OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

Wow! I guess the world didn’t see this one coming. Sarcasm aside, this is one nation that ought not have the bomb. Why do I say this, well it is my sincere belief that the leaders of North Korea, specifically Kim Jong-il, are the kind of people that don’t care about the moral implications of having the bomb. This is evident by the fact that while his nation starves, they spend more and more money on armament.

I firmly believe that Kim Jong-il will sell either the technology, a weapon, or God fearing both, to any one who will pay. Those among his client list would most assuredly be terrorist groups and or nations. (Iran for one)

I believe that neither Clinton nor Bush is directly to blame for this, both did what they thought was right given the information at hand at the time. Clinton was lied too, and Bush simply can’t abide a lair. As far as the blame game goes, at least for this thread, the blame for North Korea having nukes rest squarely around the neck of Kim Jong-il himself. The guy is simply a slimly sneaky lying weasel out to boost his own ego and pocket book at the expense of his nation and people.

Now that North Korea has the capability to make nuclear weapons, what should the world community do about it?

Edit:
For the purpose of this thread I ask that those who choose to participate please focus on the question of what to do next now that North Korea has the bomb. I am sorry that I did not make this distinction sooner. Thank you.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

Hey guys, please keep on topic if you would and avoid the the temptations to of being distracted by past events. While everyone has the right to an opinion about how we got here, its would be better for the health of the topic if we just let the past stay in the past and focus on the current topic of what do we do now.

There is no need to get into a point counter point dicussion of who is to blame. The Bush comments just take us off topic so please again, don't dwell on them. Thanks.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

Then why does he spend so much time hanging around Tony Blair? Or himself, for that matter?

More to the point, what *can* they do? Invade? Not a good idea. Even if China doesn't intervene militarily or economically, this ain't no Iraq. Kim is well-armed, and even if he couldn't hope to hold off the rest of the world indefinitely, he could probably make any attempt at invasion painfully slow and messy. Besides, the coalition of the 'willing' has enough trouble getting popular support and troops for its existing wars.

Nuke 'em? Even worse idea. Quite apart from the hideous death toll in largely innoent North Koreans, the Japanese, South Koreans and Asia in general will be most upset about radioactive fallout, and it will only encourage Kim to fire his own nukes at... well, whoever it is he can actually hit with them (NK, probably.) Apparently he has invested heavily in putting his command and military facilities underground.

Sanctions? I don't think they will bother old Kim one bit.

Ask nicely? Worth a try, but don't hold your breath.

Try to decapitate the regime with some sort of James Bond action? Makes for good films, but unlikely to work and will probably cause more trouble (political vacuums suck) than good.

Sit it out, try to contain the threat & control movement of technology at the borders and wait for Kim to die/ get deposed? I think that's the course the world will take, simply because it's about the only one left. Of course it's hard to settle on such a patient course of (in)action while talking tough, and Bush does like to talk tough. I guess he'll hope he can put a hard-man facade on inactivity (shifting blame for the lack of action to the UN is my guess) until his term is up, then leave his successor to worry about it.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

I saw a newstory about this on tv a short while ago. There was an expert explaining what could be done.

1. Something to do with North Koreas foreign account. I assume getting a bunch of bankers to put the squeeze on them

- North Korea doesn't have a foreign account. After all who would buy anything from them (except of course the terrorists) and they don't actually buy anything from the outside world I assume.

2. Economic sanctions (not sure of the difference between 1 and 2)

- This would achieve nothing. The only people who would suffer are the NK people, and certainly not the leaders.

3. Military action.

- I actually was busy doing something else so I sort of missed this bit. I presume he would say something like "could we actually invade NK?"

His final opinion seemed to be something like we just have to put diplomatic pressure on them. Yeah right like that would work. The problem I see with the UN is they are entirely too ready to stick to talking. Doesn't work when the other guy has no interest in listening.

Another thing I saw was the UNs NK ambassador doesn't see why we are criticising them. He reckons we should be congratulating them on their engineering achievement http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

Hey lets keep the recriminations and anti-Bush/Clinton comments out of it. The problem is North Korea and that bastard Kim Jong-il

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

Unfortunately, getting 'the bomb' is a perfectly rational response for most nations in today's world. Living in a world where the only remaining superpower calls you part of the axis of evil and pre-emptively invades another nation, while simultaneously ignoring those nations that have developed nukes, then the message is clear: the only way to protect yourself against the aggressive superpower is to develop nukes. So, Iran and the DPRK develop nukes. And no one is surprised. Except perhaps Bush.

But, golly gee, maybe if Bush hadn't refused to talk to them at all for the past six years, we wouldn't be here today. Sputing off about an "axis of evil" is a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is what happens when you put a dum@ss cowboy into a man's job. Bush is clearly the worst president in then history of the US.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

1. Embargo and blockade. Prevent North Korea from obtaining any more nuclear material. Granted this won't take care of the material that they already have, but it will help keep them from getting more.

2. Bored every ship coming in and out of North Korea. This is an act of war if not sanctioned by the UN. North Korea exports two things, missiles and Opeum. Cut off a primary source of income.

3. Additional Financial Sanctions. While we all know that Kim never spends a dime to feed his people, so sanctions won't hurt them any more than they have already been hurt, but Kim does have to have cash to pay his Generals. Take away his ability to pay his Generals, and just perhaps they will take care of Kim.

4. Avoid a military response at all costs but make it clear that if North Korea sells or even attempts to sell either nuclear technology, weapons, expertise, or materials to any one there will be a harsh military response. Perhaps stratigic strikes against North Korean Military targets.

5. North Korea is China's dog. Make them asert themselves as the master and put that mut down once and for all. China is the new world economic super power and that little ***** in North Korea could cost them a lot of money. Evidence being the Chines Stock Exchange and its negative reaction to North Korea's nuclear test.

Kim Jong-il has a million man army and the desire, if not the will to use them. He now has the ability to manufacture nuclear weapons. Weapons that he will use to his advantage by black mailing the world. "Put up with me or else."

Even worse, he could attack South Korea as evidence shows he is very inclined to do under the pretense that "the evil US was going to attack me." No evidence of this but if we have to strike his military infastructure, then this is certainly an option that he will use.

Even worse yet, he could simply invade and use his nukes to keep the world from stopping him. "Stop me and I will nuke Japan, South Korea, and any one else who interfears.

Lets face it, Kim is no Saddam, he actually has the capability to do great evil and the will and determination to do so.

North Korea is a bully and we all know that the first kid thats going to get beaten up is the kid closest to them on the play ground; South Korea. South Korea has the most too lose here so a lot of what happens is going to depend upon them and the new Secretary General of the UN. Ironicaly enough, a south korean. Chances are they will choose to appease his demands for economic support and aid. Aid that won't go toward feeding his people, but instead will help to fund his ever groing military might and desire for nuclear weapons. Weapons that he will then export to the world at large with no regard to how those weapons are used.

I firmly believe that Kim Jong-il only wants to keep his power. If the world bows down to his nuclear black mail, and we have before, then he might keep his cool. If we the world choses to say no this time, he will act out and that will lead to full scale war. Perhaps even nuclear war.

America might have been the first, and thus far the only nation in the history of the world to ever have used nuclear weapons against another nation, but rest assured, it will be Kim Jong-il who will be responsible for what comes next.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

AMF, it should be noted that CHINA is the nation that is primarly responible for North Korea. Any action taken against North Korea would have pissed the Chinese off. So again, lets keep the Bush bashing out of the topic and stick to the current problem at hand.

The "I told you so" and "Its all Bush's or Clinton's fault" really don't have a place in this discussion.

I would hope that you are informed enough to know that despite his promise to the world, and very favorable treatment by the US, Kim Jong-il continued to covertly research nuclear weapons. He lied. He flat out lied to the world and made a fool of the US and our efforts.

So I ask you to please keep your hatred of Bush out of the discussion and remember that it is Kim Jong-il who bares all of the blame here. If you want to Bush bash please start your own thread.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

I wrote up a big rant voicing my opinion since others seemed to think it ok. Well I let off my steam and then I saw ATs latest post, so I'll remove the stuff I said.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

Randall, don't worry about it. You were honest and that is all that any one can ask for. Same with AMF. God knows he has every right to be angry and hateful of the man. I simply just want to keep the thread as on topic as I can without pissing people off about bad political calls and historical mistakes. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif When we start pointing fingers after the fact, even though they are valid points, it detracts from the dicussion about what too do now. And that, WHAT TO DO NOW, is what the thread is about. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Edit: rephased slightly.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

AT,

My point is simply this: Bush chose to do nothing regarding the DPRK. At the very least he should have engaged them diplomatically, as they respond to it (albeit not as much as we would like). "Let's do nothing and hope they don't get the bomb even though we call them evil and they say they're working towards a bomb" is NOT a mature, or even reasonable strategy. To say Bush doesn't bear some responsiblity for this is just ill informed wishful thinking arm chair diplomacy.

My "hatred" of Bush has nothing to do with my point. Just as your love of him has nothing to do with this either. I'm calling a spade a spade. Don't 'ad hominem' me. And don't censor me either, you're the one who started this OT thread.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

Ah. Now I see what you're saying.

If this thread is SOLELY about what to do re: the DPRK bomb now that they have it, the answer is probably "not too darn much".

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

sorry, but I was the other way.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

Ooops.. Sorry Randall. I shall rephase it.

AMF I am not attacking you or otherwise arguing your points. I have no desire to "sensor" you or your opinion. As I said you have every right to point out the past facts and such, but I ask the people who take the time to read this thread not to dwell on past mistakes and or political choices but rather to focus on what to do now. So I ask of you to please respect my request and to not poison the well by focusing more so than not on the blame game. What is done is done, lets talk about what we can do now and in the future.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

Ok, my apologies for taking umbrage too quickly.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

The US has no military options, and frankly NK knows this or they wouldn't have taken this step. We've been bled dry in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our reserves in manpower and materiel have been depleted to the point where I'm not even sure we could sustain a long term conventional air campaign. Our only option that will have any effect is the tacNukes and that has political side effects which are incalculable.

As distastful as it sounds, I think we've reached the point where the only military option, if we think the non-military options are gone, is to basically give China a permission slip to annex North Korea. North Korea survives at their pleasure as it is now. I can't imagine the people of North Korea could be any worse off as an official part of China than they are now.

Edit: Of course this assumes that China would be interested in taking such action. My gut tells me they might if they had assurances from the international community there would be no repercussions.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

Non-Military options? Since the whole thing started NK only wanted to talk with the US, not a group of 5 or 6 countries, just the US. According to all the news reports early on, NK just wanted a non-agression treaty with the US, it wouldn't have hurt anything for the US to discuss that with them and possibly reach some kind of agreement.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

Folks, make no mistake. This is not a minor issue.

I'm a dove, FFS. I was against the invasion of Iraq. I vote 3rd party, even if I am an NRA member.

But North Korea with nuclear weapons is serious potential for armageddon. They will use them or they will sell them to those who will.

Screw Iraq, and screw Afghanistan, and screw the UN too, if they won't stop dithering and act. This situation demands action, and it demands action right now.

Now we find out once and for all whether or not Bushboy Junior has any stones. His daddy did. Ronnie Reagan had a big ol' hairy pair.

And somewhere the shade of Douglas Macarthur is shouting, "WAKE UP, YOU FOOLS, WAKE UP!"

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

The US should take the opportunity to impose a maritime quarantine on North Korea. We should also remove all US personnel from South Korea, making it known to all that the defense of the south will be a nuclear counter strike on the north. Compared to a garrison force, it is a lot less expensive to target a few SLCM at the north. We should then compel the Chinese to bring the issue to a close; they are after all the ones who made the problem in the first place. I would think that a little “Chinese Inspection” of their imports to America would be incentive enough for them to act. As an additional incentive, we could begin talks with the democratic nations of the region on the issue of providing them with nuclear deterrents of their own. Only nations that could rapidly build their own weapons would ever be actually considered, but that would be kept private.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

Since the whole thing started? before i was born, neclaera weapons capabilty probly last 10 years, anything truly viable, right now not very. as for the non-aggresion treaty. Technically North Korea and South Korea are still at war just having a very long running cease fire. Part of the non aggression treaty would most likely require US to leave south Korea. Both Koreas would like reunifiction. Catch, under very different terms. How long would south Korean military survive on its own? remember North Korea wants a non aggression treaty with US not South Korea.
I believe part of the reason for the nuke test was the failure of thier long range missile test.
The Korean situation has been a mess for decades, Kim il, has being milking it for his ends for a good part of that time. He portays the US as the "boogey man" that he is protecting his people from (come to think of it Suddam started doing the same thing) So how much do you really think he wanted that to change, maybe nough to comfort himself, but I doubt much beyond that, well possibly staged internal proganda. The people have a radio in thier houses that runs 24/7 one station.
And Remeber the N. Korea has basicly said We want Talks an NA or else. They have for most part bargained with threats.

The whole is just one large festering mess.
And as bad as things are now if N.K falls (no matter how) it will be a humanitarian disaster, something South Korea fears since it will most like bear the brunt of that fall out as well.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

Sometimes I have to just shake my head and wonder about the state of the world.



1st, any nuclear deterrence gets its strength from the creditable ability to follow through if required. The actual use of the weapons would be a failure. The idea is that should the bad guys create a situation where the only option was nuclear weapons, then they would be used. This deters the bad guys from crossing the line. This has been the case in Korea since the 50’s. It’s just not talked about much and people have forgotten.

War between the US and North Korea is not a decision that the US is free to make. The South would be the ones putting it on the line, so the call is theirs. And they are fat and happy, so why would they opt for war? If the North invaded, they would take all of South Korea in two weeks, they have to. After two weeks they are out of fuel and food, having to rely on captured stocks to supply their army.

Should it come to war and in such a way as to allow the US to move ground forces into the region, then North Korea becomes a footnote of history in less than thirty days after the start of hostilities. While the north’s army is large and has big numbers on paper, they are not combat effective. They would do little more than create a target rich environment on a modern battle field. It would be a standard battle. AA suppression, followed with decapitation of the command and control. Then what remained of the air force would be eliminated. After that we would probably hold them in place with arty and air strikes until evidence of starvation among the ranks became visible. Then the armed forces of South Korea would move in and provide humanitarian aid. Wild cards would be gas and/or biological, but then you only ever get to use that stuff once. The real reason we don’t go to war is the cost to the US tax payer. There is very little to gain, and it’s not really in our backyard.

As to decapitation, we don’t do that anymore…………But all things change. If the north invades the south, the US will respond with TNWs. Both Koreas know this. China knows this. The North Korean military knows this. There will be no war. A hard look at the NK’s military will show you that it is modeled on that of China. The primary threat is seen as coming form the local population, not an outside invader. Sure they talk the talk, but what are they really saying? “The US will invade us so we need a big army.” But the army is just a bump in the road against the power of America, so what is its real reason to exist? Its reason for being is to insure the continued existence of the North Korean dictatorship and the elite society that allows a few to benefit at the expense of many. North Korea is no longer a communist state; they have used the threat of war to become a hereditary military dictatorship. Those at the top live well, those at the bottom starve. The army’s main job is to keep the people in line, suppress the food and energy protests and prevent exchanges of information with the rest of the world.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

True, and personally I agree that there are likely still some non-military options left. I was simply trying to make the point that if it comes to that it's going to have to be something other than US action that resolves the matter. It's like we are trying to bluff at cards when the other side knows full well that we've got a crap hand.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

He is not the best president we ever had, but then he is not the worst either. What the heck, lets take a look at all this.

He failed to win the war on terror and invaded Iraq for no reason. Well he has failed to win the war, but he did move the front lines out of the US. And he did invade Iraq with little cause. Nothing more than countless cease fire violations, an attempt on the life of a past US president, the violation of a UN aid package agreement. And some faulty intelligence on the state of military developments in Iraq. But then Iraq is the key to the region. And it was a soft target and we knew it. And we had to do it with a rather small force, but then I guess we have to place that at the feet of the previous administration. They were the ones who said that there was no need for a large standing army in a post Soviet world.

As to the only remaining super power, just exactly why is that? Do you have an explanation? Or did you just pluck that from an article in Screw magazine. I guess that’s were you got your rules of diplomatic engagement from too. You seem to have forgotten that we are at war with one of them, and that the other committed an out right act of war against America. Sure they had some bad advice from the French but they did it anyway.

But in getting back to your post, I have to agree that Bush is not made of the same stuff as some other presidents. But then I also have to than god that he isn’t made of the same stuff as his predecessor. By the way, how many Americans has the bush administration killed with the paramilitary forces of the FBI and ATF since taking office? Same question for the Clinton administration? What happened to those thousands of domestic terrorists that the Clinton administration was after? Oh, never mind, I forgot, they turned out to just be NRA members.

In closing, I have to agree, he is not a great president. But he is in no way the worst. Not even if we only look at the last two. I realize that the popular press, Time, Newsweek, New York Times, Washington Post, Screw, Penthouse, Rolling Stone, and The Enquirer might say otherwise, but then they were all for Gore weren’t they!

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

This is a little more difficult than any of the posts indicate. Our actions in Korea are linked to agreements made by Kissinger back in the seventies. They are linked to more than one other country in the region, and they are strategic in nature. If the US wanted a war in Korea, we could win it with forces on hand today, and not pulling down the forces in Iraq. It would take a little while to re-theater them, as they have been working with another region in mind, but in a pinch they could begin moving in a week. Korea is small narrow peninsula, easily reachable in total from naval air. And at least one carrier is in the region right now, Kitty Hawk in the Indian Ocean IIRC. And Stennis and Eisenhower are surge ready. So we are not totally without the ability to use force. We just don’t have the will. And let’s face it; we won’t have the will unless the North invades the South. You don’t have to occupy the whole of North Korea to win. Just prevent the movement of fuel and supplies. And not for very long, the NK army can not live off the land unless they invaded the south, and you can bet that scorched earth would be the first thing they found south of the mine fields. Some reports have them draining fuel from parked armored vehicles to heat their barracks in the winter. The Chicoms could tip the scales, but they have other scales to worry about, billions of bucks on one side and isolation on the other.

Oh and to set an issue straight here, everyone who was at war with North Korea in the 50’s is still at war today. And that was a large part of the free world of the day. All that was signed was a temporary armistice. The UN is the lead agency on that front, so how could the US ever sit down alone with NK and sign a peace treaty. That is a tired old ploy that the North has been using for thirty years, but people still fall for it.

Iran is doing the same thing. They invaded US soil and took the US embassy, severing diplomatic relations with the US. Now that they have removed the tools of communicating diplomacy, they complain of not having face to face talks. Then after we agree to the talks we will then spend years arguing about protocols, since none will be in place. Anyone old enough to recall the same problem with the NK’s? Not me, I was a little after that but I read about it. And I do recall the same issue with the NV’s; over a year to decide on a table and where to sit. That’s why civilized nations have and use rules of diplomatic contact. Do any of you realize how many low level meetings took place between the US and the USSR before the big boys met in Iceland? And Iran wants to just put aside their past acts and have a sit down in a mater of weeks. Makes me think that perhaps they have a schedule to meet and they are some months short at the moment. Spend some time hashing it out with the US, then let the EU back out. Then start over with the French and have the US kill the deal. Then before you know it, you have the Persian bomb. I’ll bet Iran had to refigure their calendar after the partial event in Korea. What a joke, we use bigger bangs than that just to get things going good on a B83. I also wonder who will have to go salvage the bomb site. I’d bet that the NK’s would spend several thousand lives to recover a few ounces of reusable material.

And in closing, nuclear containment is a myth. It’s used as a diplomatic cattle prod, a tool of state policy. There was never a remote hope of keeping them out of the third world. And there is no hope of keeping them out of the hands of non-state groups. It was only a fight to delay the spread until the defenses caught up. We can’t even keep France from testing them, how could we keep Iran or Korea from doing it? So one day in a country near you, someone will use one on a neighbor, then receive anther in return. But what the heck, if we kill off a few billion and block out a lot of sunlight, we can solve global warming and the energy problem all at once. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

I agree with what you say. I was just trying to pre-empt all the gung ho eejits who will jump in with cries of "Why don't we jes' nuke all them pesky Ko-reens off the daymn map?"

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

I'm not denying anything you've said in theory, but you seem to be assuming the US would be bringing their full military might to bear. In practise, given the current US political climate, I can readily imagine the generals complaining bitterly about being sent in with only the minimum forces to do the job, which would surely result in a less straightforward victory.

Then there's the whole policing/ peacekeeping/ reconstruction/ insurgency quagmire currently giving the US such a headache in Iraq.

There, now you've put your finger on it.

If the US/the west does go into NK, I sincerely hope they learn from Iraq and make preparations for the peace as they do for the war. I think they would though, they have nothing to gain from anarchy in NK like they did in Iraq. That said, I don't think they'll go in. Either China will bully some kind of compliance out of Kim, or the world will simply lay siege to him.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

You're right, sooner or later someone is going to nuke someone else. Likely there won't be any notice either, just one day a city will cease to exist.

It's not a question of preventing nukes from being used; that's impossible. Sometime, someone crazy enough, mad enough or psychotic enough will either obtain a nuke, or come into power in a country that already has 'em, and say "what the hell" and blow someone up. The question is how long that day can be delayed, and what will be done once it can be delayed no longer.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

My opinion of the matter...

First off, they aren't even sure it was a nuclear detonation. The effect could have been simulated using conventional explosives, since if it was a nuke, it was a tiny one. However, regardless of which it was, it's quite obvious why NK did it. As usual, they're going to use their nuclear technology to blackmail more aid out of the rest of the world. It's an ongoing cycle; North Korea starts up their nuclear program, the rest of the world has a fit and agrees to try to bribe NK to stop their nuclear program. Any and all aid that goes to NK then is used to keep the army fed and loyal to those in power, which in turn keeps them in power. Then, a year or two later, they start up the nuclear program again and start the cycle over again.

I think that if it was a nuclear detonation, they may have exhausted their supply of enriched uranium or plutonium to do it. Think about it; it was a tiny explosion, by nuke standards. It was either a) a conventional explosives look-alike, b) a very small nuke, or c) a fizzle. If A, then NK's threat is no more than before. If B, NK still isn't much more of a threat than before. If C, then NK still has a fair ways to go before they actually have serious nuclear technology.

As for NK's excuse that they want to develop "the bomb" out of self-defence, well that's a load of ****e, and I think everyone knows that. Neither the US, nor the rest of the world has any interest in attacking NK unless NK does something way out of line. Just look at all the nations on Earth who could have nukes but don't (Canada for one). Are we afraid the US is going to invade, simply because we don't have a nuclear deterrent? I think not.

There may only be 8 or 10 countries in the world that are maintaining a nuclear arsenal, but I bet there's 5 times that many who could build a bunch of good sized nukes within a couple months if they put their minds to it. In short, NK's excuse seems rather hollow...but then, everyone already knew that, right?

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

Like Japan.

A Japanese nuke would be the size of a briefcase and level most of North Korea.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

There are couple of other options available that just might force China to stop supporting NK without turning it into the Chosen Autonomous Province of the PRC that just might kill the once-communist, now-fascist regime:

We threaten China with the prospect of a fully-nuclearized, politically-able, militarily self-sufficient Japan and Taiwan if the NK problem isn't dealt with swiftly,

We let the Kim family have safe exile in China in exchange that he turn over everything to the SK authorities,

We (any and every sensible nation) threaten to boycott the 2008 olympics, citing the NK threat and human rights abuses and China's tacit support, which just might cause the chinese to drastically cut support in order to save face,

We put restrictions on chinese trade, that is to say, incoming chinese goods and outgoing investments to china, citing some vague political reason or whatnot but giving subtle hints as to link it with the situation on the Korean peninsula,

Make the chinese turn a blind eye to the North Korean refugees that want to go south by giving the chinese authorities incentives to let them freely go to other countries such as Vietnam or Mongolia (but not to embassies) and thereby bleed NK dry,

or the US makes a trade: Taiwan for North Korea; The US rescinds all military agreements made with Taiwan in exchange for China's guaranteed non-involvement with North Korea.

All these options are unattractive, and none of them are foolproof; in each and every one, China could always bargain for more, call the US' bluff, or just simply dishonor the agreement, but these are the options that doesn't involve the potential death of 10s of millions of people and the wrecking of the world's major and budding economies.

Not just might, the chinese certainly would: They have a million Korean-Chinese that speak both Mandarin and Korean ready to be used as political commisars or whatnot at their disposal, and the chinese have been active in their historical reevaluation (read: revisionism) in portraying that Goguryo, an ancient kingdom that straddled Lower Manchuria and Northern Korea (that probably never was Chinese or Korean as we know them today) as a chinese tributary that was founded by chinese and was populated by ancient chinese.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

So the latest news is that Kim Jong-il has said that unless the US returns to one on one talks with NK, they will launch a nuclear tipped warhead.

This just proves that he intends to black mail the world into giving in to his demands. "I want my cakes and I want too be able to eat it too."

Simply put, this is all about the all might Kim Jong-il and his desire for power and respect. He got away with murder by lying to the world, and now he, like a modern day con man, wants the good times to role yet once again.

If there were ever a need for the open contract for assissination of a standing head of state, this bastard would be prime target number one. Just think, if someone would have had the balls to waste that puke Hitler early in the 1930's, how many lives would have been saved. This is a no brainer. Lets put a 1 billion dollar bounty on the head of Kim Jong-il and let the cards fall where they may.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

I agree with all those that talk about China. We need to somehow make China lean on NK a lot harder than it has been. One thing that hasnt' been mentioned (or at least I didn't see it) is that NK gets 70% of it's food and 50% of it's energy from China. Let China tighten the screws a little and see what kind of political upheaval Il sees.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

Whatever happens, the USA can't get involved.

We got involved in Iraq, haven't stopped listening to how we've screwed up the region since.

The US should pull all troops out of South Korea and ship them to Iraq immediatly.

When Kim il Jong calls the White House, they should say "And you are.. who again? What do you want? A Peace Treaty? With someone on the other side of the world??? Good heavens what for? Call your neighbors, we're too far away to care what you do."

This was tried with Saddam and sons just before the invasion of Iraq. No dice. These guys dont want money and to live a life of ease. They want the power that only a dicatator has. Mussolini once said "It is better to live as a lion for a day than as a sheep for a thousand years" Maybe he would reconcider on the day the mob was stringing him up by his toes though...

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

What should the US do?

Nothing.

North Korea has had the bomb for years. Israel, too, has had the bomb (about 200 of them, in fact) for years, and is subject to no international inspections at all. Neither is the US.

Inspect everybody, or inspect nobody.

And by the way, Pakistan has the bomb, and the technology to mount it on missiles. Pakistan's intelligence service is closely allied to the remnants of the Taliban. Who, then, is more likely to give or sell nuclear technology to terrorists?

Yet Pakistan is regarded as a "friend" of the US.

As for North Korea being a bully, how many soldiers do they have stationed outside their own borders? How many does the US have?

What gives the USA the right to give orders to other countries? The US has said repeatedly that it intends to "end" the North Korean state. Any North Korean leader would be irresponsible for NOT taking any steps necessary to ensure his survival. MAYBE "THEY" ARE SCARED OF "US."

And please, don't bring up North Korea's aggression in the Korean War, because there is plenty of not-so-distant US history that is equally disgusting. Americans are very quick to howl about somebody else's crimes and develop amnesia when reminded of their own. The US is not the only country on Earth, and its people need to stop thinking they are. Why does the US feel the need (and the right) to meddle in the internal affairs of countries thousands of miles away, while denying that those countries have legitimate interests in what goes on RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO THEM. (see: Iranian and Syrian "interference" in Iraq...am I the only person who laughs out loud when Bush's representatives complain darkly about foreign "interference" in Iraq????)

The North Koreans have long pressed for direct talks with the US. Why not talk to them directly then? Is it really better to keep issuing threats? (by the way, Syrian President Asad has repeatedly approached the US for talks on all outstanding issues, on the grounds that the two countries have common interests in many areas, including working against Islamic extremists, but Bush has refused to even reply...the Syrians have even offered to end their rather chilly alliance of convenience with Hezbollah as part of a broad agreement to join with the US on a number of issues...but I digress...)

The only reason the US has not invaded North Korea yet is that South Korea is desperate to avoid an East German-style collapse. They fear that their economy would not be able to survive such an event.

Does anybody out there really believe tiny North Korea is going to commit suicide by attacking the US with a nuclear weapon? It's downright racist to think that somehow "we" (who have used the bomb and still have thousands available, and a new warfighting doctrine that explicitly allows their future "first use") can be trusted with The Bomb, while "they" (that "crazy" Stalinist Asian) can't be trusted.

There's a book called "North Korea" by Bruce Cumings. EVERYBODY should read it.

Everybody should also read the book "Afghan Guerilla Warfare" by my friend Col Les Grau, who is probably the leading US expert on Afghanistan. He was traveling covertly to and lecturing on Afghanistan looooooong before September 2001, and if you want to know how silly it is for the US to think it can hold Afghanistan with 20,000 soldiers (or 100,000, for that matter), you need to read this book.

Anyway, you guys can flame me if you want, but I'm not returning to this thread to read them.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

It's okay to have an opinion. Why would you be flamed?

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

So, the US should get out of all international affairs, unless a petty low life dictator demands an audience and economic assistance to enable him to continue abusing his own people?

Which is it? What gives the US the right or responsibility to deal directly with NK over the heads of his immediate neighbors? As usual, if the US moves, they are criticized. If they don't dance when told to, they are criticized. If they sacrifice a few billion dollars and a few thousand young men and women to kick the Taliban out of Afghanistan, they are criticized. If they do nothing in Sudan, they are criticized.

I'm beginning to see a pattern...

The US should move the UN off its shores. Argentina wants it, they should fund it. Then the US should pass a law:

No US citizen or company can do business with any country that is not a full democracy. Anyone breaking this law will be deported to the country in question with all their assets taken by the US government.

Then every US serviceman should be shipped back to the USA.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

I guess I was wrong. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/eek.gif

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

Sixteen opinions of a Nuclear North Korea, from journalists around the world. This is an interesting read from three years ago.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

I thought Artaud made a very good arguement for his point of view. It's a shame that the first response to it only addresses a tiny fraction of it, and completely misinterpets it to boot.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

To be fair, he has a couple good ideas, but neglected to mention it, my bad.

All nukes should be accounted for = great idea.
Heck, lets ban nuclear weapons all together, that would be grand.

The US makes some strange allies and sells out its principles by dealing with the likes of Pakistan. Well, debatable, but certainly has some truth to it.

The US troops are in South Korea at the behest of the South Koreans. Tell them to tell the US to leave. Tell Japan and China too for that matter. Like I said, I do agree, in practice if not principle. I'd like the US troops to leave too, but the South Koreans, Japan and (secretly) the Chinese would rather they not. The only reason that fruitloop in NK isn't the "Fruitloop of all Korea" is because of the US troops there. When the US leaves, will you go guard their border for them?

In the event of a war against NK, Kim Il Jong has enough artillery to flatten the SK capital and kill 10's of thousands.

The US, for all its mistakes and even (if I may be so bold) sometimes selfish interests, is still a democracy. There is a big difference between a democracy getting nukes (funny, SK doensn't want them, why do you think that is?) and a petty dicator getting them. How is this a race issue? Lets get rid of all nukes, thats a great idea. How is KIJ getting nukes a good idea?

Again, agree in practice if not principle. The US makes its mistake when it seeks to keep peace and bring stability. It should get in, kill the petty dictators then get out. But then, they would be critizised for not cleaning up after themselves. As usual, an impasse.

And how is this flaming? He said the US should keep its nose out of other nations affairs, then in the same rant said its wrong of the US to NOT go around NK's neighbors (as if they don't count!) and meet with him directly to discuss our surrender to his threats! This is inconsistent and unfair and illogical. Pointing that out is not a flame.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

All because Israel and the IS , both non-dictatorial and democratic nation, allegedly have the bomb, doens't justify NK having it. I am sorry but I cannot agree with the logic behind the concept that all because Israel has the "bomb" that so should NK.

Neither Israel nor the US have ever attempted to black mail the world with nuclear weapons.

This too is just simply flawed logic. Again the US, France, and other democratic free nations who have nuclear weapons technology and devices are subject to international rules regarding atomic and nuclear power. However none of these nations, including India and Pakastand, have not threatened to black mail the world. While Russa may have sold weapons and technology and cannot account for much of the old Soviet arsnal, they have never black mailed any one. Both NK and Iran are considered rouge nations and viewed by most of the world as being capable of using nuclear weapons, if they have them, for terroristic purposes. They are also most likely to sell the technology and or weapons themselves to terrorist with the intent and before hand knowledge that these terrorist intend to use them to attack a population base of another country.

The US is a super power and a founding member of the UN. Of course it stands to reason that the US would have troops abroud. The US has interest and responsibilities throughout the world. I am perplexed as to why any one would make the arguement that all because NK doesn't have troops out side its own boarders, that the US shouldn't either. I wonder if any one who asserts this belief is truly informed as to world afairs and history? I should also point out that the UN looks to the US more often than not as the worlds police force because we are an economic and military super power. Right or wrong, that is the state of world affairs.

I don't think the US has any right to give orders to another country. However as such, I also am unware of the US ever, out side of war, issuing order to another country. Could you please post some specific examples of instances where the US Government has had no right to give orders to other countries?

I am sorry but I don't believe that this is an accurate statement. Could you please provide specific quotes and include the officials name who has said that the US should "end" the NK state? I believe that you might possibly be paraphrasing official comments about seeking regime change and could possibly be simply missinturpting the comment or perhaps taking it out of context. Again I can only ask you to clearify your comment.

You right, any dictator that is in fear of loosing his power would want to shore up his ability too keep said power. That is a fair observation of what Kim Jong-il has done.

Our Government did hold direct talks with NK throught the 90's and Kim Jong-il and his government flat out lied to us and broke the treaty agreement. They played the US humilating our government and the people who took them at face value. NK just want's to try and play the US again by demanding one on one talks. Fool us once, shame on you, fool us twice, shame on us. No, six party talks are the really the only way to insure that NK follows it agreements and its agreed upon obligations under the treaties it signs.


edit:
I don't believe, nor would I accept the behavior of any member flaming anyone for their opinion in an open minded discussion about any topic. However it has been my experience that people who believe that their opinions are going to spark flames, and then state that they do not intend to return, feel that their POV is too weak to defend and don't want to answer the questions that said POV brings up. That is a shame, as most post simply help a discussion broaden the perspective of those who are participating in the discussion.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

Wow! Man I hate to say it but I think you nailed this one right on the head. However in regards to NK and the current threats coming from Kim Jong-il, one can only expect the world to blame the US if we don't act in a fair and politically correct manor to bring this current crisis to a peaceful end.

I firmly believe that the involved nations of the world will cave to the KJI's demands, he knows this, and that he will use the aid that he gets to bolster his power at the expense of his people. And then one day, God fearing, he will cross the border to the South and invade SK. He will use the fact that he will use his nuclear weapons as protection against opposition to his actions. The nations of the world will stand back wide eyed and then point their collective fingers toward us and blame the USA for not stopping NK when it first detonated a nuclear test weapon so many years before.

Yup, regardless of what comes, its all going to be the United States of America's fault. After all it was we who put Kim Jong-il into power, it was we who allowed NK to obtain both nuclear materials and technology. We're the evil SOB's who sold NK the nuclear technology and then gave KJI support for his desire to make and sell nuclear weapons. When Kimny boy uses his new toy of mass destruction, it will once again be the US's fault because it was we who did nothing to stop him. They, being the criminally weak sister nations of the world, (and they know who they are) will of course over look the fact that they themselves cowardly caved to NK's demands. That it was they who stopped us from stopping NK from continuing to develop nuclear weapons and prevent them from proliferating more weapons. These nations of the world, the ones who would rather capitulate to fear rather than stand against it, will whine, cry, and boohoo as they lay the blame at the feet of the American government as they always inevitably do

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

Thougt you might find this interesting.

A view from the left. The Guardian is an English newspaper.


Dan Plesch
Tuesday October 10, 2006
The Guardian


North Korea's nuclear test is only the latest failure of the west's proliferation policy. And it demonstrates the need to return to the proven methods of multilateral disarmament. Far from being crazy, the North Korean policy is quite rational. Faced with a US government that believes the communist regime should be removed from the map, the North Koreans pressed ahead with building a deterrent. George Bush stopped the oil supplies to North Korea that had been part of a framework to end its nuclear programme previously agreed with Bill Clinton. Bush had already threatened pre-emptive war - Iraq-style - against a regime he dubbed as belonging to the axis of evil.

The background to North Korea's test is that, since the end of the cold war, the nuclear states have tried to impose a double standard, hanging on to nuclear weapons for themselves and their friends while denying them to others. Like alcoholics condemning teenage drinking, the nuclear powers have made the spread of nuclear weapons the terror of our age, distracting attention from their own behaviour. Western leaders refuse to accept that our own actions encourage others to follow suit.
North Korea's action has now increased the number of nuclear weapon states to nine. Since 1998 India, Pakistan and now North Korea have joined America, China, France, Russia, Israel and the UK.

The domino effect is all too obvious. Britain wants nuclear weapons so long as the French do. India said it would build one if there were no multilateral disarmament talks. Pakistan followed rapidly. In Iran and the Arab world Israel's bomb had always been an incentive to join in. But for my Iranian friends, waking up to a Pakistani bomb can be compared to living in a non-nuclear Britain and waking up to find Belgium had tested a nuclear weapon.

East Asia is unlikely to be different. In 2002 Japan's then chief cabinet secretary, Yasuo Fukuda, told reporters that "depending on the world situation, circumstances and public opinion could require Japan to possess nuclear weapons". The deputy cabinet secretary at the time, Shinzo Abe - now Japan's prime minister - said afterwards that it would be acceptable for Japan to develop small, strategic nuclear weapons.

It was not supposed to be like this. At the end of the cold war, disarmament treaties were being signed, and in 1996 the big powers finally agreed to stop testing nuclear weapons for the first time since 1945. The public, the pressure groups and the media all breathed a great sigh of relief and forgot about the bomb. Everyone thought that with the Soviet Union gone, multilateral disarmament would accelerate.

But with public attention elsewhere, the Dr Strangeloves in Washington, Moscow and Paris stopped the disarmament process and invented new ideas requiring new nuclear weapons. A decade ago, Clinton's Pentagon placed "non-state actors" (ie terrorists) on the list of likely targets for US nuclear weapons. Now all the established nuclear states are building new nuclear weapons.

The Bush administration made things worse. First, it rejected the policy of controlling armaments through treaties, which had been followed by previous presidents since 1918. Second, it proposed to use military - even nuclear - force in a pre-emptive attack to prevent proliferation. This policy was used as a pretext for attacking Iraq and may now be used on either Iran or North Korea. More pre-emptive war will produce suffering and chaos, while nothing is done about India, Israel and Pakistan. So we are left with a policy of vigilante bravado for which we have sacrificed the proven methods of weapons control.

Fortunately, there is a realistic option. Max Kampelman, Ronald Reagan's nuclear negotiator, has proposed that Washington's top priority should be the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction on earth, including those possessed by the US. At the ongoing disarmament meetings at the UN, the vast majority of nations argue for a phased process to achieve this goal. They can point to the success of the UN inspectors in Iraq as proof that international inspection can work, even in the toughest cases. The Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty that removed the missiles from Greenham is an example of an agreement no one thought possible that worked completely. This, and other legacies from the cold war, can and should be applied globally.

A group of Britain's closest allies, including South Africa and Ireland, are trying to broker a deal on global disarmament. Tragically, Britain won't be helping. Political parties and the media are deaf to these initiatives. The three main parties all follow more or less the US approach. They know that no US government will lease the UK a successor to Trident if London steps out of line on nuclear weapons policy. The media almost never report on UN disarmament debates. Disarmament has become the word that dare not be said in polite society.

Do we have to wait for another pre-emptive war or until the Japanese go nuclear before the British political class comes to realise that there can be a soft landing from these nuclear crises?

· Dan Plesch, a fellow at the School of Oriental and African Studies and Keele University.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

Sorry about that long post, but it does go to show the difference between US and European thinking.

In parts of Europe, the US is the main threat to world peace, not NK or Iran. Sounds bizarre I know, but some recent polls prove it.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

Well, consider the guy that's in charge and it's not that bizarre. The mere fact that a guy like that gets to sit in the president's seat doesn't exactly raise an outsiders confidence in the US.

US appear to be driven basically by fear and paranoia, continually encouraged by the current administration.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

No, Ludd, wrong. Go back and re-read what you wrote there.

You missed two very important words, "perceived as".

In parts of europe, the US is perceived as the main threat to world peace, not NK or Iran.

Then you compound your error of logic with the second sentence. Polls prove nothing. Nothing at all. In the first place, a poll deals only with opinions, not facts. In the second place, a poll doesn't even prove what people's opinions are, since a poll only samples a tiny portion of the body being surveyed, then extrapolates those results to the entire body.

If you had chosen your words more carefully, you could have said what you were trying to say in a clear and concise fashion. Instead, you blurted out an ill-constructed "sound bite" that made you look like you don't have a clue.

And are you seriously suggesting that public opinion in europe should shape US foreign policy?

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

My apologies for the lack of logic, poor English skills, ill-constructed "sound bite" and so-on. I do the best I can.

To be honest,further discussion in the face of such hostility seems pointless.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

Hey no problem Ludd. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif You should read some of the crap I have typed. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif It was a very good article you posted, it does help to broaden the perspective of the dicusssion to have other POV introduced. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif JOb well done.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

You don't have a clue!

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

We'll need a link to that please.....