North Korea has Nukes

[TBird41]

Well, North Korea is now publically declaring it's a nuclear power. Which is just great.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12836-2005Feb10.html?sub=AR

So, SFSers, where does the U.S. go from here? Is this as big a problem as I think it is? Is this going to be 9-11 times 2356? And (this is the fun one) whose fault is it that North Korea got nukes? Clinton? Bush? The U.N.?

[showcase]

That's some Doctrine this Administration has got going there. Apparently, it boils down to crushing the paper tiger while ignoring the one feeding in the henhouse out back.

When Dubya trotted out his brilliantly named "axis of evil," I always wondered why NK was last on the list, and was consistently ignored. Perhaps because the Administration realized that there was probably little chance that it could intervene militarily, whereas it stood an excellent chance in Iraq, with a possibility of Finland-effect on Iran. Not a bad geopolitical strategy, except for the fact that NK was clearly the greater threat to attain WMD.

On the other hand, while NK is unpredictable, it's unlikely to spread militant Islam directly, and one would hope that it would be easy to monitor whether they're providing any aid. I guess that's one of the few benefits of NK being a closed country, both culturally and economically. I can't imagine there's quite the same number of shipping containers moving in and out of all of NK's ports as there are in, say, Los Angeles alone. I would think that would make it kind of hard to smuggle a WMD to islamic terrorists.

[hoyarooter]

NK doesn't have oil, and didn't plot to kill W's daddy, so W doesn't care about them.*

* Yes, I realize this is a gross simplification, but the bottom line is that W wanted to go after Hussein and doesn't want to go after NK, so we can expect little if any response to this.

[showcase]

On the other hand, North Korea's position in all this seems eerily similar to Beavis's in that "The Great Cornholio" episode when he answers every question with "Are you threatening me?!."

[hoyaboy1]

I think the reason we didn't go harder after NK is because we have almost no realistic way to change their behavior.

[showcase]

Well, you can change behavior by carrot or stick (or both). I just find it interesting that Dubya chose to go all stick, and neocons derided Clinton for going carrot, when the stick turns out to be, for practical purposes, little more than a hollow limb.

If neither carrot or stick will work, why pretend you're going to even try to change another country's behavior?

[hoyaboy1]

We don't have much stick to use against NK and carrot is tough because you don't want to reward them for cheating.

And if they were set on getting nukes no matter what, there really isn't much we could have done.

[thebin]

Its been well known that NK has had nukes for some time, well over a year. This was the worst kept secret in the Ipol world.

But I am just SURE, that all you anti-Bush people would have had W's back all the way till the invasion of Pyongyang had GW gone the military route with regard to NK. I am just SURE of it. Dammit! Bush picked the wrong heinous regime to invade. If only he went straight after North Korea. So what if its leader is thought by doctors to be severely mentally ill, and forget the fact that for DECADES they have posessed the conventional military means to destroy Seoul and kill its ten millions, that was the true no brainer. Just bad luck George. (Literally military experts are unaminous, Seoul is so close to the DMZ and NK's conventional military capabilites are such that they could level Seoul in hours. LEVEL IT.)

[nychoya3]

Bin, have you heard anyone (and I mean ANYONE) call for a military invasion of North Korea? It was infeasible before they went nuclear and it's infeasible now for the reasons you mention. But Clinton changed North Korean behavior without military force, and maybe if Bush had engaged them diplomatically from the beginning, we might have achieved a better result. Or at least bought some time, which is ultimately what the Clinton-Galucci (gotta include the SFS dean!) policy did.

Ultimately, this doesn't change much, since it's been coming for quite sometime. Two questions are 1) what Japan does. Do they continue to trust the US nuclear umbrella, or do they go nuclear - which they could do in a matter of months. And 2) is this a harbinger of things to come? Are other unfriendly nations going to view nukes as the best innoculation against ending up like Saddam and Iraq? Iran is heading in that direction, and the US will have some very difficult choices to make on the Persian front sooner, rather than later.

[jerseyhoya34]

thebin said:

But I am just SURE, that all you anti-Bush people would have had W's back all the way till the invasion of Pyongyang had GW gone the military route with regard to NK. I am just SURE of it. Dammit! Bush picked the wrong heinous regime to invade.

This is the kind of nonsense and prejudice that adds nothing to this board. The question is irrelevant because Bush has shown no interest in military intervention let alone a coherent policy with respect to North Korea.

As I have said before on here, there is often a difference between good politics and good policymaking. Bush is a very good politician but is less talented when it comes to policymaking. The quoted comment above speaks to that directly.

[showcase]

JH34 1, strawman 0.

[Badger Hoya]

nychoya3 said:

Bin, have you heard anyone (and I mean ANYONE) call for a military invasion of North Korea?

The only thing that I heard was that back in 97, there was a lot of talk about possibly bombing the reactor that was producing (or going to produce) the plutonium. However, when the agreement was signed stopping that production, those plans went away.

Now, I'm sure there are still people talking about a strategic bombing of the uranium facility, but considering they do have nukes, and as bin said, Seoul's as good as gone if a bombing were to take place, you're caught between a rock and a hard place.

[hoyahoyasaxa]

This is nothing that the DPRK hasn't said before (though in less "dramatic" fashion). They enjoy riling everyone up with these big announcements.

In other words, the DPRK is the drama queen of world affairs. When no one is paying attention to them they do something to freak everyone out. When they want something, they do something to freak everyone out. They are pretty successful at it.

Remember, they still haven't exploded a bomb yet, so there's really no proof.

But seriously, how fun would it be to work in their Foreign Ministry?! "Hmm, what sort of ridiculous statement can we make today?"

Assessment of the DRPK nuclear program:
www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/nuke.htm

[showcase]

I understand the DPRK snapped up the Iraqi Information Minister when he became a free-agent in 2003.

[TBird41]

showcase said:

I understand the DPRK snapped up the Iraqi Information Minister when he became a free-agent in 2003.

That's a quality signing-the kind that can put you over the top.

[hoyahoyasaxa]

TBird41 said:

That's a quality signing-the kind that can put you over the top.

I agree. Great signing by Kim. He's really showing he can make the moves to have the DPRK stay competitive. It's always tough being in the same division as China, though.

[thebin]

showcase said:

JH34 1, strawman 0.

Strawman argument my asss showcase. People have started throwing out "strawman" like "neocon" without being the least bit accurate with its use. In fact some will use either term without having a clue what it actually means. But boy does it sound smart- and if you are lazy, you don't even have to argue back- just yell "strawman!" I suspect showcase knows what a strawman argument is, but has been less than fastidious in tossing this one out there, if he is to be taken seriously in his first post on this thread.

Showcase: "That's some Doctrine this Administration has got going there. Apparently, it boils down to crushing the paper tiger while ignoring the one feeding in the henhouse out back. "

I have read your post three times. If one can't safely assume that you were implying that Bush should have gone straight after NK rather than Iraq in some sort of aggressive fashion, well then I give up. What the hell were you saying then showcase? You, like so many others, are being extraordinarily disingenuous with the "what about North Korea" baloney when everyone knows full well you would not have supported "that cowboy" getting aggressive with NK. By the way, maybe I am missing something else, but the US is and has been heavily involved in the 6 nation talks with those nuts. Bush is being multi-lateral here, but no, you SAY you want him to have been unilateral and aggressive. So one can infer from your post, unless you would like to explain otherwise.

[jerseyhoya34]

thebin said:

Strawman argument my asss showcase. People have started throwing out "strawman" like "neocon" without being the least bit accurate with its use. In fact some will use either term without having a clue what it actually means. But boy does it sound smart- and if you are lazy, you don't even have to argue back- just yell "strawman!" I suspect showcase knows what a strawman argument is, but has been less than fastidious in tossing this one out there, if he is to be taken seriously in his first post on this thread.

Showcase: "That's some Doctrine this Administration has got going there. Apparently, it boils down to crushing the paper tiger while ignoring the one feeding in the henhouse out back. "

Just as a point of clarification for those posting in and reading the thread...

Main Entry: straw man
Function: noun
1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted
Source: www.m-w.com

Another similar definition:
2: a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted [syn: straw man
Source: www.dictionary.com

[Z]

it isn't a straw man if you are willing to concede that the collective focus of the current admin has been disproportionately focused on a less-than-potent "threat" than NK. effectively dealing with NK head on, non-militarily or otherwise, hasn't been a top priority of this admin.

[thebin]

Z said:

it isn't a straw man if you are willing to concede that the collective focus of the current admin has been disproportionately focused on a less-than-potent "threat" than NK. effectively dealing with NK head on, non-militarily or otherwise, hasn't been a top priority of this admin.

Z- its my contention, and frankly I think most Asian security studies people would agree, that it has been too late to get tough with the very potent threat from a reliably irrrational North Korean junta for quite some time. (More than a decade.) It just isn't Iraq and the administration has certainly treated it differently precisely because, not in spite, of the fact that it has long been capable of causing massive destruction and loss of life. So the strawman argument here as I see it is from the anti-Bush brigade- this position that he should have taken care of NK (in any way) before or instead of Iraq has no legs because there is and has been no way to confront NK without the very real possibility that that wacko (Hussein was not insane, he was a tyrannical realist) would order the deaths of MILLIONS of South Koreans. Simply put, North Korea is far too armed, far too close to Seoul (one of the most populous cities in the world,) and ruled by too much of a nut to pretend there was something Bush could have done to make them less dangerous- if only he didn't go to Iraq. Frankly I think at this point ignoring NK (while being ready to pounce) is as good idea as confronting them- even if neither idea sits well. But what is it exactly Bush had NOT done? He has done everything he could to try to work in a multilateral way to contain the damage they could do to the region without provoking the deaths of millions of South Koreans? The "what about NK instead of Iraq" argument, in so far as it is one, Editedses me off for two reasons Z; 1. It strikes me as manifestly dishonest-I don't believe those who posit it actually would have supported confronting NK in any meaningfully different way than he currently is; and 2. Even if they meant it, its an implausible position on its face as NK has been a dangerous loaded gun far more capable of killing millions of innocents than Hussein was for myriad reasons- among them, Kim is far less stable and sane than Saddam; NK has many times the military might; and perhaps the most significant- MUCH of NK's might is within striking distance of a massive allied city.

I would love to hear some suggestions from the "what about NK" brigade on how Bush could have really gone after NK like several here have disingenuously (IMO) said they would have supported just to bitch about Iraq policy. Go ahead, let's hear it. What should have Bush done that he has not been doing with regards to NK? Be more aggressive? Less aggressive? Let's hear even the beginning of some real alternatives......