we take out all of their military capabilities, what are they going to lob at Seoul?

You feel NK is a danger with nukes yet you don't think Kim is willing to launch a conventional war if the US does any military strikes on it? :confused:

And just what mystical conventional weapon do we possess where we can neutralize ALL of their military capabilities in one swoop before they can return fire at Seoul?

Yes, the threat of a militarized Japan would be enough to get both the Chinese and Koreans to do what needs to be done to contain NK. That is precisely why you do it.

Playing with fire, playing with fire. All you accomplish with that move is to make the Chinese and the two Koreas ban together. Somehow I don't see the Russians having any qualms about jumping onboard with them either.


We agree on this. It's unfortunate that this approach wasn't undertaken 20 years ago.

So start now, the more we just choose to disengage them, the more progress they will make. They've lobbed a few missiles. They've exploded the bomb. Their next quest would be figuring out how to strap that bomb on top that missile.


The players were vastly different then (Soviet Union backing NK, China under Mao and the UN running the war) so I think the assumption that it would play out the same way is somewhat flawed. Of course, if we hadn't compromised with the Soviets at the end of WWII, we wouldn't even be having this conversation as the country would never have been divided.

How different? It's the same countries with the same stakes. So the names change, but the game's still the same. As for compromise, maybe if the US didn't insist the Soviets jump into the Pacific theater at the Yalta Conference, there wouldn't be a divided Korea to worry over today.

[glossyp]

Joshuatree: I have great respect for your opinions on this subject. You have obviously considered this matter at length. We simply don't agree and we never will. I know the history; I understand the stakes better than you can know but I draw different conclusions as to how we should proceed. The likelihood of the U.S. doing what I consider the best way forward is pretty much nil which should make you feel better. The fact is that we will probably do exactly what you suggest. We'll just have to see how it all turns out. I do hope for the best, but plan for the worst.

[joshuatree]

Joshuatree: I have great respect for your opinions on this subject. You have obviously considered this matter at length. We simply don't agree and we never will. I know the history; I understand the stakes better than you can know but I draw different conclusions as to how we should proceed. The likelihood of the U.S. doing what I consider the best way forward is pretty much nil which should make you feel better. The fact is that we will probably do exactly what you suggest. We'll just have to see how it all turns out. I do hope for the best, but plan for the worst.

Glossyp: Thanks, I respect your opinions at the same level too. I understand the urge to push the button, heck I like to push that button too but there's been so much blood shed in the last 5 years, anything besides war that can diffuse the problem, I rather give that a shot, especially when both sides are bickering over just the thought of bilateral talks. It's like two high school kids not wanting to back down in a fight just so they can seem hard and tough in front of their gfs. And if the US under Bush's watch can make peace with Libya and Gaddafi, I think it can be done with NK at some basic level.

[timkona]

Kim Jung Il does not respect weakness and in this situation getting along is meaningless.

What a great truth is that statement. Applies to extremists of all sects, nations, or anybody with a wild-ass mind.

The depth of meaning in that sentence is misunderstood by about 1/2 of Americans today.

[dick]

I wonder if people are prepared for the bloodbath that will happen when the regime falls? When the missiles rain down on Seoul from the north. Invasion on a huge scale. Iraq will look like a walk in the park.

There's an interesting article about this problem in a recent Atlantic Monthly:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200610/kaplan-korea

[Leo Lakio]

Though we should still await independent confirmation (http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/dn10256-scientific-world-gathers-data-on-nuclear-test.html) that the test actually was nuclear.Seismic activity (http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/national/news/20061009p2a00m0na028000c.html)from an artificial explosion was detected on a seismograph in Japan yesterday (today for those over the Intl Dateline).Just in from CNN:The United States now has preliminary evidence of radioactivity from North Korea's nuclear test ground, indicating it did indeed carry out a test, a U.S. official tells CNN.

[pzarquon]

Huh. Just a few hours ago, the headines were blaring that there was no radioactivity detected (http://www.forbes.com/business/businesstech/feeds/ap/2006/10/13/ap3089940.html).

Here's a 'radioactivity' search on Google News just a minute ago:

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v457/hithreads/th_noradioactivity.jpg (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v457/hithreads/noradioactivity.jpg)

The updated items (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/4258228.html) (that Houston Chronicle link used to be to an article headlined, "N. Korea air sample has no radioactivity") clarify that one of several tests carried a positive result, that none of the tests are definitive or final, and that one ongoing possibility is that the nuclear test was actually a botched attempt.

[manoasurfer123]

The U.S. government has determined that one scientific test, among many conducted since North Korea's announced nuclear test, was consistent with a nuclear explosion, a senior administration official said Friday night
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, cautioned that the administration has not made a definitive conclusion about the nature of the explosion.
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/north_korea

[TuNnL]

What a great truth is that statement. Applies to extremists of all sects, nations, or anybody with a wild-ass mind. The depth of ...The depth of your own intolerance is truly astounding. What a hypocritical statement you just made.

[dick]

The depth of your own intolerance is truly astounding. What a hypocritical statement you just made.

I second that one...

But then again, I avoid fights (or at least don't herald them) and don't play football, so what the hell do I know?

Those folks who don't take "bath's" (sic) are a true detriment to the planet, aren't they, TK?

I'm pretty sick of that crap.

[timkona]

Those folks who don't take "bath's" (sic) are a true detriment to the planet,

Perhaps I place too much emphasis on hygiene. I will try to stand upwind.

[Miulang]

Kim Jung Il does not respect weakness and in this situation getting along is meaningless.

... Applies to extremists of all sects, nations, or anybody with a wild-ass mind.

Um, Tim, I consider anybody who only believes in black and white to be an extremist, so I guess that would include YOU.:D

Take a few more psychology classes and learn that you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. The one thing that 99% of ALL people dislike---regardless of color, creed or nationality-- is being disrespected and having their opinions discounted immediately (listening to the other side's arguments and then saying it's all a crock is better than not listening at all to the other side or not giving them an opportunity to explain their side).

In the case of North Korea, where Kim Jong Il has consistently demanded bilateral talks with the US for years, what harm would there be in at least sitting down with him? Maybe have Condi travel to Pyongyang and have Kim wine and dine her. Have her coo and heap praise on his hospitality and then get him to understand the consequences of his continuing to pursue nuclear weapons. Whoever we send, it has to be Condi or someone with more credentials than Condi; sending an undersecretary will not be acceptable to Kim. Engaging in bilateral discussions with the PRNK government is not the same as capitulating, but it will open the door to having more discussions in the future.

And if Kim balks during the bilateral talks, then the US could rightfully say that Kim is not upholding his side of the agreement and the other members of the UN Security Council might feel better about imposing sanctions.

The world cannot bear more armed conflict.

Miulang

[glossyp]

Take a few more psychology classes and learn that you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. The one thing that 99% of ALL people dislike---regardless of color, creed or nationality-- is being disrespected and having their opinions discounted immediately
Meet the 1% that is Kim Jong Il. Please refer to this column in Sunday's Honolulu Advertiser (http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061015/OPINION03/610150306/1110/OPINION) for more info. As the writer notes: "All has been futile because the North Koreans are not serious about negotiating." Mr. Halloran provides a concise listing of NK demands; see if you find them reasonable. Maybe you do. I don't. One approach he mentions which I found somewhat appealing was to completely ignore NK. It very well might work.

In the case of North Korea, where Kim Jong Il has consistently demanded bilateral talks with the US for years, what harm would there be in at least sitting down with him? Maybe have Condi travel to Pyongyang and have Kim wine and dine her. Have her coo and heap praise on his hospitality and then get him to understand the consequences of his continuing to pursue nuclear weapons. Whoever we send, it has to be Condi or someone with more credentials than Condi; sending an undersecretary will not be acceptable to Kim. Engaging in bilateral discussions with the PRNK government is not the same as capitulating, but it will open the door to having more discussions in the future.
Check history again to ascertain how successful the idea of "coo and heap praise" works. If that doesn't clarify, ask Madeleine Albright. Also check with the current SK government on the success of their appeasement oriented Sunshine policy.

And if Kim balks during the bilateral talks, then the US could rightfully say that Kim is not upholding his side of the agreement and the other members of the UN Security Council might feel better about imposing sanctions.
Sanctions are done as of yesterday. Meaningless as usual.

[timkona]

LOLOLOL

Glossy, hat's off to you for the way you just be tearing up M's wishful post.

I needed a laugh like that after a long day that started with an earthquake.

[joshuatree]

Check history again to ascertain how successful the idea of "coo and heap praise" works. If that doesn't clarify, ask Madeleine Albright. Also check with the current SK government on the success of their appeasement oriented Sunshine policy.


Bush should just invite Kim to his ranch for the bilateral talks and make it a condition that Kim himself has to fly out to the ranch. That be hilarious to see what Kim would say considering he's got a phobia of flying. :p

[hawaiifiveoh]

Maybe the North Korean government is just playing chicken with the US by finally publicly admitting that it has at least one nuclear weapon, hoping it can force the White House into bilateral talks rather than the 6-way talks that were going on, and maybe the majority of Americans are saying, "so what?" , but the people in Hawai'i should be alarmed, very alarmed. It is known that the North Korean missile carrying that payload has a long-enough range that it could theoretically hit either Hawai'i or Alaska.

So since the N. Koreans have a nuclear weapon and we never did find any WMDs in Iraq, why aren't we threatening to invade N. Korea, too? Could it be because The People's Republic and Pakistan are good friends of the N. Korean regime? The best way to disarm the N. Koreans is not through war. Its people are starving to death. Feed the people and the problem with that kooky Kim Il Jung just might take care of itself.

Miulang

http://www.qctimes.com/internal.php?story_id=1045299&t=Nation+%2F+World&c=26,1045299

WE ARE TRILLIONS IN DEBT ALREADY...THIS COUNTRY WILL BEGIN TO FALL IF WE INVADE NORTH KOREA.

[Miulang]

Why I think having Kim Jong Il wine and dine Condi is a good idea is because little men with visions of grandeur (especially in the Asian culture) mainly want to be respected. People who are totally Westernized don't get this nuance. This is the reason why lots of American companies like IBM who have branches in Asia send their people off to "etiquette school" before turning them loose in Asia. The American way appears to be "it's our way or the highway." And we reap what we sow most of the time.

Miulang

[Miulang]

WE ARE TRILLIONS IN DEBT ALREADY...THIS COUNTRY WILL BEGIN TO FALL IF WE INVADE NORTH KOREA.


This country already is falling because of the $2 billion being spent every week in Iraq and Afghanistan. We don't have enough troops to engage in another front, plus we also want to out-testosterone Iran. This is where our foreign policy has failed, once again.

Miulang

[manoasurfer123]

CNN has said that the US has now confirmed the Nuclear Tests were done last week now.
An analysis of air samples collected shortly after North Korea declared it had conducted an underground nuclear explosion confirms the test took place, according to the office of the U.S. director of national intelligence.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/16/nkorea.sanctions/index.html

[joshuatree]

Looks like we're not the only one wanting Kim to go away.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20587473-601,00.html

[glossyp]

Looks like we're not the only one wanting Kim to go away.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20587473-601,00.html

Fascinating article. If, as the article implies, the Chinese have given up on Kim, that is a significant sea change in the political landscape opening up all sorts of possibilities.

[Vanguard]

Looks like we're not the only one wanting Kim to go away.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20587473-601,00.html

Meanwhile, some of the North Korean elite are seeking their boltholes in China.

Xin Cheng, an estate agent in the high-rise district of Wang Jing, which is popular with resident South Korean businessmen, said many high-ranking North Koreans were buying property there.

The rats getting off the ship?

[manoasurfer123]

Everyone ready for Round 2?
SEOUL, South Korea - Satellite images indicate North Korea appears to be getting ready for a second nuclear test, officials said Tuesday...
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/north_korea
It's getting more than scary:o

[zatoichi]

What I get from this is an arms race that includes South Korea and Japan. Not a good outcome.

As for NK hitting us with a missle, they might be able to make this work. But they have a limited number of these nukes and delivery systems and will need to have some deterence with their neighbors.

As for the Clinton Administration being somehow at fault for this having been out of office for six years. That is absurd. There is no evidence that NK had breached their agreement at the time Clinton left office.

As for the Bush Administration being responsible for this mess. This is plausible. An argument that more attention would have yielded a useful safety valve is probably true. But even me as a very partisan Democrat, I say NK still should have not gone this route. It made a bad problem worse.

[Miulang]

Japan has consistently said that it has no desire to arm itself with nuclear weapons. It does have nuclear power plants already, but the country has suffered through more than 60 years of residual damage to its citizens; I seriously doubt they want to have that happen again. The US, in the meantime, has pledged that it will defend Japan to the fullest (whatever that means).

I think we are in more danger of Kim Jong Il selling the technology to terrorists than we are of him actually lobbing a nuclear weapon at any country, particularly one with the capability of lobbing the same thing back at his country. He may be crazy, but he's not stupid. He doesn't want to commit suicide.

Miulang

[Miulang]

The US announced that there has been some headway in the 6-way negotiations with North Korea (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/12/AR2007021200086.html)with regard to their nuclear weapons capabilities.

The chief U.S. negotiator, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher R. Hill, qualified the draft accord as "excellent" but declined to provide details. He said it was being submitted to all six governments and, pending their formal approval, would be ratified at a meeting scheduled later Tuesday in Beijing.

...A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, Qin Gang, also suggested the tentative agreement was likely to gain formal approval by the six governments, including North Korea. He cited "extraordinarily strenuous efforts" in negotiations that lasted through the night, and said the delegates would gather again later Tuesday "to confirm the progress we have made."
...Despite a sense of achievement in Beijing, the deal was expected to face criticism in Washington, with Democrats charging the administration allowed North Korea to gain nuclear weapons through poor diplomacy in recent years and conservatives saying it shows weakness at a critical moment.

"This is a very bad deal," former U.N. ambassador John R. Bolton told CNN. "It contradicts fundamental premises of the president's policy he's been following for the past six years. And second, it makes the administration look very weak at a time in Iraq . . . when it needs to look strong."


Guess all it took was cutting Kim Jong Il off from his Cuban ceegars, expensive Scotch, cold cash for his concubines and foreign delicacies!:D Good old John Bolton, ever the loyal soldier for the White House, even though he was humiliated by not being permanently installed as the UN Ambassador.:rolleyes:

Miulang

[Miulang]

Never thought I'd be able to read this (or am I hallucinating?). Apparently one of the reasons the new 6-way pact was able to be negotiated was because the President gave the US team of negotiators more flexibility (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/13/AR2007021300130.html)to maneuver to get Korea to give in:

Ever since the North Korean nuclear crisis erupted in 2002 after the discovery of a clandestine nuclear program, the Bush administration has insisted that North Korea should not be rewarded for its bad behavior -- and many of the U.S. offers have required Pyongyang to give up a lot before it could receive anything in return.

...Now Bush has signed off on a deal that accepts North Korea's original position -- a "freeze" of its Yongbyon nuclear facility -- and requires Washington to move first by unfreezing some North Korean bank accounts. The agreement leaves until later dealing with such vexing issues as the dismantlement of the facility, North Korea's stash of weapons-grade plutonium and even North Korea's admission of the nuclear program that started the crisis in the first place.

As a result, the agreement came under attack yesterday, with conservatives labeling it a betrayal and Democrats charging that Bush allowed North Korea to become a nuclear-weapon state without gaining much improvement over a Clinton-era deal that collapsed during Bush's first term. But Bush pronounced himself "pleased" with the accord, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a prime architect of the accord, said it is just the beginning of a long process. "This is not the end of the story," she said, calling it the result of "patient, creative and tough diplomacy."


Whoa. Is this a gentler, kinder George W. that no one thought existed inside that outwardly dufus shell?:eek: Poor guy. No matter what he does, he gets yelled at by both sides now.

Miulang

[craigwatanabe]

So how many actually believe that missile N. Korea tested really broke up?

Or was it a test of our airborne missile defense system.

As long as we (America) say our missile defense program is in the testing phase and not deployed, we don't break any treaty. But once deployed that's another story.

So we put up this smoking mirror that tells the world, "Hey the most advanced country in the world still can't take out telephone pole from outer space. We stage a few disasterous tests and feed the bleeding hearts that we're not ready to put one in service.

In the meantime some N. Korean punk tries to flex his muscles and launches his best. We in turn test our secretly functioning defense system on his rocket and take it out.

North Korea can't tell the world we took out his missile with our defense system because saying so will admit defeat and really deflate his nuclear program, and the rest of the world will say, "you mean America's defective missile system could still take out your best?"

Meanwhile the United States cannot gloat about blasting North Korea's missile outta the sky because admitting so would be a violation of the Anti-ballistic missile treaty.

So everybody's mum and North Korea is back at the negotiating table with their tails nicely tucked between their legs.

So how serious is the nuclear threat from North Korea? Well if they try to launch one, we'll simply take it out while it's still over their country. Basically killing them with their own weapon. And because it's still in a testing phase, "What defense system? They just build crappy missiles" And we shrug our shoulders publicly and high five behind the doors.:D

[Composite 2992]

Well, let's say that North Korea has developed a nuke system, which includes a delivery system.

Maybe N.Korea should consider that it's not hard for the US Navy to park a couple of boomers offshore. Should the worst come, each of these subs would surface to launch depth and shower the entire country with enough firepower to flatten much of their entire nation.

I'm not too eager about seeing a nuke war. But if some nut case wants to start something, then it's nice to know that retaliation is close at hand.

By the way, the most convenient target is right here, a few miles away from all of us! Pearl Harbor.

[craigwatanabe]

By the way, the most convenient target is right here, a few miles away from all of us! Pearl Harbor.

But you gotta remember, Hawaii will be considered "collateral damage" since it's so isolated from the rest of CONUS.

Plus if North Korea turns the Hawaiian Islands into atolls, that takes care of what to do with the entire Monarchy overthrow doesn't it.

I can see it now, headline reads: Hawaiian Islands reduced to coral reefs as North Korea targets Pearl Harbor with direct Nuclear hits.

In related news, the president of the United States gives what's left of Hawaii back to the natives saying it was all a mistake in the first place.:rolleyes:

[glossyp]

By the way, the most convenient target is right here, a few miles away from all of us! Pearl Harbor.
Actually the most convenient target is Guam - easy distance from the DPRK and with plenty of US military bases, etc.

[craigwatanabe]

Actually the most convenient target is Guam - easy distance from the DPRK and with plenty of US military bases, etc.

Yeah but the US didn't overthrow Guam (yet). Having Hawaii wiped off the face of the Earth makes it quite convenient for the US not having to deal with returning it. Can't return something that's not there.:rolleyes:

[glossyp]

Yeah but the US didn't overthrow Guam (yet). Having Hawaii wiped off the face of the Earth makes it quite convenient for the US not having to deal with returning it. Can't return something that's not there.:rolleyes:
Tell that to the Chamoru nation.

[Miulang]

Seems that the White House's assertion that North Korea had embarked on a major uranium enrichment effort that would result in nuclear bombs might have been "slightly exaggerated (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/030107D.shtml)". More faulty intelligence? Is this similar to the intell we have gotten about Iran and its nuclear capability?

Miulang

[reineke]

Seems that the White House's assertion that North Korea had embarked on a major uranium enrichment effort that would result in nuclear bombs might have been "slightly exaggerated (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/030107D.shtml)". More faulty intelligence? Is this similar to the intell we have gotten about Iran and its nuclear capability?

Miulang

It's sad when you have to decide whether your government is grossly incompetent or incompetently misrepresenting the facts.

[Kahalu'u Kid]

Not surprised.

[SusieMisajon]

....as the Iranians ask 'how serious is the nuclear threat from the US?...

[Miulang]

It's one thing to deprive North Korea's leader Kim Il Jong of his women, fine scotch, Cuban cigars and overseas bank accounts, but it's a whole 'nother thing for any of the world's governments to embargo rice shipments (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18139793/)and starve his citizens because Beloved Leader is not following an agreed upon timeline to shut down N. Korea's nuclear reactors.

What did the average North Korean citizen ever do to any other nation in the world? It's not the average citizen who is driving their "Beloved Leader" into the nuclear arms race. The average North Korean citizen is already malnourished (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=aI0T7HQbcCiU&refer=japan) and poor. To cut off rice supplies---their most important staple---is tantamount to torture and genocide.

And then again, why would the South Korean government want to harm their own relatives to the North? It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this plan was suggested by our very own government.

Making the availability of food to innocent civilians conditional on what their government does is cruel and inhumane. If the South Korean and US governments think that by starving the average North Korean citizen that they will rise and overthrow the current regime, I think they are being overly optimistic. When you're starving to death, you have NO ENERGY to do more than lie on the ground to conserve energy.:(

In order to thaw the Cold War, the US and Canada could very easily have banned wheat shipments to Russia to get the Russian government to capitulate, but fortunately, we never had to resort to that tactic.

Miulang

[joshuatree]

In the past, think good old Kim had diverted food shipments to himself and his army. Considering the US just unfroze $25 mil stuck in a Macau bank back to NK, guess the next available leverage to prod NK along in shutting down the reactor is withholding food and energy.

[Miulang]

In the past, think good old Kim had diverted food shipments to himself and his army. Considering the US just unfroze $25 mil stuck in a Macau bank back to NK, guess the next available leverage to prod NK along in shutting down the reactor is withholding food and energy.
I just don't think starving the North Koreans further will make Kim Il Jong do anything more quickly. He's way too egomaniacal and self-centered to care about anyone but himself and his own reputation. If South Korea does embargo the rice, I'm sure he'll use that as an excuse to go before the press to proclaim that South Korea is causing irreparable harm to his people (I know that's hypocritical because he's been doing exactly the same thing, but when your whole world is about satisfying only yourself, small considerations like that don't seem to count).

Miulang

[joshuatree]

I just don't think starving the North Koreans further will make Kim Il Jong do anything more quickly. He's way too egomaniacal and self-centered to care about anyone but himself and his own reputation. If South Korea does embargo the rice, I'm sure he'll use that as an excuse to go before the press to proclaim that South Korea is causing irreparable harm to his people (I know that's hypocritical because he's been doing exactly the same thing, but when your whole world is about satisfying only yourself, small considerations like that don't seem to count).

Miulang

Problem is, if the food shipments don't reach the NK people anyway, vis-a-vis, Kim's diverting of food to the army, what's the point of continuing to ship food to NK?

[Miulang]

Problem is, if the food shipments don't reach the NK people anyway, vis-a-vis, Kim's diverting of food to the army, what's the point of continuing to ship food to NK?

Maybe we need to figure out a way to get the rice to the people and totally bypass the government. Wonder if NGOs can operate in that country?

Miulang

[joshuatree]

Maybe we need to figure out a way to get the rice to the people and totally bypass the government. Wonder if NGOs can operate in that country?

Miulang

That's the obstacle other nations have been trying to figure out. NK's effectively closed the door on everyone, NGOs included. Those allowed to tour get directed to propaganda sites, etc.

Maybe just have bombers drop rice, almost like tossing money out the window and the crowd goes wild. :D

[Miulang]

I can see it now: overhead the roar of a C130's engines. Below, a huddled mass of starving North Korean citizens. All of a sudden, the C130's rear cargo door opens and out flutter hundreds of parachutes which have 100 lb bags of rice attached to them with this note: "When you eat this rice, remember that your good friends the Americans and your dear uncles and aunties in the South wish you good health.":)

Miulang

[Leo Lakio]

the C130's rear cargo door opens and out flutter hundreds of parachutes which have 100 lb bags of rice attached to themOh, I am SO glad you remembered the parachutes. I could imagine our government screwing up enough to leave that little detail out - a certain "WKRP In Cincinnati" Thanksgiving promotion gone horribly wrong springs to mind.

[joshuatree]

Oh, I am SO glad you remembered the parachutes. I could imagine our government screwing up enough to leave that little detail out - a certain "WKRP In Cincinnati" Thanksgiving promotion gone horribly wrong springs to mind.

Yeah, those 100lb bags would kill without parachutes. Should start off easy, with the 5lb bags. :p

[Keanu]

I can see it now: overhead the roar of a C130's engines. Below, a huddled mass of starving North Korean citizens. All of a sudden, the C130's rear cargo door opens and out flutter hundreds of parachutes which have 100 lb bags of rice attached to them with this note: "When you eat this rice, remember that your good friends the Americans and your dear uncles and aunties in the South wish you good health.":)

Miulang

DPRK troops would probably intercept the rice and posion it. I'm sure they'd leave the note though.

[joshuatree]

DPRK troops would probably intercept the rice and posion it. I'm sure they'd leave the note though.

Guess we'll just have to scatter the rice like rain as the planes make their run. :)

[Miulang]

Wonder what the velocity of a grain of rice is when it strikes a 5'2" human being waiting to catch it?:confused:

Miulang

[Leo Lakio]

Wonder what the velocity of a grain of rice is when it strikes a 5'2" human being waiting to catch it?:confused:When in doubt, Ask A Scientist. (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00800.htm)

[Miulang]

When in doubt, Ask A Scientist. (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00800.htm)
Depending on how the grain of rice fell (sideways or one end pointed downward), the answer is "OUCH!":D

Miulang

[joshuatree]

Depending on how the grain of rice fell (sideways or one end pointed downward), the answer is "OUCH!":D

Miulang

I would guess it just be on par with a heavy rain storm or a light hail storm. Don't forget, it also depends on how far up the rice is dropped. But even running with this zany humanitarian idea, I don't think any planes could even make such a run, then it be a violation of airspace and the neurotic NK will declare war, etc, etc. Maybe random balloons launched from international waters, haha.

[Leo Lakio]

Operation The Riceman Cometh?

[Random]

In related news, the president of the United States gives what's left of Hawaii back to the natives saying it was all a mistake in the first place.:rolleyes:
Most likely an elected Democrat.

[Random]

Operation The Riceman Cometh?
Whoa. Is Jericho getting a spin-off?

I can see it now ... Kalihi.

[Miulang]

Yesterday, the South Korean (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/23/asia/korea.php)government gave N. Korea another month to abide by a Feb. 13 agreement to shut down its nuclear facilities. South Korea will make a shipment of rice to North Korea in May. The total amount, if N. Korea follows through with its agreement, is 400,000 tons (worth about $152 million) of rice.

Miulang