How serious is the nuclear threat from N. Korea?

[TuNnL]

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

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, 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?

[glossyp]

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

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]

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

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?

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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

Seismic activity 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]

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

Huh. Just a few hours ago, the headines were blaring that there was no radioactivity detected.

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



The updated items (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.

[damontucker]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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.

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]

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

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 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.