Korean Job Discussion Forums

[jhaelin]

[happeningthang]

True.

Even so, I'm pretty sure KJI and his dad had a lot more to do with it than the current administration. It's been a long time coming.

[Ya-ta Boy]

While it is true that Bush could have handled things better, the real responsibility lies with the Norks who broke their promise to remain nuke-free a LONG time ago.

[jinju]

They had a hand in it. Did they cause it? They helped it escalate.

[jhaelin]

Please note: when I wrote in the subject heading "...N.Korean Missle Crisis?"
I DID NOT mean the following:

1) Any country other than U.S.A. having a nuclear weapon automatically constitues a "Crisis".
2) N. Korea having a nuclear device is by default a "Crisis".
3) N. Korea with a nuclear weapon = terrorists with nuclear weapons (i.e. a "Crisis").


What I DID mean by a "...Missle Crisis" were the following:

1) Security concerns provoke N.Korea to develop Nukes.
2) U.S.A. refuses to provide security assurances (i.e. say on paper: "we will not nuke you nor regime change your arse!")
3) East Asian security dynamics drastically changed
- Japan can now justify rewriting their pacifist constitution, and more
importantly begin to develop nuclear weapons.
- Due to their colonial history with Japan, S. Korea and China must
also change their regional security plans (e.g. S. Korea also develops
nukes, while China and Japan begin a new regional arms race.)
4) Entire East Asia region destabilized, and thus solidifying U.S. miliary presence indefinitely.
5) Hot heads, egos and desperate men with hands over red buttons.

[happeningthang]

So you're talking about the consequences of NK going nuclear, and you're asking if Bush and co are responsible.

Bush and co (I assume you mean like minded republicans, neo cons?) played a part, just as SK, China, Japan and not least NK played a part. Maybe it's fair to say the sullen, not talking to you approach taken by Bush and co made going nuclear more attractive to KJI, but it's still a stretch to say that they are "responsible".

[Hater Depot]

jhaelin, how much sense does it really make to separate the question as you propose -- the consequences flow directly from the nuke test itself, no? If Bush & Co. don't bear significant responsibility for the nuke test then thay can't really be held responsible too much for its consequences either, to my mind. What leverage the USA has on the responses of Japan, China, and South Korea is really not that much.

[jhaelin]

Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been on my last response...let me try to restate my point differently.

I guess what frustrates me most is that whenever people start talking about N.Korea and the nuke issue, most people start with a certain bias. This bias includes the following assumption:
N.Korea, under no circumstances can justify going nuclear, as they are an evil "rogue" state with only malicious intent for going nuclear.

If you start from this viewpoint all events would seem like N.Korea is at fault and causing the "crisis".
Because every move they have made during this standoff would appear like N.Korea was threatening the World. Thus, the general view of 'developed' nations is, "How dare they go nuclear and threaten us!"

But if we give N.Korea the consideration that all nations deserve and assume that they may also have rationality, and can reason, than I think people may get a totally different prespective on this issue.
To put it simply, why can't we see all the actions of N.Korea, during the development of this crisis, as "defensive" and for "survival". They're not a bunch crazies that are trying to get destroyed. Because that's the only outcome possible from a nuclear confrontation with the US. They're not going to sell nukes to terrorists, because all nuclear explosions are chemically distinct and can reliably be tracked back to the manufacturing source. As soon as one of their devices exploded, there would be an immediate response from the US (and since the US is the only nuclear power that has ever used nukes on civilians, I would expect US response to be severe).

So if we assume N.Korea's actions are defensive, then the last 10 years can look completely different:
Everytime N.Korea wanted to deal, to secure their survival, the Republican Congress (during the Clinton years) and the Bush Administration (since 2001) seem not to want it.
What exactly is the advantage for N.Korea going nuclear? Can it provide an offensive option? No, because any offensive use would mean their complete and utter destruction -as cliche as that sounds. Can they make money? Perhaps, but the price and likelihood of getting caught are too high. The only rational reason for going nuclear is to deter US attack and possible regime change; especially in light of what's going on in Iraq and with Iran (the other two of the "Axis of Evil").
Now, I am not defending N.Korea as a regime, and Kim Jong-Il as a leader. Based on the information available, it appears both the regime and leader are very bad for the people of N.Korea. Still this does not mean they want to be destroyed by making senseless threatening moves to the sole Superpower. Rather these are the acts of a cornered regime desperate for survival.

Also, contrary to your (Hater Depot) opinion, the US has tremendous leverage over Japan and S.Korea. Not only do the two countries host the largest US bases and forces deployment in the region, but as a result of N.Korea going nuclear, Japan and S.Korea must now place greater reliance upon the US military, conventionally and as a nuclear umbrella.

As to why the US would want this current crisis...?
It doesn't take a genius to recognize that the current "war on terror" is really a resource "war for oil". Iraq, Iran, and Central Asia are the prizes. Russia and China are the competitors. The US has made its move in the greater middle east, and has tried to get footholds in the '-stans' of Central asia. The bases and continued military presence in East Asia is essential now, as it was during the Cold War. It's all about containing Russia and China.

[Hater Depot]

There is another rational reason for having nukes which is, I suspect, playing an increasingly great role in KJI's decisions -- his need to create internal unity. While it may look from the outside as if he has complete control, I'm sure that in reality he spends a lot of time engaged in palace intrigues. For example it appears China has leaked reports of three separate coup attempts in the last 10 years. Kim also no longer relies on the Korean Worker's Party to govern, his power base now reduced to the army.

The next 6 months will show just how much the US can influence Japanese and ROKean decisions. I predict the US will fail:

1. The ROK will continue the Sunshine Policy; the Kaesong Industrial Region and Mt. Kumgang tours will continue as before. ROK will not participate in any meaningful way in the PSI.

2. Japan will take steps towards going nuclear.

[mateomiguel]

[Kuros]

[jhaelin]

[mateomiguel]

you know, fighting a war for idealism always makes me feel queasy in my stomach, but fighting a war for resources is a good, solid strategy I can get behind.

I actually feel happier knowing that the US is fighting a war for strategic natural resources rather than fighting for some nebulous ideal such as 'freedom' or 'democracy.'

Why, you ask? Because idealistic wars can never be won, at least not with violence. But securing strategic natural resources is basically what armies were made for, and they're good at it too. It shows my government isn't making stupid decisions about the application of force.

However, the detestable reaction that my countrymen have over the idea of a war fought for resources shows me that they have no idea about the application of force, and I feel sorry for them. .

[Ya-ta Boy]

[jhaelin]