How serious is the nuclear threat from N. Korea?

[Leo Lakio]

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

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

[sinjin]

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

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]

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

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.

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]

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

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!

Auntie Lynn

[pzarquon]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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).

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.
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]

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

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).

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]

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

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]

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

"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. Perhaps a front for the CIA...hummm...

[Miulang]

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

Learn something new everyday! I actually googled Christians in Action and got an evangelical group that leads missions around the world. 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).

There was a very notable Central Intelligence Agency cover organization operating in Laos and Cambodia and Vietnam: it was called Air America (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]

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

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]

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

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.