So, seriously.....any ideas on how to deal with North Korea?

[Michael Tee]

<<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.  

[The_Professor]

"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?

[Michael Tee]

 <<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.

[The_Professor]

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....

[Michael Tee]

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.

[The_Professor]

Good point, MT. See, we don't ALWAYS disagree, eh?

[Michael Tee]

But we've agreed before, Professor.  If this were the Supreme Court, you'd be the swing vote.  Like Justice Kennedy.

[Plane]

"...  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.

[Michael Tee]

<<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.