EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 11, 2006 9:26:59 GMT -5
Would be interested in knowing what others think about the North Korea situation and what we should or should not do. It might be interesting to Nitro for me to note that, on this subject, "I don't have a clue" as to what we should do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2006 9:48:52 GMT -5
You don't know what to do? Wow... thought you were an intelligent person, easyed. Your answer can be found at: imdb.com/title/tt0372588/Now " let's headback to headquarters for a debriefing and cocktails..."
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 11, 2006 11:46:09 GMT -5
I know exactly what we should do. Unfortunately I can't tell you or I'd have to kill you.
|
|
DrumsGoBang
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
DrumsGoBang - Bang Bang
Posts: 910
|
Post by DrumsGoBang on Jul 11, 2006 11:53:19 GMT -5
build a time machine, and instead of starting a war with Iraq, deal with this problem in 2003. Also find out who shot Kennedy and play the lotto.
|
|
|
Post by Nitrorebel on Jul 11, 2006 19:12:40 GMT -5
First off, I don't consider myself very knowledgeable on the subject of North Korea. PLEASE CONSIDER WHEN READING.
I think North Korea should not be compared to Iran, though a lot of people seem to be doing so, in part due to the "axis of evil" misnomer. Anyway, Kim basically just wants to stay in power and feign off any (perceived) threat from the US. He isn't interested in widening his sphere of influence or gaining regional clout. Therefore, money and security assurances should suffice in controlling him. The wildcard factor is the possibility that Kim will collude with terrorist groups and sell weapons and/or nuclear technology. There is no reason to take him at his word, and this threat is much more important than the direct threat Pyongyang poses, i.e. Kim isn't gonna be firing nuclear weapons at Seoul, Beijing, Tokyo or LA unless American troops are outside his palace.
Kim sees nuclear weapons as the best deterrent to American pressure: the US had no qualms attacking Baghdad, but will never go to Pyongyang. Another unfortunate "lesson" dictators have learned from Iraq.
I believe nuclear proliferation is the greatest threat facing world peace. One mistake or misjudgement and we can kiss this planet good-bye. Clearly the NPT has proven useless. The main reasons for this are: 1) Nuclear power gives you political clout that is only paralleled by having a Sec Council veto. 2) The double-standard of the NPT is shamefully apparent. The US, France and the other "legal" (whatever that means in this context) holders of nuclear weapons pressure countries like Pakistan, India, Iran and North Korea to desist from developing a nuclear arsenal. However, the other equation of the NPT has been flaunted ever since it was signed: the nuclear powers were to lay out disarmament plans and set a specific time-line for elimination of their arsenal. Yeah right.
The second point is the sore wound that will cause nuclear proliferation to continue to fester. As long as the current nuclear powers refuse to show a commitment to hold their side of the bargain, there is absolutely no reason for ambitious countries to NOT develop technology. No country has a right to pressure another one to stick to a treaty it itself is flaunting. This is not relevant to North Korea, because North Korea is not seeking domination but protection. It is highly relevant when viewing the overall context of nuclear weapons in the world.
With the technological capabilities offered by dirty bombs and smaller nuclear weapons, the biggest threat is that the technology, or God forbid actual weapons, land in the hands of non-state actors that cannot be dealt with in negotiation terms.
Just some thoughts, and again I'm not claiming any absolute knowledge on the issue.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 12, 2006 9:18:44 GMT -5
I will present what I consider to be one side of "what to do", and that is do nothing except try diplomacy to get Kim to give up his nuclear weapons program. In this, we should attempt to get China and Russia on board a more active diplomacy route, along with South Korea and Japan. If that is not successful, the U.S. should just live with it like we live with Pakistan, India, Israel, France, England and Russia having "the bomb". The dangers of the military option (take the missiles and the nuclear facilities out) is fraught with too much danger: Kim has, supposedly, a one million man army; he might invade South Korea; China might join him; world opinion would be strongly against us, etc.
This is one option.
|
|
|
Post by Nitrorebel on Jul 12, 2006 10:27:13 GMT -5
I can't believe I'm saying this Ed: but I agree with you!!!
|
|
|
Post by sleepyjackson21 on Jul 12, 2006 11:00:44 GMT -5
Nitro, question for you. How do most "West" Germans feel about all the money that the German government has given to the "East" Germans. I ask this because as big an economic disparity as there was between East and West the gap is just gigantic between North and South Korea (on relative not absolute terms).
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 12, 2006 11:33:27 GMT -5
Nitro - before you get carried away saying you agree with me, look at my post. I said I was giving one option. This is not necessarily my preferred option, though it may be. Later I will present a second option.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jul 12, 2006 12:59:12 GMT -5
2) The double-standard of the NPT is shamefully apparent. The US, France and the other "legal" (whatever that means in this context) holders of nuclear weapons pressure countries like Pakistan, India, Iran and North Korea to desist from developing a nuclear arsenal. However, the other equation of the NPT has been flaunted ever since it was signed: the nuclear powers were to lay out disarmament plans and set a specific time-line for elimination of their arsenal. Yeah right. The second point is the sore wound that will cause nuclear proliferation to continue to fester. As long as the current nuclear powers refuse to show a commitment to hold their side of the bargain, there is absolutely no reason for ambitious countries to NOT develop technology. No country has a right to pressure another one to stick to a treaty it itself is flaunting. This is not relevant to North Korea, because North Korea is not seeking domination but protection. It is highly relevant when viewing the overall context of nuclear weapons in the world. With the technological capabilities offered by dirty bombs and smaller nuclear weapons, the biggest threat is that the technology, or God forbid actual weapons, land in the hands of non-state actors that cannot be dealt with in negotiation terms. Double-standards w/ regard to nuclear arms have bothered me for some time, too. Why should the United States make merely a mild fuss over India or Israel having or potentially having nukes, while kicking and screaming over Iran and N. Korea? One potential explanation, that going nuclear is okay as long as the country has limited nukes that aren't pointed at the US, is short-sighted because; a)we don't know what India's future policies toward the US will be b)as we have seen with Pakistan, it is not over difficult to spread nuclear secrets to other countries. Proliferation in friendly nations increases the risk of proliferation in non-friendly nations and among extranational terrorist groups. As far as the current nuclear powers agreeing to disarm, Bush and Putin signed a big agreement while I was still in school at GU but I'm not sure if we met our commitment or not. Someone enlighten me. I think a serious commitment to nuclear disarmament might have been one of the good things that might have happened had John Kerry won in 2004 (for the record, I didn't vote for him). I do not think it would be a huge risk for the US to initially make some large unilateral cuts, then see if the rest of the world followed.
|
|
|
Post by Frank Black on Jul 12, 2006 19:55:34 GMT -5
First off, I don't consider myself very knowledgeable on the subject of North Korea. PLEASE CONSIDER WHEN READING. I think North Korea should not be compared to Iran, though a lot of people seem to be doing so, in part due to the "axis of evil" misnomer. Anyway, Kim basically just wants to stay in power and feign off any (perceived) threat from the US. He isn't interested in widening his sphere of influence or gaining regional clout. Therefore, money and security assurances should suffice in controlling him. The wildcard factor is the possibility that Kim will collude with terrorist groups and sell weapons and/or nuclear technology. There is no reason to take him at his word, and this threat is much more important than the direct threat Pyongyang poses, i.e. Kim isn't gonna be firing nuclear weapons at Seoul, Beijing, Tokyo or LA unless American troops are outside his palace. Kim sees nuclear weapons as the best deterrent to American pressure: the US had no qualms attacking Baghdad, but will never go to Pyongyang. Another unfortunate "lesson" dictators have learned from Iraq. I believe nuclear proliferation is the greatest threat facing world peace. One mistake or misjudgement and we can kiss this planet good-bye. Clearly the NPT has proven useless. The main reasons for this are: 1) Nuclear power gives you political clout that is only paralleled by having a Sec Council veto. 2) The double-standard of the NPT is shamefully apparent. The US, France and the other "legal" (whatever that means in this context) holders of nuclear weapons pressure countries like Pakistan, India, Iran and North Korea to desist from developing a nuclear arsenal. However, the other equation of the NPT has been flaunted ever since it was signed: the nuclear powers were to lay out disarmament plans and set a specific time-line for elimination of their arsenal. Yeah right. The second point is the sore wound that will cause nuclear proliferation to continue to fester. As long as the current nuclear powers refuse to show a commitment to hold their side of the bargain, there is absolutely no reason for ambitious countries to NOT develop technology. No country has a right to pressure another one to stick to a treaty it itself is flaunting. This is not relevant to North Korea, because North Korea is not seeking domination but protection. It is highly relevant when viewing the overall context of nuclear weapons in the world. With the technological capabilities offered by dirty bombs and smaller nuclear weapons, the biggest threat is that the technology, or God forbid actual weapons, land in the hands of non-state actors that cannot be dealt with in negotiation terms. Just some thoughts, and again I'm not claiming any absolute knowledge on the issue. I'm going to be flip just for a moment and ask Nitrorebel directly if there is a geopolitical problem the US isn't responsible for. The NPT is hardly useless. It is teetering somewhat but it has also helped keep whole swaths of the globe nuclear-free. Most nations crave some level of international respectability, and most also fear the so-called 'daisy chain' effect wherein if one country in a neighborhood gets the bomb their neighbors might follow suit and the result is that everyone is less secure. The Chinese tested the bomb in 1964, in the 42 years since only four nations have joined the nuclear club. Hell, in the last 20 years only one nation has joined the club (N. Korea). Meanwhile, in the same time period South Africa, Brazil, Kazakstan and Ukraine all voluntarily responded to incentives from the nuclear powers and shut down their programs. Its not a perfect record, but it hardly indicates that the NPT is "dead." Shame still has its effectiveness. Moreover, while I agree the nuclear powers haven't done much to hold up their end of the NPT bargain on the disarmament side (the flow of nuclear technology to non-nuke states is another matter), it is an overstatement to suggest that countries have "absolutely no reason... to NOT develop technology" given the nuclear powers' failure to deliver. Shame and an unwillingness to destabilize their region are powerful incentives, which is one reason why most of the world is nuclear-free. Having said all this, I haven't the foggiest idea of what to do about North Korea. I would, however, quibble with the 'time machine' suggestion above from 'DrumsGoBang' who intimates that we went to war with the wrong country in 2003. I'm sure he is aware that a war on the Korean peninsula would probably have killed ten times the number of people that have died in the last three years in Iraq in approximately a month. And that's without the prospect of the North Koreans dropping a nuclear bomb on Seoul.
|
|