How serious is the nuclear threat from N. Korea?

[Miulang]

Re: How serious is the nuclear threat from N. Korea?

Though we should still await independent confirmation that the test actually was nuclear.

And here are some of the ways 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.

Miulang

[glossyp]

Re: How serious is the nuclear threat from N. Korea?

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]

Re: How serious is the nuclear threat from N. Korea?

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]

Re: How serious is the nuclear threat from N. Korea?

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]

Re: How serious is the nuclear threat from N. Korea?

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 (! ) 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]

Re: How serious is the nuclear threat from N. Korea?

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 (! ) 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!

[Miulang]

Re: How serious is the nuclear threat from N. Korea?

I'm wondering if this was the "October surprise" 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]

Re: How serious is the nuclear threat from N. Korea?

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]

Re: How serious is the nuclear threat from N. Korea?

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]

Re: How serious is the nuclear threat from N. Korea?

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]

Re: How serious is the nuclear threat from N. Korea?

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]

Re: How serious is the nuclear threat from N. Korea?

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]

Kim Jong make fire! Kim Jong STROOOONG! Kim Jong BIIIIIG man!

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]

Re: How serious is the nuclear threat from N. Korea?

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]

Re: How serious is the nuclear threat from N. Korea?

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.