DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on October 15, 2006, 04:33:04 AM
-
How would unilateral talks with the U.S. be of any benefit? Why is this not a UN lead issue? Do we (the U.S.) take the military option off the table completely?...why yes or no? And can we please minimise the Bush bashing in your answers?
(http://media.salemwebnetwork.com/TownHall/Car/b/kn1010dd.jpg)
-
It is not clear to me that discussions with him would be of any vlaue. He is obviously a sociopath. He will be, hopefully, dealt with in time. Why? One trait nations tend to almsot demand in other nations is predictability. Even the Chinese will get tired of this and deal with him. They are his largest trading partner, by far ,and so are the only ones who can apply any real pressure.
I can only assume the reasones we have not already bombed his nuclear facilities are (and I am sure there are others):
1. UP would say we are being too interventionist.
2. JS would say we are too aggressive
3. the South Koreans and Japanses are scared of the possible repurcussions
4. the Chinese like their capitalist/communist country chugging, economically, right along and so do not watn the status quo changed
5. it might work and so Brass, Doemr and Mucho would therefore be embarrassed and shocked that something Bush did really worked
6. I haven't given the official "GH" order.
:-)
-
The obvious answer is talk to the guy - - he wants to talk to you and you have nothing to lose by talking. If you can't get to a deal with him, at least you tried. Nothing lost. If later on down the road you have to try to get international support for stronger measures, it'll be more convincing to argue that you even tried bilateral talks at his request.
It's the height of absurdity to claim that you know the outcome of the talks before they start. At the very least, you'll gain some insight into how he functions in a one-on-one with the Great Satan, which could come in handy in the future.
-
The other question that has to be asked is whether the Bush administration, in light of its refusal to enter bilateral talks with North Korea, really wants a peaceful resolution of the problem.
The reason for North Korea's desire for bilateral talks seems pretty clear - - it's a question of prestige. The U.S. has disrespected the country and its leader by refusing to talk with it directly and they naturally resent the insult and would like to wipe it away. The reason for the Bush administration's refusal to accede to such a seemingly simple request is not so clear - - possibly stubborness, a refusal to back down from a position previously taken, no matter how stupid and short-sighted it was; but if the issue is as crucial and potentially deadly as the Bush administration claims it to be, it's hard to see how stubborness and vanity could possibly enter into the equation. So you have to ask if the U.S. is really interested in resolving the issue at this point in time. Entering bilateral talks has one potentially HUGE disadvantage from America's POV - - what if the North Koreans unexpectedly agree to a number of American demands and still can't get a deal? America looks like the bad guy and its hypocrisy (once again) is exposed to the world. (This actually happened during the negotiations between England, France and the U.S.S.R. in 1936 - 39, when the U.S.S.R. suddenly and unexpectedly agreed to a number of "impossible" conditions requested by England and France and were still unable to obtain the mutual defence treaty they had tried to obtain against Germany - - the British and French negotiators had been secretly instructed by their governments not to sign with Russia under any circumstances, and the "deal-breaker" conditions had been posed merely to give cover to the predetermined breakdown of the negotiations.) IF the US doesn't really want a deal with North Korea at this time, and if they don't want to be exposed as the party which is really responsible for the lack of a deal, they would obviously want to avoid a one-on-one scenario where responsibility for the break-down of the negotiations could not be obscured by spreading it around amongst six participants.
Why would the US want to leave North Korea with nuclear weapons? IMHO because the Koreans would never be dumb enough to use them against the U.S.A. and probably not even against their own countrymen in the South. But the North's "victory" against the U.S. could embolden it to step up its military adventurism against the South, leading to armed clashes and loss of life along the DMZ or even further south due to the infiltration of seaborne commando forces. This would give the U.S. a great rationale for the prevention of similar developments in the Middle East and strengthen their case for the "necessity" of invading Iran. IMHO, the primary motive force behind U.S. foreign policy at present is oil - - they want to get those big oil fields under their control against the day when there just won't be enough for everyone, specifically for India, China and the U.S.A., when somebody with ready money in his hand is still gonna be left at the docks waiting for his tanker to be filled next month after the other guys' tankers have already sailed. They (the U.S.) just don't want that guy to be them.
-
Mikey,
Is this just a US - NoKo issue in your mind or is it a regional or international issue?
If if is a regional or international issue, shouldn't the other interested parties be sitting at the table, as has been taking place?
-
The obvious answer is a hybrid set of negotiations: either establish two-party US-NK talks under the general umbrella of the six-party talks, or establish them "independently" with a clearly-articulated reporting mechanism. I would not end the multilateral talks. By the same token, I would not deny NK what seems to be its aim (in this regard only): straight one-on-one talks with the US. The important thing in any bilateral talks would be the "context" they were convened among. In no way whatsoever should NK's psychotic blinders allow them to filter out (and magnify on us) the real-world context in which its behavior plays out.
-
I have no problem with rewarding NoKO with two party talks with the US if they show good faith and good actions with the present framework. I don't believe they have to this point, and I certainly don't believe they should be rewarded for not doing so.
-
The very few mouthbreathers that still support Bush will maintain their state of denial about the following truth by calling it a bushbash, but it is clearly the case and any effort to handle NK will be required to have Bush either gone from office or largely emasculated.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-cirincione15oct15,0,5531686.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
Bush Unleashes the Nuclear Beast
If the administration won't abide by time-tested nuclear treaties, why should anyone else?
By Joseph Cirincione
Joseph Cirincione is a senior vice president at the Center for American Progress. His new book, "Bomb Scare: The History and Future of Nuclear Weapons," will be published next spring.
October 15, 2006
IN THEIR THIRD PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE, in October 1960, John F. Kennedy went after Vice President Richard Nixon, blasting him as weak on national security for not stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. France had just tested its first nuclear device, joining the United States, the Soviet Union and Britain as the world's first nuclear powers. Kennedy warned "that 10, 15 or 20 nations will have a nuclear capacity — including Red China — by the end of the presidential office in 1964."
As president, Kennedy sought to fight that dark vision, telling the United Nations: "The weapons of war must be abolished, before they abolish us." He restarted talks on a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, began pursuit of a global nonproliferation pact and signed a treaty with the Soviet Union to ban atmospheric nuclear tests. Although Kennedy did not live to finish the job, in 1968, Lyndon Johnson signed what became the diplomatic crown jewel of his presidency: the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, or NPT. President Nixon secured its ratification.
The NPT is now considered one of the most successful security pacts in history. Every nation in the world is a member except Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. Most of the 183 member states that do not have nuclear weapons believe what the treaty says: We should eliminate nuclear weapons.
The treaty became the hub around which liberals and conservatives built an interlocking network of agreements that deterred, though didn't altogether stop, the spread of nuclear weapons. As a result, by 2000, only three other countries — Israel, India and Pakistan — had joined the original five nuclear nations. With the success of these agreements, and the end of the Soviet-American nuclear standoff at the close of the Cold War, it seemed that the nuclear threat that had haunted the world for so many years might finally be receding.
But now, suddenly, the threat is back. In the last six years, we seem awash in nuclear threats: First it was Saddam Hussein, then North Korea and Iran. How did it happen? Is nuclear restraint dead?
At the heart of the problem is the strategy George W. Bush chose, which rejects international treaties as the solution to proliferation. He and his advisors saw these agreements as limiting U.S. flexibility and viewed the United Nations and other global gatherings as arenas where the world's Lilliputians could tie down the American Gulliver.
Bush scuttled the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, walked away from the nuclear test ban treaty secured by President Clinton, opposed efforts to enforce the treaty banning biological weapons, mocked the U.N. inspectors before the Iraq war and sent low-level officials to critical negotiations, including last year's NPT conference. The world now believes that the chief architect of the global nonproliferation system has abandoned its creation.
Instead, the administration preferred to rely on U.S. military might and technology, such as anti-missile systems, to protect the United States. Rather than negotiate treaties to eliminate weapons, it forged a strategy to eliminate the regimes that might use them against us. The Bush team felt they knew who the bad guys were, and they aimed to get them — one by one.
But the strategy has backfired. Both Iran and North Korea accelerated their programs, making more progress in the last five years than they had made in the previous 10. Now North Korea's test threatens to trigger an Asian nuclear-reaction chain that could prompt South Korea, Taiwan and even Japan to reconsider their nuclear options.
And it is not just the threats from small nations such as North Korea that could fuel a new atomic arms race. It is the continued existence of huge nuclear arsenals in the United States, Russia and other states. The importance of nuclear weapons as a cornerstone of U.S. defense had been declining since the Cold War ended. Though the U.S. never ruled out their use, Clinton and George H.W. Bush made it clear that they believed they were unusable, except perhaps in retaliation.
But the current president's policies have elevated the role of these weapons. The 2002 Nuclear Posture Review detailed plans to build new, more usable "low-yield" nuclear weapons and created missions for them. Bush decided to retain about 6,000 weapons and to research a new generation of nuclear missiles, bombers and submarines.
What's the relevance of this to proliferation? Simple. U.S. intelligence officials concluded as early as 1958 that other nations' nuclear appetites could not be curbed without limiting the superpowers' stockpiles. That judgment was confirmed by subsequent administrations.
As the superpowers cut their weapons from a Cold War high of 65,000 in 1986 to about 27,000 today, other countries took note. In the 1960s, 23 countries had nuclear programs, including Australia, Canada, Egypt, Japan, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and West Germany. Most ended any weapons programs. Brazil and Argentina stopped research in the 1980s, and South Africa, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their bombs in the 1990s.
We now know that U.N. inspectors ended Iraq's nuclear program in 1991. In 2003, Libya abandoned its secret program. Until last week, no nation had tested a nuclear weapon for eight years — the longest period in the Atomic Age. The outrage that greeted the North Korean test shows how strong anti-nuclear sentiment has become.
Many political and military leaders recognize the limited military utility of weapons whose use would kill thousands of innocent civilians. Rep. David L. Hobson (R-Ohio), a solid Midwest conservative, led the effort last year to kill the administration's proposed "nuclear bunker buster," a new weapon designed to go after conventional targets. Former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara advocates greatly reducing the U.S. and Russian arsenals and then working to eliminate them completely, just as countries have done with chemical and biological weapons. Even former Bush advisor Richard Perle has said the U.S. could cut to well below 1,000 warheads. "The truth is we are never going to use them," Perle said. "The Russians aren't going to use theirs either."
By clinging to our own nuclear arsenal, and touting the importance of these weapons to our own security, the Bush administration has sent the world a schizoid message: Nuclear weapons are very, very important and useful — but you cannot have them. This double standard is impossible to maintain.
Last year, International Atomic Energy Agency Director Mohamed ElBaradei said that until the world was committed to eradicating nuclear weapons, "we will continue to have this cynical environment that all the guys in the minor leagues will try to join the major leagues…. They will say, 'If the big boys continue to rely on nuclear weapons, why shouldn't I?' "
Bush administration officials have proved expert at smashing the agreements their predecessors so painstakingly built, but in doing so they broke the bars that had caged the nuclear beast. Those who will have to repair the damage would do well to look back at the handiwork of the past. They might learn a thing or two.
-
I have no problem with rewarding NoKO with two party talks with the US if they show good faith and good actions with the present framework. I don't believe they have to this point, and I certainly don't believe they should be rewarded for not doing so.
Agreed. The worst thing we can do is to reward completely & globally deemed unacceptable behavior. And might I add, I'm impressed with the suggestions to this point, minus the standard knute garbage of course
-
I wouldn't tie the advent of two-party talks to any concessions, save one: NK's pledge of (verifiable) good faith in both those talks and the multilateral talks, as the parties their decide. I don't think the matter should devolve to a situation of one-upmanship. The important thing is to get the right framework set up ... and working, along with sanctions, which can be used as bargaining chips when appropriate.
-
MT It's the height of absurdity to claim that you know the outcome of the talks before they start. At the very least, you'll gain some insight into how he functions in a one-on-one with the Great Satan, which could come in handy in the future.
I wouldn't tie the advent of two-party talks to any concessions, save one: NK's pledge of (verifiable) good faith in both those talks and the multilateral talks, as the parties their decide. I don't think the matter should devolve to a situation of one-upmanship. The important thing is to get the right framework set up ... and working, along with sanctions, which can be used as bargaining chips when appropriate.
We do know how talks have worked in the past , includeing one one one talks useing a former President as an envoy, the North Koreans have no good faith .
-
1. UP would say we are being too interventionist.
I'd appreciate you not talking for me. Thank you.
-
::)
-
Just back from hiking, dinner and a pretty good movie ("The Departed" - - Martin Scorsese)
BT, it's a regional AND a US problem, but if the North Koreans at this point insist on talking to the US one-on-one there's no reason why(a) the US can't raise regional issues in the talks, make some of the proposed solutions conditional upon regional acceptance or (b) why the other regional parties can't - - with or without the US also present, at least with observer status - - conduct simultaneous talks with the North Koreans. Nothing else is working out, and this (bilateral talks) seems like the only door open at this time.
Plane, the North Koreans may not have abided by the results of their prior talks, but - - that was then, this is now. I think there's a big difference between negotiating with an armed man when you yourself are unarmed and desperately in need of time to arm yourself, and dealing with that same armed man when you've finally managed to acquire a weapon yourself. The North Korea that signed onto non-proliferation when it had no nukes is not the same North Korea that now has a few nukes. They may not be sincere in their desire for a one-on-one but there is very little to lose by giving in and talking and much to be gained if a deal can be reached.
Knute posted an article suggesting that the US has walked away from negotiated solutions to the nuclear proliferation problem and has therefore lost credibility as a negotiating partner, but that's (IMHO) irrelevant in a situation where it is the North Koreans who are insisting on the one-on-one.
Personally, I don't think the talks are going to get anywhere, multi-lateral OR bi-lateral. The issue for North Korea is just too basic, too fundamental. Would the US for example - - with MUCH more powerful conventional forces than North Korea - - ever be negotiated out of its nuclear arsenal? Then how can it expect the infinitely more vulnerable North Korea to be negotiated out of its? In the past, there could possibly have been a web of regional treaties that might have taken the place of nuclear weapons - - a mutual defence pact with China, non-aggression treaties with Japan and USA, a final peace treaty with South Korea (probably impossible because of reunification issues) but anyway some kind of diplomatic safety net. Unfortunately this is almost impossible today because of the widespread disrespect for international law, for which the United States must bear most of the blame.
The contempt shown by the Bush administration for international law has - - exactly as I predicted - - led to a more lawless world, where legally binding treaties are derided as "quaint" and "old-fashioned," made to be circumvented with legal technicalities where possible and simply violated if need be. We have been thrown backward into a more Darwinian world where each nation has to look to its own strength for its security and treaties are made to be broken. The sad fact is, the North Koreans probably see the US desire for negotiations of any kind either as a smokescreen for an illegal attack that's already planned and budgeted for, or as an admission of weakness, proof that the US is fiscally and/or militarily unable to achieve its goals by force of arms.
In addition to keeping their nukes out of stark necessity, the North Koreans would also probably want to hang onto them in basic fairness. How could it possibly be argued that it's fair that - - just to pick one example -- PAKISTAN - - should have nuclear weapons, but North Korea should not? I would think that on that ground alone, there would have to be a bribe of monstrous proportions to induce the North Koreans to really and truly give up their nukes.
So I think the US ought to have a Plan B in case the face-to-face fails. And Plan B is very simple - - just get used to it. This is a dangerous world we live in. Not only does North Korea have nukes, but Iran will inevitably have them as well. The short-term solution is just to resign yourselves to a stand-off. The ideal solution is obviously some kind of accommodation with your enemies, not a continuing confrontation. And for that you'll definitely need a change of leadership - - not just a change of parties, but a change of generations. I think your present generation of leaders - - on BOTH sides of the aisle - - is way too confrontational for the post-Communist world.
-
Here's Mr. Krauthammer's suggestion(s)
What Will Stop North Korea
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, October 13, 2006
It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union .
-- President John F. Kennedy,
Now that's deterrence.
Kennedy was pledging that if any nuke was launched from Cuba, the United States would not even bother with Cuba but would go directly to the source and bring the apocalypse to Russia with a massive nuclear attack.
The remarkable thing about this kind of threat is that in 1962 it was very credible. Indeed, its credibility kept the peace throughout a half-century of the Cold War.
Deterrence is what you do when there is no way to disarm your enemy. You cannot deprive him of his weapons, but you can keep him from using them. We long ago reached that stage with North Korea.
Everyone has tried to figure out how to disarm North Korea. It will not happen. Kim Jong Il is not going to give up his nukes. The only way to disarm the regime is to destroy it. China could do that with sanctions but will not. The United States could do that with a second Korean War but will not either.
So we are back to deterrence. Hence the familiar echoes of the Cuban missile crisis with North Korea's rude entry into the nuclear club this week. The United States had to immediately put down markers for deterrence. President Bush put down two.
One marker, preventing a direct attack on our allies in the region, was straightforward, if bland: "I reaffirmed to our allies in the region, including South Korea and Japan," the president said in a nationally televised statement, "that the United States will meet the full range of our deterrent and security commitments." It is understood by all that the decades-old American nuclear umbrella in the Pacific Rim commits us to attacking North Korea -- presumably with in-kind nuclear retaliation -- were it to attack our allies first.
Gruesome stuff, but run-of-the-mill in the nuclear age. The hard part is the second marker Bush tried to put down: proliferation deterrence.
We are in an era far more complicated than Kennedy's because his great crisis occurred before the age of terrorism. The world of 1962 was still technologically and ideologically primitive: Miniaturized nuclear weaponry had not yet been invented, nor had modern international terrorism. Yasser Arafat and the Palestine Liberation Organization gave the world that gift half a decade later with their perfection of the political airline hijacking.
Terrorism has since grown in popularity, ambition and menace. Its practitioners are in the market for nuclear weapons. North Korea has little else to sell.
Hence Bush's attempt to codify a second form of deterrence: "The transfer of nuclear weapons or material by North Korea to states or non-state entities would be considered a grave threat to the United States, and we would hold North Korea fully accountable for the consequences of such action."
A good first draft, but it could use some Kennedyesque clarity. The phrase "fully accountable" does not exactly instill fear, as it has been used promiscuously by several administrations in warnings to both terrorists and rogue states -- after which we did absolutely nothing. A better formulation would be the following:
Given the fact that there is no other nuclear power so recklessly in violation of its nuclear obligations, it shall be the policy of this nation to regard any detonation of a nuclear explosive on the United States or its allies as an attack by North Korea on the United States requiring a full retaliatory response upon North Korea.
This is how you keep Kim Jong Il from proliferating. Make him understand that his survival would be hostage to the actions of whatever terrorist group he sold his weapons to. Any terrorist detonation would be assumed to have his address on it. The United States would then return postage. Automaticity of this kind concentrates the mind.
This policy has a hitch, however. It works only in a world where there is but a single rogue nuclear state. Once that club expands to two, the policy evaporates, because a nuclear terror attack would no longer have a single automatic return address.
Which is another reason why keeping Iran from going nuclear is so important. With North Korea there is no going back. But Iran is not there yet. One rogue country is tolerable because it can be held accountable. Two rogue countries guarantees undeterrable and therefore inevitable nuclear terrorism.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/12/AR2006101201668.html
-
Deterrence is obviously the answer. It's always been the first line of defence for the USA and it's there whether talks with North Korea succeed or fail. OTOH, we don't really know the extent of North Korea's non-nuclear needs. They may be desperate. There is absolutely no harm whatsoever in talking to them.
Krauthammer's second part of the deterrence formula is ludicrous. In the first place, the USA would never retaliate, even for a nuclear attack, simply because it "might" have come from North Korea. We already know that Pakistan has sold nuclear technology, we just don't know exactly who it's been selling to.
In the second place, telling North Korea it's gonna be hit if anything ever happens to the USA, regardless of who is responsible is like telling North Korea to stock up on as many nukes and missiles as it can get its hands on because it has just issued a policy on the life of the United States of America on which the insured pays no premium but for which the death benefit, when due, will not only bankrupt the insurer but lead to the death of its entire board of directors. In such a situation, regardless of North Korean complicity, any nuclear attack on US soil would lead automatically to a second strike by North Korea (and possibly China and Russia as well) in order to forestall an American nuclear attack on North Korea with fallout on its neighbours.
-
the USA would never retaliate, even for a nuclear attack, simply because it "might" have come from North Korea. We already know that Pakistan has sold nuclear technology, we just don't know exactly who it's been selling to.
Then how do you know they've sold such??
telling North Korea it's gonna be hit if anything ever happens to the USA, regardless of who is responsible is like telling North Korea to stock up on as many nukes and missiles as it can get its hands on because it has just issued a policy on the life of the United States of America on which the insured pays no premium but for which the death benefit, when due, will not only bankrupt the insurer but lead to the death of its entire board of directors
Sorry, but NK will cease to exist, before it could then theoretically counterattack. But deterrence does seem to be the key approach here
-
Actually, further to what I just posted, a second strike by North Korea would be virtually guaranteed whether or not it could forestall a US "retaliatory" strike on North Korea - - once North Korea knows the US was hit, it knows it's gonna be hit anyway - - so all weapons available would be launched before or after the US launches its "retaliatory" strike, but in either event as fast as possible after learning of the hit on the US.
-
once North Korea knows the US was hit, it knows it's gonna be hit anyway - - so all weapons available would be launched before or after the US launches its "retaliatory" strike, but in either event as fast as possible after learning of the hit on the US.
LOL....So, who are they going to hit, realizing they're about to become 1 big parking lot? I don't recall Russia having the same position following Kennedy's proclaimation. And they sure as hell had a ton more nukes than NK has. I do believe that unlike the Islamofascists of the muslim faith, Kim has a higher desire to stay alive vs being a martyr for some cause. Of course he's completely whacked mentally, so that does add a wild card to the normal deductive reasoning process
-
<<I don't recall Russia having the same position following Kennedy's proclaimation. And they sure as hell had a ton more nukes than NK has. >>
That's very interesting. Following Kennedy's proclamation, all Russian nukes were removed from Cuba. Also following Kennedy's proclamation, the US quietly committed to no more invasions of Cuba. Also following the removal of the Russian nukes from Cuba by one year, all U.S. nukes in Turkey (all of which were aimed at Russia) were quietly removed. Most of them had been situated near the Russian-Turkish border.
Russia and America negotiated a deal that was a little more complex than what the American people were told at the time. The U.S. media reported a story that basically stated "We were eyeball to eyeball and the other guy just blinked." In fact, Kennedy also made considerable concessions to the Russians, but these concessions could not be reported at the time to the American people, and - - as is evident from your own simplified version of the story - - is still not widely known in the U.S.A. today. Americans like their history simple.
As for your other question - - think. If your friendly neighbourhood drug dealer is busted because he was caught on tape dealing to Leroy and dealing to Prince, does that mean the cops know everybody he ever dealt to?
-
So, in other words, Russia "de-nuked" itself, by way of Cuba, following Kennedy's proclaimation. Excellent. So, when NK does the same, we'll have a good faith place to jumpstart further negotiations
And no, you still haven't indicated who, when, how or even if Pakistan sold any Nuclear weapon materials
-
You should read a little more carefully. There was no suggestion that the sequence was (1) proclamation by JFK (2) Russia "de-nukes" (3) other concessions are negotiated.
This was a complex deal, negotiated in one time and place, widely implemented over time and space. The de-nuking did NOT follow a simple proclamation with no other inducement but the proclamation.
As to your other question, the story of Pakistan's contribution to nuclear proliferation to Iran, Libya and possibly other countries as well has been the subject of a TIME magazine cover story and other media commentary. Obviously it would be impossible to state with certainty whether the countries that Pakistan is known or suspected of having traded nuclear technology with are all the countries it actually traded with. Neither can it be assumed that any information trafficked by Pakistan originally was not re-trafficked by the original recipients. Very few countries that I know of, and especially now the U.S.A., would like to argue that their intelligence agencies are all-wise and all-knowing. It would be extremely foolish and illogical for anyone to conclude that North Korea is the sole source of any nuclear information or technology that finds its way to America's enemies.
-
Obviously it would be impossible to state with certainty whether the countries that Pakistan is known or suspected of having traded nuclear technology with are all the countries it actually traded with
Meaning it's again just yor say so that they have. Gotcha
-
Meanwhile, back at the ranch:
China is constructing a barbwire barrier along its border with NoKo.
And NoKo is eager to resume the regional 6 party talks.
And SoKo wants its own Nukes, same as Japan.
-
<<Meaning it's again just yor say so that they[ Pakistan] have [traded nuke know-how to buyers we don't know about.] Gotcha.>>
Oy. I can see that subtleties can often evade you, sirs. Once again (third time? fourth time?) - - it is not my say-so that they have traded nuclear secrets to other buyers. I don't fucking know who they have traded to. They don't confide in me. They don't ask for my approval. I'm out of the loop. Got it?
It IS my say-so that I don't know if they have traded to other partners or if they have, who those other partners might be. It is my say-so that the U.S. intelligence do not know - - and would not know - - if Pakistan had traded secrets to other partners, or who all their trading partners might have been. It is my say-so that the U.S. public has already been badly burned by U.S "intelligence" about weapons of mass destruction buried in the sands of Iraq, so that there is a certain lack of confidence in any new intelligence that might come out of them, such as "It musta come from North Korea, chief, no other place the know-how for that nuke coulda come from." That is, to anyone of normal sanity and intelligence, a pretty flimsy basis for incinerating millions of our fellow human beings. Even in YOUR benighted country, it would not fly.
I hope that I spelled it out for you sufficiently this time, sirs, so that (if this isn't too much to hope for) when you end your next post with "Gotcha" you really will - - for once - - actually have "gotten it." Aah, who am I kidding? OF COURSE it's too much to hope for.
-
<<China is constructing a barbwire barrier along its border with NoKo.>>
No!!! A whole barbwire (Texan: Bob Wahr) fence?? Why that musta cost them at Chinese wholesale prices all of a couple thousand bucks U.S. I can see that the Chinese are mightily pissed off at all this. Why last night they were even inspecting North Korean trucks at the border!!! Where will it all end?
-
it is not my say-so that they have traded nuclear secrets to other buyers. I don't fucking know who they have traded to. They don't confide in me. They don't ask for my approval. I'm out of the loop. Got it?
What I got is your continued non verifiable claim that they have (traded nuclear materials to other folks), minus ANY facts what-so-ever to validate the claim. (We already know that Pakistan has sold nuclear technology, we just don't know exactly who it's been selling to.) Thus, just your say so. Yea, I got it the 1st time you pulled it
-
Here ya go, sirs. Chew on this for awhile. If you google "Khan Pakistan nuclear secrets" you can get thousands of other sources with basically the same story.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,,1141781,00.html
Let me know when ya finish it. I can find hundreds of other articles which you will find just as fascinating as this one. Did you know, for example, that East Germany once built a wall all around Berlin? Cool eh?
-
If you google "Khan Pakistan nuclear secrets" you can get thousands of other sources with basically the same story
Spread where.....to North Korea? Again, helps reinforce who we should be targeting in our deterrent rhetoric, considering how Lybia has turned over their WMD program, and iran currently is without, does it not?
Did you know, for example, that East Germany once built a wall all around Berlin?
Yea, amazing how FACTS help validate unsubstantiated claims
-
No!!!
Yep it's true.
-
China may back coup against Kim
Michael Sheridan, Beijing
October 16, 2006
THE Chinese are openly debating "regime change" in Pyongyang after last week's nuclear test by their confrontational neighbour.
Diplomats in Beijing said at the weekend that China and all the major US allies believed North Korea's claim that it had detonated a nuclear device. US director of national intelligence John Negroponte circulated a report that radiation had been detected at a site not far from the Chinese border.
The US may have employed highly classified satellite technology to detect tiny leaks of gas or elements associated with nuclear detonation, according to a diplomatic source in the Chinese capital. This would explain Washington's reluctance to explain the findings in public.
The Washington Times disclosed that US spy satellites photographed North Koreans playing volleyball just a few hundred metres from a test site tunnel after the underground explosion.
The Chinese Government has been ultra-cautious in its reaction. However, since Monday, Foreign Ministry officials have started to make a point of distinguishing between the North Korean people and their Government in conversations with diplomats.
Ahead of yesterday's Security Council vote, some in Beijing argued against heavy sanctions on North Korea for fear that these would destroy what remains of a pro-Chinese "reformist" faction inside the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
"In today's DPRK Government, there are two factions, sinophile and royalist," one Chinese analyst wrote online. "The objective of the sinophiles is reform, Chinese-style, and then to bring down Kim Jong-il's royal family. That's why Kim is against reform. He's not stupid."
More than one Chinese academic agreed that China yearned for an uprising similar to the one that swept away the Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu in 1989 and replaced him with communist reformers and generals. The Chinese made an intense political study of the Romanian revolution and even questioned president Ion Iliescu, who took over, about how it was done and what roles were played by the KGB and by Russia.
Mr Kim, for his part, ordered North Korean leaders to watch videos of the swift and chaotic trial and execution of Ceausescu and his wife, Elena, the vice-prime minister, as a salutary exercise.
The balance of risk between reform and chaos dominated arguments within China's ruling elite. The Chinese have also permitted an astonishing range of vituperative internet comment about an ally with which Beijing maintains a treaty of friendship and co-operation. Academic Wu Jianguo published an article in a Singapore newspaper - available online in China - bluntly saying: "I suggest China should make an end of Kim's Government."
"The Chinese have given up on Kim Jong-il," commented one diplomat. "The question is, what are they going to do about it?"
Hinting at the options, Chinese online military commentators have exposed plots and purges inside North Korea that were previously unknown or unconfirmed. They have described three attempted coups that ended in bloodshed. In 1996, the Sixth Field Army was planning to revolt but the scheme was betrayed by a new commander. One or two plotters got away but Kim Jong-il's personal guards arrested senior officers and the Sixth Field Army's political commissars.
On March 12, 1998, Kim suddenly announced a martial law "exercise" in Pyongyang and there was gunfire in the streets of the city. The Chinese later learned that two ministries were involved in a coup attempt, and that more than 20 ministerial-level officials were killed after it was crushed.
In October 1999, a company of the Third Field Army rebelled in dissatisfaction over grain distribution during the nation's prolonged famine, which may have killed a million people.
There are rumours that Kim's eldest son, Jong-nam, is estranged from his father and living in the Chinese capital, where he enjoys a reputation as a capricious imbiber of whisky. A younger son, Jong-chol, has emerged as heir apparent.
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 Sunday Times
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20587473-2703,00.html
-
<<Again, helps reinforce who we should be targeting in our deterrent rhetoric, considering how Lybia has turned over their WMD program, and iran currently is without, does it not?>>
yeah, that's right, sirs. I think we were both agreed about half a dozen posts back that deterrence was probably the best bet the U.S. has against North Korea.
the subject under discussion, however, was Krauthammer's dipshit proposal for a deterrence policy that was aimed at deterring North Korea from transferring nuclear technology or know-how to unknown enemies of the US, who might use it to attack the U.S. while North Korea builds itself a plausible alibi defence ("We were all vacationing in Florida at the time!") Krauthammer's brilliant idea was to give advance warning to the NK's that they would be held accountable (translation: nuked!) if anyone nuked the US, whether or not NK had a hand in it. Brilliantly, Krauthammer suggested that this policy could only work if the US had removed Iran's nuclear capability first, so that it would then be able to recognize NK as the "source" behind the technology of the rogue bomb.
I felt constrained to point out Pakistan's rather active and complex history of nuke tech transfers, which you seemed to feel existed nowhere outside of my imagination. So I kindly brought to your attention the numerous - - ubiquitous would be the better word - - easily available reports outlining Pakistan's activity in that area. Demonstrating once again for no good reason but personal pique, your total lack of knowledge of the most basic facts and how it stands in such stark contrast to the arrogant, brash and dismissive manner in which you feel compelled to advertise your own appalling ignorance. Soak it up, learn something (if you can, which I so far haven't seen much evidence of) and figure it out: Those of you who THINK you know everything are very annoying to those of us who DO.
-
Even if they change the regime, they aren't going to leave the new regime bereft of their new nukes. Which is another way of saying, if they ARE pissed off with Kim, it isn't due to the nukes.
Could be the boy is just too erratic for them.
-
Why wouldn't the Chinese disarm them of their nukes?
-
the subject under discussion, however, was Krauthammer's dipshit proposal for a deterrence policy that was aimed at deterring North Korea from transferring nuclear technology or know-how to unknown enemies of the US, who might use it to attack the U.S. while North Korea builds itself a plausible alibi defence
So, who are you proposing has a death wish aimed for North Korea?
-
<<Why wouldn't the Chinese disarm them of their nukes?>>
Why would the Chinese want to solve an American problem? They're gonna have their own American problem when they take back Taiwan. They want the U.S. tied up, not unencumbered.
-
<<So, who are you proposing has a death wish aimed for North Korea?>>
Nobody. If anyone used NK know-how to nuke America, their death wish would be for the USA only. North Korea might be collateral damage IF the US retaliated, which they'd only do if they could put a reliable trace on the source.
The idiocy of Krauthammer's suggestion was that it called for North Korea to believe that the USA would retaliate on them for an attack they had no hand in, when they (the U.S.) wouldn't be able to trace the source of the know-how. That was nuts because (a) not even the American people would want to nuke millions of other human beings without any real evidence of their wrong-doing, and (b) because it would practically guarantee that a North Korean second strike would be added to any other rogue state's first strike on American territory.
-
A nuclear armed recalcitrant neighbor is more China's problem than it is ours. My guess is along with regime change they reduce them to proper serfdom by reducing their ability to cause business problems.
-
<<So, who are you proposing has a death wish aimed for North Korea?>>
Nobody. If anyone used NK know-how to nuke America, their death wish would be for the USA only. North Korea might be collateral damage IF the US retaliated, which they'd only do if they could put a reliable trace on the source.
Then what's your beef? If the Krauthammer deterrence initiative is that NK will cease to exist, especially if such folks have ties to NK & were to try and launch a nuclear attack on us, obviously imparts a death wish on their part for the non-existance of NK, if we were indeed to impose a Kennedy-esque proclaimation. As such it'll also give pause to NK for daring to even pull such a stunt to begin with, just as it did the Russians. You can't have it both ways, I'm afraid
-
I suspect you will see Japan modifying tis constitution so as to take a more active role in the Far East as they distrust both NK and China and we are not over there in sufficient force to be a real presence. After all,they are in short missile range from NK.
I say, let's sit down with the NKans with lots of third-party witnesses around like the wimpo French, etc. Then, the NK officials can rant and rave and generally act irrational and we can then pack up shop and tell the world "Hey, at least we tried! See, I told you they are crazy!" Good PR for the U.S.
-
I say, let's sit down with the NKans with lots of third-party witnesses around like the wimpo French, etc.
I believe we are already sitting down with them and the Chinese, Russians, Japanese and S. Koreans can bear witness to that.
-
<<A nuclear armed recalcitrant neighbor is more China's problem than it is ours. >>
Yeah. But it depends on how "recalcitrant" North Korea really is, and who it's recalcitrant to. I'm betting if the Chinese really didn't want 'em to test nukes, they wouldn't test nukes. The test of how pissed off the Chinese are with this guy would be what they do to punish his "defiance" of their "Don't test" admonitions. So far, they haven't done a hell of a lot.
<<My guess is along with regime change they reduce them to proper serfdom by reducing their ability to cause business problems.>>
Yeah, they've seen how easy it is for the U.S. to reduce Iraq to its "proper serfdom," North Korea should be a piece of cake. What kind of "business problems" is North Korea gonna cause them anyway? The U.S.A. might stop buying their stuff? Gee, that'd be too bad, they might have to sell some T-bills.
I try to focus on the cui bono side of the argument. Given that North Korea would never attack China with its nukes, whose problem are they really? Who would benefit most from North Korea disarming and who benefits most from North Korea NOT disarming? Put that way, it's a no-brainer.
-
<<If the Krauthammer deterrence initiative is that NK will cease to exist, especially if such folks have ties to NK & were to try and launch a nuclear attack on us, obviously imparts a death wish on their part for the non-existance of NK, if we were indeed to impose a Kennedy-esque proclaimation. >>
PAUSE and ask yourself, what is the likelihood that "such folks" would have a death wish for North Korea? Because they hate the U.S.A. enough to nuke it, it follows they'd hate North Korea just as much? Because North Korea gave them the means to nuke the U.S.A., that would be their reason to hate North Korea? Can you even think of one country or group that hates both the USA and North Korea badly enough to want 'em BOTH nuked AND which would also be liked and trusted enough by North Korea that it (NK) would give them nuclear secrets and/or technology? You are talking about things, people, countries, organizations that just don't exist and aren't likely to exist.
<<As such it'll also give pause to NK for daring to even pull such a stunt to begin with, just as it did the Russians. >>
sirs, I get that the North Koreans would be deterred from passing nuke know-how to a group that might want to use it on the U.S.A. That is the BASIS of a deterrent policy - - attack us directly or through your agents or proxies and we will hit back. Nobody is disputing a deterrent policy.
Krauthammer's policy goes beyond the conventional deterrence of "Do this and we'll do that." Krauthammer is for telling them "Even if you DON'T do this, we're still going to do that." Can't you understand how crazy that is? If the North Koreans have absolutely NOTHING to do with a rogue state nuclear hit on the USA, Krauthammer's policy would tell them, "You're gonna get hit anyway." At that point, they're dead as soon as the US absorbs the first strike. Do nothing, and they're nuked. Fire all their nuclear arsenal at the U.S. and they're nuked. Don't you see what a no-brainer that would be for the North Koreans? They had nothing to do with the strike on the U.S. but the U.S. is gonna nuke 'em anyway. They'd have to be schmucks not to fire everything they have at the U.S. and as fast as they can, preferably BEFORE the first wave of US rockets hits them.
<<You can't have it both ways, I'm afraid>>
In the context of this discussion, I have no idea what that means.
-
PAUSE and ask yourself, what is the likelihood that "such folks" would have a death wish for North Korea?
Because of the stance Krauthammer is suggesting, in the mold of JFK, that NK will cease to exist with any nuke detonated in the U.S. Obviously, "such folks" don't care about NK being turned into a parking lot, as they use NK's nuclear technology in some effort to attack America. Again, makes it a valid deterrent that NK not allow such to happen in the 1st place. Remember this is about preventing NK from selling it's Nukes. That's the whole point of Krauhammer's piece, if you hadn't noticed
-
The test of how pissed off the Chinese are with this guy would be what they do to punish his "defiance" of their "Don't test" admonitions. So far, they haven't done a hell of a lot.
They voted for the sanctions the US put before the UN Security Council. They could have vetoed it.
-
MT's question was:
"PAUSE and ask yourself, what is the likelihood that "such folks" [folks who got technology or equipment from North Korea that enabled them to nuke the USA] would have a death wish for North Korea?"
sirs' answer was:
<<Because of the stance Krauthammer is suggesting, in the mold of JFK, that NK will cease to exist with any nuke detonated in the U.S. Obviously, "such folks" don't care about NK being turned into a parking lot, as they use NK's nuclear technology in some effort to attack America. Again, makes it a valid deterrent that NK not allow such to happen in the 1st place. >>
Fair enough. But how likely is it that such irresponsible schmucks would be given nuclear technology by North Korea? The death wish in that case would have to be North Korea's.
<<Remember this is about preventing NK from selling it's Nukes. That's the whole point of Krauhammer's piece, if you hadn't noticed>>
You still don't get that I AGREE Krauthammer's policy would be a deterrent to North Korea's selling its nukes. Even a moron can see that. So would JFK's policy be a deterrent to North Korea selling its nukes. ("Supply nukes or know-how to anyone who nukes us and we'll nuke you.")
So there are TWO policies that will deter NK from selling its nukes or its know-how. Kennedy's and Krauthammer's. What is the DIFFERENCE between the two policies?
Kennedy policy: U.S. gets hit, NK had nothing to do with it. Result: NK sits by on the sidelines while the US sorts out the perpetrator if it knows where the attack came from. NK has absolutlely no reason to launch a strike on the U.S. and a good reason not to (it would be nuked if it did.)
Krauthammer policy: U.S. gets hit, NK had nothing to do with it. Result: NK rushes to launch a second strike because it knows it's gonna be hit regardless of whether it had anything to do with the strike on the U.S. or not. There is no more deterrence left in the Krauthammer policy. The red line that it drew has already been crossed (i.e., an attack with or without North Korean participation has been launched at the U.S.)
sirs, I am sorry but I can't continue this discussion. I really gave it my best efforts to explain this to you and I am afraid you will either get it or you won't. In either event, if you don't get it this time, I give up. Sorry. I just can't devote any more time to this.
-
Krauthammer policy: U.S. gets hit, NK had nothing to do with it......
Well, there's where your theory is blown completely out of the water, since that's 180degrees opposite of Krauthammer's policy. But I can understand how fatiguing it must be for me to continually have to bring you back to what Krauthammer is actually suggesting. By all means, move on to some mindless Bush bashing. Hey, about some more of the asanine "Bush lied us into war" garbage. Or how ruthless and torture advocating our military is. You know, claim it, then claim how well Bush & co are covering up so well, to "prove it". That doesn't require a lot of thought now, so knock yourself out
-
"Krauthammer's dipshit proposal for a deterrence policy that was aimed at deterring North Korea from transferring nuclear technology or know-how to unknown enemies of the US, who might use it to attack the U.S. while North Korea builds itself a plausible alibi defence ("We were all vacationing in Florida at the time!") Krauthammer's brilliant idea was to give advance warning to the NK's that they would be held accountable (translation: nuked!) if anyone nuked the US, whether or not NK had a hand in it. Brilliantly, Krauthammer suggested that this policy could only work if the US had removed Iran's nuclear capability first, so that it would then be able to recognize NK as the "source" behind the technology of the rogue bomb. "
I think Kroughthimer is entirely wrong.
It is unnecessacery to qualify the threat .
North Korea should be told that any nuclear explosion on American or American ally territory would be considered an act of war by North Korea.
This would mean that the only means for Korea to avoid anialation would be to make itself demonstrably clean of Nukes and get this geas lifted before anyone manages to get an Atom Bomb onto American territory.
The US posture twards the USSR did not change a bit when China developed an Atom Bomb , since that time China has apparently built only a small number of the useless things.
So I think that Kroughthimer needs to reconsider the potential of the deterance threat , we have in stock enough bombs to account for every large city and military instalation in Iran and Packistan and North Korea with plenty left over. Under the circumstances we might even be able to borrow a few from our allies if there were any shortfall.
MT opines that even after a nuclear atack American bloodlust would not amount to a wish to kill a very large number of persons in a scapegoat country.
I do not share MTs opinion ,after an event like the frying of Los Angeles , retaliation will be the popular thing.
-
I think that Kroughthimer needs to reconsider the potential of the deterance threat , we have in stock enough bombs to account for every large city and military instalation in Iran and Packistan and North Korea with plenty left over. Under the circumstances we might even be able to borrow a few from our allies if there were any shortfall.
So, the only real difference between you & Krauthammer is you'd use conventional bombs to turn NK into a parking lot vs a few nukes? That's one opinion, though I find the deterrent imposed by a Nuclear response to be far much greater in it's attention grabbing
-
I think that Kroughthimer needs to reconsider the potential of the deterance threat , we have in stock enough bombs to account for every large city and military instalation in Iran and Packistan and North Korea with plenty left over. Under the circumstances we might even be able to borrow a few from our allies if there were any shortfall.
So, the only real difference between you & Krauthammer is you'd use conventional bombs to turn NK into a parking lot vs a few nukes? That's one opinion, though I find the deterrent imposed by a Nuclear response to be far much greater in it's attention grabbing
No, I think that Atomic bombs would be the retaliation of choice in the curcumstance of an atomic atack. Nutron bombs could be used to preserve the environment from the potential of massive fallout and nuclear winter , but on military targets, airbursts which were near enough the ground to wreck the equipment would be necessacery.
In the case of North Korea one of the early targets would be the massive number of artillery tubes pointed at South Korea , for these well dug in cannon ,airbursts that would send overpressures down the tunnels might be acheved with small nuclear bombs that would be detonated near the gunports .
If we can't damage these guns the People of South Korea will be sacrificed.
-
If we can't damage these guns the People of South Korea will be sacrificed.
I have no doubt, that in a military response, those guns will be crumbled dust pile
-
North Korea says "Bring it on"
Are we deterred from something?
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
North Korea wants "peace but is not afraid of war," the North's Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency.
The U.N. Security Council "resolution cannot be construed otherwise than a declaration of a war," the ministry said, calling the sanctions "a product of the U.S. hostile policy toward" North Korea.
The ministry warned that if anyone used the U.N. resolution to infringe on the country's sovereignty, North Korea "will deal merciless blows at him through strong actions."
The U.N. sanctions, approved Saturday, bans the sale of major arms to the North and orders the inspection of cargo to and from the country. It also calls for the freezing of assets of business supplying the North's nuclear and ballistic weapons programs.
The North "will closely follow the future U.S. attitude and take corresponding measures," the statement said, without specifying what those measures would be.
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/north-korea-says-un-sanctions-are-a/20061012052709990006
-
If we can't damage these guns the People of South Korea will be sacrificed.
I have no doubt, that in a military response, those guns will be crumbled dust pile
It would have to be quick, the first volley would kill a large number, the second volley following in seconds.
South Korea has had the guns of North Korea on their temple for fifty years.
-
MT: <<Krauthammer policy: U.S. gets hit, NK had nothing to do with it...... >>
sirs: <<since that's 180 degrees opposite of Krauthammer's policy . . . >>
I was NOT describing Krauthammer's policy in the line that you quoted, I was describing an INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCE of his policy. Can you not fucking read?
What I was describing was ONE KEY CONSEQUENCE of Krauthammer's policy. North Korea would be hit as soon as the U.S. was hit WHETHER OR NOT THE U.S. could prove that North Korea was behind the hit. Krauthammer thought he had found a way to deal with the problem of proof - - how could the U.S. prove that NK technology or know-how was behind the strike? Krauthammer's brilliant solution: let 'em know that they'd be hit whether or not the U.S. could prove it was thanks to them that the U.S. got nuked.
You know, I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't mind that you're so fucking stupid that you can't read the simplest concepts without getting them twisted beyond recognition. I give you the benefit of the doubt that it is an innocent mistake and not a deliberate misrepresentation of my posts. I find the patience to correct - - over and over and over again - - your misconceptions in logical, simple and easy-to-understand exposition. But it would help - - enormously - - if you confined yourself to simple disagreement, pointing out my errors - - what you THINK of as my errors - - and just leaving it at that. To add your childish, ignorant ad hominem rants <<By all means, move on to some mindless Bush bashing. Hey, about some more of the asanine "Bush lied us into war" garbage. Or how ruthless and torture advocating our military is. You know, claim it, then claim how well Bush & co are covering up so well, to "prove it". That doesn't require a lot of thought now, so knock yourself out>> does not improve the quality of the debate and does absolutely nothing to improve my respect for you as a person. Bush DID lie you into a war, your military (AND your exective AND your legislature) ARE ruthless and evil in their pursuit of torture, the torture IS the subject of massive cover-ups and I never relied upon the cover-up as the sole proof of the facts. So not only do you come across looking like a total ass-hole in your "debating" tactics, but like any other ass-hole, you come across as all fulla shit.
-
I was NOT describing Krauthammer's policy in the line that you quoted, I was describing an INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCE of his policy.
We need not worry about North Korea being shot with Atom Bombs while innocent, they are already far from innocent.
Imagine that you are walking past Tom and Jack , Tom calls you Satan and Jack accuses you of stealing his stuff, Tom is smacking his palm with an axe handle and Jack is takeing practice swings with a cricket bat.
You keep on walking and hope that they will not hurt you but you feel a blow from a stick , seems that your collar bone is now broken.
You spin about ,drawing your gun and shoot......
I don't think Tom will tell you that you shot innocent Jack.
-
<<I don't think Tom will tell you that you shot innocent Jack.>>
Assuming that Jack is the guy who did NOT strike the blow on my back, but saw Tom wind up, swing, and strike me: the essence of the Krauthammer policy would be that I am gonna kill both, whether one of them swung at me or not. From Jack's point of view, he (Jack) would have to be an idiot NOT to start shooting at me as soon as Tom lands his first blow.
What the Krauthammer policy would actually accomplish, would be to guarantee a second strike from somebody who had no intention of launching any strike.
-
<<We need not worry about North Korea being shot with Atom Bombs while innocent, they are already far from innocent.>>
Well, in the first place, I would worry about nuking a country that did not attack me or mine. Having nuclear weapons, being ready to defend oneself with them against the U.S.A. if need be and bad-mouthing the U.S.A. are NOT justification for incinerating millions of human beings in a country that did not attack you. Just because YOU may lack a functioning conscience does not mean that the rest of the world is similarly deficient.
However, you apparently misread my posts, which have absolutely nothing to do with "worrying" about North Korea getting nuked.
As I have tried to make clear, my posts relate to a peculiarly nutty proposal of Charles Krauthammer's, and my "worry" as expressed in the posts is about what North Korea would do to the U.S. if the Krauthammer policy were in effect. Specifically, the Krauthammer policy, which wouldn't have any more deterrent effect that a normal policy of nuclear deterrence, would strongly encourage North Korea to launch a second nuclear strike on the U.S. if the U.S. were ever to be hit by somebody else's first nuclear strike.
-
This is China's problem much more than it is the US's problem. It is also a bigger problem for South Korea and Japan.
NK is close to all the other countries and could use their nukes as well as their much more numerous conventional weapons on them as well.
The Russians share a border with N.Korea, and the US does not, so it's probably a bigger problem for them, although that part of Russia is not heavily populated nor economically significant.
China and S. Korea together could probably pull off some sort of coup if they could enlist the aid of the NK Army.
The CIA and other US intel services have proven to be a collection of overpaid, incompetent, blundering sycophants, if for no other reason than they only reach conclusions that agree with the incompetent, blundering assortment of warmongering assholes that include Juniorbush, Cheney, Rice, Rummy and Negroponte.
I imagine that there may be a few knowledgeable officials in US Intel that need to be heard. The US does have a sizeable number of Korean Americans and has every reason, after 55 years of occupation bases in SK, to know more about NK than it did about Iraq, after all. The problem would be getting the voices of these competent intel people heard over the sound of the water gently slapping up against John Negroponte's ample flab as he spends his days in some sort of hot tub, I hear.
Krauthammer is clearly nuts, but could be useful to spew disinformation.
As Andy Rooney said, a sane NK citizen might consider it entirely useful for his country to have nuclear weapons, as a deterrent. It is more logical for Kim to claim that he is protecting his people with a nuclear program than it is for Juniorbush to claim that invading Iraq was necessary to protect the US, which it clearly wasn't.
It is ideal from any country's point of view, that it have a bigger army and better weapons than any conceivable enemy. But this is not possible: everyone cannot have the biggest army and the best weapons.
It would be better for the people of every country if NO ONE had any nukes at all.
-
Apparently some folks are having trouble understanding my take on Krauthammer's proposal. The difficulty seems to be that they do not believe North Korea is innocent and pure of any evil intentions toward the U.S.A.
That is not my argument. So far, North Korea has not attacked the U.S.A. with nukes. We may conclude that this is not due to any benevolent intentions on the part of North Korea, but simply a healthy fear of the normal deterrent policy, the Kennedy-like policy of deterrence that says, "Nuke me and I'll nuke you."
We can't know North Korea's intentions but I think it's a safe bet that they will continue to refrain from striking directly at the U.S.A. They may or may not refrain from trading nuclear secrets.
If they do trade nuclear secrets, they obviously are not deterred by any threat of retaliation against trading secrets. So if the U.S. attacks them in retaliation for trading the secrets beforehand, they will deserve the retaliation but the deterrence policy will have failed.
Krauthammer's policy is supposed to make them even more afraid to trade nuclear secrets, because if the secrets enable anyone to hit the U.S.A., NK will be hit whether or not the U.S. knows it was them. So from their point of view, better not to trade any secrets because if that helps anybody hit the US, whether or not the US knows it was us, we are gonna be nuked in return.
Let's suppose the Krauthammer policy "worked" - - the North Koreans were too scared to let their nuclear secrets out of their own hands. Now somebody else nukes the U.S.A. - - not North Korea, but they're fucked anyway. As a result of Krauthammer's policy, they are going to get nuked for something that somebody else did. Something that they had no hand in whatsoever. What kind of idiots would they have to be NOT to nuke the U.S.A. as soon as possible after it got hit, since the U.S. is going to nuke them anyway? Krauthammer has guaranteed that North Korea would launch a second nuclear strike after somebody else - - anybody else - - had launched a first.
-
Could you further define a "normal" deterance policy?
-
Normal deterrence policy:
1. Do this (usually attacking us with nukes) and we'll do that (attack you with nukes.)
2. Give somebody else the weapon or the technology or know-how that enables them to attack us with nukes, and if they then attack us with nukes, we'll attack YOU with nukes, even if the actual attack came from them. (and of course we'll nuke them too, but that's not much of a deterrent to you, is it?)
Krauthammer deterrence policy
1. Whether or not we can prove that you are behind the attack, if anyone nukes us, we will assume that they got know-how or technology or weapons or materials from you that enabled that attack, and so you better pray that nobody attacks us because we'll nuke you. We'll nuke you on suspicion alone.
-
So the only diffrrence between the Kroughthimer policy and the "normal" deterance is the diffrence between assumption and proof?
Since when did anyone require proof ?
-
Krauthammer deterrence policy
1. Whether or not we can prove that you are behind the attack, if anyone nukes us, we will assume that they got know-how or technology or weapons or materials from you that enabled that attack, and so you better pray that nobody attacks us because we'll nuke you. We'll nuke you on suspicion alone.
Not quite, but thanks for playing
-
<<Since when did anyone require proof ?>>
You gotta be kidding! When MILLIONS of human beings stand to be incinerated on the push of a button? I don't know what planet you've been spending your time on lately, plane, but even in the United States of America, some effort would be made to ensure that the victims' country was in some way related to the attack.
The Krauthammer plan - - I kid you not - - was, regardless of whether you North Koreans had anything to do with the attack or not, we are gonna nuke you. And that is quite a departure.
-
Krauthammer deterrence policy
1. Whether or not we can prove that you are behind the attack, if anyone nukes us, we will assume that they got know-how or technology or weapons or materials from you that enabled that attack, and so you better pray that nobody attacks us because we'll nuke you. We'll nuke you on suspicion alone.
Not quite, but thanks for playing
Wait a minute , why is this not a good idea , even on these terms as MT is stateing them?
North Korea has used catspaws before , so have others.
It is just to odvious and easy as a method to get some crazy that traces to some other wacky dictator .
There are only a few sorces for this knoledge and equipment , the most likely should be the one most worried .
In the Days of MAD with the Soviet Union , it was clear that an unexplained attack would be assumed to be from the Soviets , this continued to be true after the French and Chineese made their own version of the A-Bomb.
What MT is talking about is old hat and established policy , policy that has a proven track record.
-
" some effort would be made to ensure that the victims' country was in some way related to the attack."
No
No such effort should be undertaken unless it can be accomplished almost instantly.
-
The Krauthammer plan - - I kid you not - - was, regardless of whether you North Koreans had anything to do with the attack or not, we are gonna nuke you
Why you insist on completely misrepresenting his "plan" just keeps reinforcing how meritless your accusations are as it relates to his "plan"
-
Plane, you are living in a fantasy world. NOBODY is going to nuke millions of human beings simply on suspicion that their country MIGHT have done something wrong. That's never been anybody's policy and that's why Krauthammer's proposal was so off-the-wall crazy.
-
Plane, you are living in a fantasy world. NOBODY is going to nuke millions of human beings simply on suspicion that their country MIGHT have done something wrong. That's never been anybody's policy and that's why Krauthammer's proposal was so off-the-wall crazy.
Man you are an incureable optomist.
This is the description of MAD, the policy that the USA and USSR shared for more than fourty years.
Do you think that Washington of Moscow dissapearing suddenly in say 1968 or 1980 would result in a calm investigation ,a fair trial and an exactly equivelent response?
-
MAD was predicated on a bi-polar or tri-polar nuclear world and assumed that the delivery device would be tracked by NORAD. They would know exactly where any incoming warhead originated. Missiles were tracked. Submarines were tracked. Nobody but you, as far as I know, has ever suggested that MAD called for the obliteration of a country on mere suspicion.
As a matter of fact, if you took the trouble to read Krauthammer's proposal, he took pains to point out that the advent of "terrorism" had made the old policies of deterrence (which obviously must have included MAD) insufficient. He took pains to point out that his new policy was designed to deal with a situation which the older policies of deterrence never had to deal with.
Not only are you fantasizing, but your fantasy is pretty sick.
-
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15265432/site/newsweek/
"Not only are you fantasizing, but your fantasy is pretty sick. "
So you feel that North Korea is pretty sick for haveing a simular policy?
-
<<So you feel that North Korea is pretty sick for haveing a simular policy?>>
Their policy is self-defence against a country which conducts annual joint military exercises with South Korea within kilometres of the border, demonizes them as part of an Axis of Evil and threatens them repeatedly. North Korea has attacked nobody since the end of the Korean War. I've lost count of the number of countries the U.S.A. has attacked since then. I can understand that a healthy policy of self-defence, particularly with nuclear weapons, might not be pleasing in the eyes of fascist America, but (a) I wouldn't call it "similar" to American policy and (b) I wouldn't call it sick.
-
Submarines were tracked.
Maybe early on.
-
<<So you feel that North Korea is pretty sick for haveing a simular policy?>>
Their policy is self-defence against a country which conducts annual joint military exercises with South Korea within kilometres of the border, demonizes them as part of an Axis of Evil and threatens them repeatedly. North Korea has attacked nobody since the end of the Korean War. I've lost count of the number of countries the U.S.A. has attacked since then. I can understand that a healthy policy of self-defence, particularly with nuclear weapons, might not be pleasing in the eyes of fascist America, but (a) I wouldn't call it "similar" to American policy and (b) I wouldn't call it sick.
No .
North Korea has just announced that all actions by any nation to enforce the orders of the UN will be construed as an act of war by the US.
-
All propaganda. No one takes this rhetoric seriously. It is the old "boy cries wolf" syndrome.
I am afraid that the only party that has any effect on NK is China and their interests are not necessarily ours, or are they?
-
<<North Korea has just announced that all actions by any nation to enforce the orders of the UN will be construed as an act of war by the US>>
Since the UN has never ordered any actions enforced against the U.S., we have no way of knowing whether this North Korean policy is in any way similar to any U.S. policy. There IS no U.S. policy dealing with how to react to the attempted enforcement of UN orders against it.
Although it gets tricky - - they already ARE at war with the U.S.; have been since the armistice that ended the shooting phase of the Korean War. If the U.S. commits an act of war against Korea, it might be a breach of the armistice, which would leave North Korea free to resume hostilities. Does the fact that the UN ordered the sanctions make them legal? What if North Korea FAILS to appeal the sanctions to the World Court, is that an acceptance that means they can't object to the enforcement, can't treat enforcement as an act of war? Can a fuckin worms. I know that the orders of the Security Council aren't necessarily any more legal than a law passed by Congress - - both can be over-ruled by the courts. But North Korea doesn't look like it wants to go to court under any circumstances.
If I were in charge of the U.S. empire right now, I'd be a bit leary of enforcing any sanctions in view of the latest declaration of North Korea - - wouldn't want a new Korean War on my hands, not at this point in time. Even if they could afford to get bogged down in another quagmire, it would really leave them exposed to anyone else who wants a shot at the empire anywhere, at any point.
-
"If I were in charge of the U.S. empire right now, I'd be a bit leary of enforcing any sanctions in view of the latest declaration of North Korea - - wouldn't want a new Korean War on my hands, not at this point in time. Even if they could afford to get bogged down in another quagmire, it would really leave them exposed to anyone else who wants a shot at the empire anywhere, at any point. "
I agree with all you said, MT, EXCEPT this. I refuse to be intimidated by anyone, including NK. Perhpas a better way is to just ignore them. Let the Far East deal with their own upstart chidlren?
-
<<I refuse to be intimidated by anyone, including NK. Perhpas a better way is to just ignore them. Let the Far East deal with their own upstart chidlren?>>
EXCELLENT answer, Professor. In Korea as well as the Middle East. MYOB should be the Golden Rule of U.S. politics. They don't meddle in your business, you should not meddle in theirs.
-
However, the Jacobians would say that this theory is all well and good, but when you have a weapon that can "meddle in YOUR affairs" due to its range and/or effects (e.g. nuclear weapons) ,then THEIR affairs are YOUR affairs....
-
Kind of a chicken-and-egg conundrum, Professor, since the U.S. had weapons that could "meddle" in North Korea's affairs and thus became North Korea's problem BEFORE North Korea became America's problem.
-
Good point, MT. See, we don't ALWAYS disagree, eh?
-
But we've agreed before, Professor. If this were the Supreme Court, you'd be the swing vote. Like Justice Kennedy.
-
"... Nobody but you, as far as I know, has ever suggested that MAD called for the obliteration of a country on mere suspicion.
As a matter of fact, if you took the trouble to read Krauthammer's proposal, he took pains to point out that the advent of "terrorism" had made the old policies of deterrence (which obviously must have included MAD) insufficient. He took pains to point out that his new policy was designed to deal with a situation which the older policies of deterrence never had to deal with...."
"The Krauthammer plan - - I kid you not - - was, regardless of whether you North Koreans had anything to do with the attack or not, we are gonna nuke you. And that is quite a departure.
If only now we can get MT to agree with himself?
I think Kraughthimer is wrong , if there an atomic blast that destroys an American city , destroying whoever is number one on the enemys list would be not only a good idea but also a very popular one .
Once this becomes clear there may be a little less jostleing to get to the top of this list.
-
<<If only now we can get MT to agree with himself?>>
You'll have to enlighten me, plane. In what way were the two quotes of mine that you used inconsistent with one another?
<< . . . destroying whoever is number one on the enemys list would be not only a good idea but also a very popular one>>
Well, it wouldn't be popular for more than a few minutes, because any other country that even thought it MIGHT be number one on your enemies list would have to be nuts NOT to add their nuclear strikes to the first strike. When a mad dog is wounded and nobody knows for sure who he's gonna bite next, I would think thal all available guns would be fired in his direction pretty quickly. Fortunately, even your current political leadership, which isn't much in the brainpower department, knows enough to reject Krauthammer's lunacy even if you don't.