Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Moldy Rutabaga]

[Kuros]

[vexed]

[Gopher]

[Kuros]

[Junior]

This is a good summary of the situation..

Will North Korea play by nuclear club's rules?
Oct. 12, 2006. 01:00 AM
JON B. WOLFSTHAL


After pursuing atomic weaponry for the better part of a generation, it now appears that North Korea has finally clawed its way into the "nuclear club." And that means that the global strategic game has changed forever.

North Korea, barely tolerable to the major Asian powers back when it was merely a potential troublemaker, is now a real and present danger. The time for negotiations is over. Now it's about containment and deterrence.

Assuming Monday's explosion is deemed to have been a successful nuclear test, North Korea is now the world's ninth nuclear power.

Although its leaders may think that translates automatically into regional strength and increased global respect, it's time to show them what they've really won: unflinching international scrutiny and a spot at the top of Washington's list of nuclear targets.

Kim Jong Il has entered a new era, one in which his pattern of brinksmanship, instead of extracting aid from his neighbours, risks provoking a nuclear holocaust.

It is critical that Washington and other powers make crystal clear the responsibilities that come with North Korea's decision: A nuclear power must not bluff, must not provoke and must not make threats lightly.

In contrast to the ambiguous behaviour and bellicose rhetoric they've displayed in the past, North Korean leaders must now avoid steps that could lead to miscalculation and unintentional conflict.

As long as Pyongyang's weapons capability was in doubt, the world could avoid answering the tough questions: Can we really live with a nuclear North Korea? How can we deter a country we don't really understand?

The United States and the international community must ensure that North Korea's leaders understand the full force of its commitment to defend its Asian allies. President George Bush's statement that the U.S. will hold North Korea accountable for its actions is a good first step.

However, it took the U.S. years of face-to-face talks with the Soviet Union and China to work out a stable relationship based on mutual deterrence. Washington will have to find ways to ensure that Pyongyang does not overreach or miscalculate with its nuclear capability.

However distasteful the White House finds direct talks with North Korea, Bush should nonetheless dispatch a personal envoy to Pyongyang with a clear message: Any attempt to use its nuclear arsenal offensively will bring immediate, disastrous and possibly nuclear consequences.

Further, Kim needs to understand that any future North Korean missile tests that are not announced or that are aimed at or over U.S., South Korean or Japanese territory might warrant a U.S. nuclear response.

That's because it would be impossible for any U.S. leader to be sure that such "tests" were not the first signs of a nuclear attack. This envoy would not be empowered to negotiate.

The six-party talks were moribund before and should be declared dead. The envoy's job would be merely to deliver an unambiguous, sober message about Pyongyang's new responsibilities.

The Bush administration will undoubtedly try to step up the economic and political pressure on Pyongyang to disarm.

But the naval blockade it is contemplating is unlikely to succeed either in forcing North Korea to reverse course or in preventing it from exporting its nuclear weapons should it choose to do so.

Fortunately, the fear that Pyongyang will try to export nuclear weapons is not terribly realistic. Although it's true that North Korea has sold missiles to Pakistan, Iran, Syria and Yemen, it's unlikely Kim would be rash enough to sell his nuclear jewels to the highest bidder, knowing that the world could trace any nuclear bomb back to him.

Just in case, however, the envoy should make clear that any export of nuclear weapons or materials would force the U.S. to re-evaluate whether attacking North Korea, however horrific, would be preferable to allowing it to proliferate.

Other financial sanctions against North Korea may be in the offing, but China is now even less likely to risk the collapse of a nuclear North Korea, for fear that the weapons might fall into the hands of North Korean military elements that are even less responsive to Chinese interests than Kim is.

Having watched the U.S. accept China, India and Pakistan as nuclear powers, Kim probably reasons that he will eventually be an accepted and respected member of the nuclear club if only he waits long enough. Tehran's calculations are probably the same.

But he might be whistling past the graveyard. China and India are each a billion people strong � too big to ignore or antagonize.

Pakistan, while smaller, is only accepted because it's seen by Bush as indispensable to the global war on terrorism. Had Al Qaeda never attacked the U.S., Pakistan might well be high on the list of states deemed ripe by the Bush administration for regime change � though its nuclear weapons would have forestalled a U.S. invasion.

Pyongyang enjoys no such clout. It's an economic basket case; no American businesses are panting to get in, and even South Koreans will be forced to rethink their engagement policies.

The only interest the world can have now with North Korea is in avoiding Armageddon.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1160560213681&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795

[Zoobot]

First of all I did not label Oppenheimer or Einstein "bloodthirsty criminals."

Second of all, I am no pacifist. As a matter of fact, I think Einstein was a great, good, and wholesome human being, which was part of the reason why he was denied security clearance for the Manhattan Project (for his affiliation with left-wing groups in Germany)

Pacifism under certain circumstances (such as the threat of naziism) is itself evil I believe. Kim Jong IL is no Hitler. Bush on the other hand... well let's just say he isn't as far from Hitler as many would like to think. And staying true to hollywood values, many criticisms of Jong IL are shallowly thrown at his unattractive appearance. I hear they make George Bush teddy bears, if anyone here is interested. lol

Furthermore, "Mr Hasegawa says that Stalin rejected peace feelers put out by Japan because he was determined to win spoils from joining the war. And, he suggests, the Americans ignored the feelers - which they knew about from breaking Japanese codes - because they did not like them."

Mr. Hasegawa is a professor of history and the director of the Center of Cold War Studies at the University of California.

Oh yeah, and as to "not knowing" about the consequences of nukes, here's Truman's words: ""We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark."

In fact, "not knowing" should have been a reason they shouldn't have dropped the bomb rather than some excuse for the horrors afterwards. Let's face it, the nukes were an experiment in destruction. The firebombing of Dresden killed more civilians than the atomic bomb.

[vexed]

[Zoobot]

I can say all this stuff from my moral high ground because hindsight is twenty twenty

It still doesn't change the fact that the American State (it is debatable whether this actually represents the will of the people anymore, I mean what percentage turned out to vote again?) is to blame for the current "crisis" because they spearheaded the campaign for nuclear weaponry in the first place. I can forgive for that.

But really, in the past half century the actions of the American State have been unforgivable. From the carpet bombing of Cambodia and Laos, the invasion of Grenada, and the funding of the Pinochet coup in Chile, to the puppet gov'ts they have set up in former Soviet republics, to the buttressing of Suharto's genocidal regime in Indonesia, to the invasion of Iraq and the extensive funding of the State of Israel, there is no question in my mind that the American State is far more dangerous than North Korea.

[Gopher]

[ontheway]

Zoobot, if you are going to claim 20/20 hindsight, it would help if what you're saying was accurate. The US did NOT "spearhead the development of nuclear weapons". The US entered the race late, and far behind, against Germany during WWII to develop nuclear (or any other) weapons that could be used to survive and eventually win a horrific and perilous war. The US was far behind Germany in many kinds of weaponry and technology from the outset and throughout the war. German scientists still had the edge in many areas at the end of the war. The Allied forces including the US were able to overcome Germany due to many strategic advantages, not so many technological ones.

Of course, you can question the wisdom of using such weapons against Japan. Did the two nukes dropped on Japan save lives and shorten the war? Were they used to send a message to the Soviet Union? Were these acts unnecessary and a mistake that destabilized the future?


Yes, US interventionism has been an unmitigated mistake. It has created enemies and been a catalyst for hatred and terrorism around the world. The world craves heros and morally upright leadership. This role had been largely filled by the US, and it is true that when the US (which was never pure or perfectly clean) began to intervene throughout the world, for more than the last 50 years, it slowly destroyed the myth and reputation that America had enjoyed. This caused massive disillusionment around the world. It is the highly intellegent, educated, privileged upper middle classes who become alienated and disillusioned and are ripe for recruitment into alternative religions, cults and terrorist groups that offer an alternative idealistic world view to replace their fallen hero.


However, the mistakes, stupidity and evil acts committed by the US in no way compare to the evil committed by Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, and others (it is unnecessary to make a definitive list to make the point). The US never actually intended to be evil. Stupidity, arrogance and ignorance of leaders and advisors (Kissinger tops my list for arrogance, stupidity and ignorance) led the US into its decades of misguided and disasterous interventionism. The US squandered its principled and respected leadership role in the world. The US government can no longer claim any moral ground and is unable to take a bold leading role in dealing with the current crisis in nuclear proliferation.

The Iraq war is an example. Unlike the Afghanistan war, which was justified after 911, Iraq was an illegal interventionist invasion. It has left the US military weakened, undermined the capture of Bin Laden and the whole war on terror, undermined the successful completion of the state building mission in Afghanistan, threatened to bankrupt the government, damages the whole economy, and leaves the US in a morally bankrupt position in the face of the real threat of nuclear proliferation in North Korea, and states to follow.

Kim Jong Il must be taken out. The only safe way left is a coalition of nations assaulting NK across the Russian border and by sea, with China agreeing privately to sit by and complain but stay out. Russia, France, Germany and India (perhaps some others) need to step up to the plate, form a coalition to hold the nuclear club at eight and invade NK. A clear message must be sent to the world.

It won't happen. (My odds: 1/25 chance.)

So, Iran, Japan and others will follow with nuclear programs. Eventually someone will use them. God knows when and where it will start. I'd guess it's still 6 to 20 years off and will NOT start in North Korea. It's just that NK having nukes will make it inevitable. I believe that we have less than 12 months to turn the tide in NK, through negotiations or military action, before it is too late.

[Boodleheimer]

just had an interesting debate with a co-teacher yesterday. he says that it's better for Kim to have the Bomb than for the USA to have it.

he said (in order) (a) the Korean War was because we wanted to unite, (b) Kim Il Sung didn't want war, the Russians and China did, (c) we don't want to reunite now.

more statements from Choi Sunsaenim:

North Korea wouldn't attack anybody, it's just so they won't be bossed around by the USA.
Koreans don't hate Japan.
They just want to be left alone, so the USA should leave them alone.
The Happiness Quotient in North Korea is higher than in the USA. People in North Korea are hungry, but happy. They always say "Praise Kim Jong-Il!" (I said, "because if they didn't they'd be shot." he replied "how do you know? have you ever been to North Korea?")
Poor people are happy.
and last but not least: Kim would never, ever sell nukes to terrorists.

[Zoobot]

I love how gopher thinks he has me pegged! I guess he missed the fact that I was quoting Truman.

I would take Zizek over Chomsky any day.

And are you any less indoctrinated than me?

I'm not going to refute that because it is pointless... Indoctrination is as inevitable as breathing air to live. You're just using a word that has a negative connotation to demonize me and people "like" me (who probably aren't all that much like me at all in other regards).

And no, the Germans were not as far along in developing nuclear technology (only rocket technology: that's like the taepodong missile without the nuclear warhead) as some would claim - which was why Einstein expressed regret about writing that letter to Roosevelt urging him to develop nuclear weaponry.

Rockets are not defacto nuclear unfortunately.

[brento1138]

Well, here's a fun little program to play with while you ponder that! Anyone find out yet how many kilotons that NK nuke was?... or if it was even a nuke?

http://www.fas.org/main/content.jsp?formAction=297&contentId=367