Journal pudge's Journal: North Korea 37
I've mentioned the DPRK (that's North Korea, as opposed to ROK, which is South Korea) in this space before (such as here and here).
A quick rundown: North Korea twice entered bilateral agreements with the Clinton administration. Both times, the DRPK agreed to freeze its nuclear program in return for food, energy, and other assistance. Both times, the DPRK violated those agreements unilaterally, restarting its nuclear program.
What was entirely obvious is that the North Korean government had no intention of ever getting rid of its nuclear program, and was abusing the process: by merely freezing their program (instead of dismantling it) and by entering agreements with only one other country per agreement, they could be in a cycle of a. threaten everyone else, b. put program on hold, c. get handouts, d. restart program to try to get more handouts.
This was clearly an untenable situation, so when Bush came along, the policy changes slightly, but significantly: no more bilateral talks (as they were a proven failure, because there's no way to put pressure on the DPRK if they violate an agreement with the U.S. alone, instead of an agreement with all of its neighbors), and no more accepting a mere freeze of their nuclear programs (but requiring a dismantling).
There have been some successes in this along the way. Frankly, the policy is still working: North Korea is still demanding bilateral talks. What does that tell you? That is is afraid of the inevitable result of multilateral talks. Which means multilateral talks are still the right thing to do. Honestly, why does anyone think they are demanding bilateral talks? What possible reason could there be for them, except that they know they can more easily violate such an agreement?
The DPRK is hoping this nuclear test will make the U.S. panic and jump at the chance of bilateral talks, and a nuclear freeze, which will just put us back on the path to have to deal with this all over again in a few years when they decide to violate THAT agreement. They realized Bush is stubborn and mere posturing was not going to force us into bilateral talks, so hey, maybe an actual test will do it. Missile test? Nope. Maybe actual nuke test?
If I know Bush, it's thankfully not going to work. If we enter into bilateral talks here, we will be merely continuing a proven failed policy, at a time when failure is more dangerous than ever. But never before has China been so steadfastly opposed to North Korean policy than in the last 24 hours, and the test will also surely reinvigorate the recently weakened ROK position (the DPRK's cousins to the south have been having fantasies of imminent reconciliation).
There's only one way forward here, that I can see: keep pushing multilateral talks, set a deadline, announce the bombers will be coming if the deadline is missed, and fulfill the promise should that happen.
Sure, such a response from the U.S. might lend some fuel to the DPRK claim that the U.S. is the real aggressor here, and the only reason they have a nuclear weapons program in the first place is to defend itself from the U.S., but no one outside the DPRK actually believes that.
Well... (Score:1)
Well, perhaps you ought to read your own pages here slashdot. There are folks who believe that the US is the aggressor. Now, thankfully those folks are not in power in the US or much of the world, but to deny that they exist is foll
Re: (Score:2)
I initially wrote "no one sane outside the DPRK actually believes that," but then chose to let the implication stand without qualification.
If the US were to unilaterally attack North Korea right now there would be political fallout.
I don't care.
Now, should we care about what Europe thinks? I do not personally, but as a nation we cannot totally write off such a large organization.
No, but
Re: (Score:1)
North Korea will respond by sending as many conventional and chemical weapons towards either Japan or South Korea as possible if we send a few bombers toward them. The lives of millions of people would be at stake, not necessarily American (though, we are on the DMZ) but still not an acceptable loss in my view.
I guess my view is don't trust
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not, and it's not meant to be. It's only a means of eliminating the immediate threat.
Maybe we hit an asprin factory at night to take out their cleaning staff too while we are there.
What's that got to do with anything?
North Korea will respond by sending as many conventional and chemical weapons towards either Japan or South Korea as possible if we send a few bombers toward them.
Then we destroy them.
The lives of millions of peopl
Re: (Score:1)
Our solution to Iraq by our fearless leader in '98 iirc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
From what I understand from my reading the a nuke is not going to be an issue as currently it sounds like they would be unable to launch it from a rocket or missile, so as of now would require a bomber (which we would likely be able to take out). However, the rest of the conventional weapons and chemical weapons would likely be beyond our abilities to prevent lau
Re: (Score:2)
I think there's a good chance of that, yes, but I don't know for sure.
From what I understand from my reading the a nuke is not going to be an issue as currently it sounds like they would be unable to launch it from a rocket or missile, so as of now would require a bomber (which we would likely be able to take out).
Right, but
Re: (Score:1)
North Korea can muster less than 2000 obsolete aircraft and 3500 tanks (nothing better than a T-72, which is the best Iraq could field and are no threat nor challenge to US tanks).
South Korea can add a few hundred more planes and over 2000 more tanks.
I understand we can't put 100% of our military into the attack, but the point is that our first strike could indeed be so overwhelming as to completely prevent any possibility of a cou
Re: (Score:2)
Then we destroy them.
Unfortunately not really an option. The DPRK has thousands of very well dug in artillery tubes pointing at the ROK, especially Seoul. They'd be very hard to take out before the damage had already been done to the ROK.
Given that the ROK is the country with the most on the line here and pissing off a longstanding close ally over
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes, it is.
Given that the ROK is the country with the most on the line here and pissing off a longstanding close ally over something they've got the biggest stake in would be stupid, I seriously doubt we will do anything militarily against the DPRK without sign-off from the ROK government.
Perhaps. Then again, if they start to stabilize those missiles, then we'll be facing the potential of a nuclear attack on U.S. soil, and suddenly, our concerns become a lot more im
Re: (Score:2)
No it really isn't. Anyone who knows anything about the situation says DPRK artillery will do a hell of a lot of damage to the ROK including resideantial areas and industrial infrastructure before it could be taken out of the game.
Perhaps. Then again, if they start to stabilize those missiles, then we'll be facing the potential of a nuclear attack on U.S. soil, and suddenly, our concerns become a lot more important to us than ROK's
First of all the DPRK is one heck of a long way from being a
Re: (Score:2)
But that does not imply it's not an option. It only means there's significant consequences to the option. You said it's not an option, but it clearly is.
First of all the DPRK is one heck of a long way from being able to weaponize nukes for use as missile warheads. Somewhat easie
Re: (Score:2)
Some things can give you a pretty good indication of how far along they are, particularly parts and equipment that can't be manufactured in the DPRK such as high-precision multi-axis machine tools.
Note that the US and PRC seem to be in agreement on imposing a total embargo
Re: (Score:2)
They already have! [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Dr. Syngman Rhee was seen as an american tool, but was initially accepted for our role in saving the South first
South Korea is held hostage (Score:2)
Too bad we're mired down in Irag, which wasn't a threat, and we've pissed away much of the international goodwill
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That being said, order of battle for this scenario is real simple. First night of the new moon, we put 12-15 B-2's, 40 B-1's and as many ships as PACFLEET can spare on alert and on station, That's 960-1200 Mk 82's from the B-2's a
Re: (Score:2)
The problem isn't the weapons grade fissionables but fabricating the bombs themselves. Given Japan's high-tech manufacturing infrastructure they could likely make nuclear warheads every bit as good as anything the US has quicker than an
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's not a truth. It's something we can plan for and deal with, by first taking out their silos.
Re: (Score:2)
A roommate from college works for the State Dept and is a Korea specialist. He claims there isn't a military option that will spare South Korea.
Re: (Score:2)
A roommate from college works for the State Dept and is a Korea specialist. He claims there isn't a military option that will spare South Korea.
Something anyone who has spent more than 5 minutes studying the situation on the ground knows. This is also why the ROK isn't too keen on the idea of a military strike against the DPRK.
China option (Score:2)
It's a risky move and one the ROK has wanted to postpone as
Re: (Score:2)
Except that ROK doesn't want them, of course. They can't handle a significant influx all at once.
Anyway, I don't see how this is an option to solve this particular problem. It won't magically make KIL's nukes go away, nor reduce his incentives for using th
Re: (Score:2)
A full embargo of food and fuel would likely have the same effec
Okey, I'm convinced. (Score:1)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,219121,00.htm
I will assume this threat is real and immediate.
I'm confused (Score:2)
Honestly curious...I'm having problems with the idea that we're using preventitive war. Iraq was in violation of several UN resolutions, so deposing its leader didn't bother me. I
Re: (Score:2)
They ARE allowed to have nuclear weapons.
And we are allowed to blow them up before they can be used against us.
They're a sovereign nation, albeit one that's openly hostile to us, but should this be a case of preventitive war? Why are we interfering in what a sovereign nation does?
Because they are openly threatening us and our allies.
Honestly curious...I'm having problems with the idea that we're using preventitive war. Iraq was in violation of several UN resoluti
Re: (Score:2)
If by allowed you mean legally, I suppose you're correct, but how can this possibly be considered just? If there was no treaty broken, and no truce that they've violated, how can we tell a sovereign nation what to do and consider ourselves justified?
Because they are openly threatening us and our allies.
How so? I haven't read about threats stating "We'll bomb city XYZ as soon as we get the technology to do so."
--trb
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't really mean legally. I mean, just like they are a sovereign nation that can do whatever it wants that is in its interests, so can we.
but how can this possibly be considered just? If there was no treaty broken, and no truce that they've violated, how can we tell a sovereign nation what to do and consider ourselves justified?
Because they are threatening us. Explicitly.
How so? I haven't read about threats stating "We'll bomb city XYZ as soon as
Re: (Score:2)
--trb
Re: (Score:1)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,219121,00.htm
But it is fox news, so it must be biased.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
--trb
Entirely obvious (Score:2)
I guess the "entirely obvious" part escaped me. The thing that seemed obvious to me was that in 1994 North Korea agreed, under credible threat of military strikes, to shut down its nuclear plant at Yongbyon that produced the one thing at the essential heart of a nuclear-weapons program. And it remained shut down, with IAEA cameras and seals, until after Bush's ill-advised 2002 "axis of evil" speech and Bush's new policy regarding North Korea.
The simple fact is: under Clinton, Yongbyon was shut down; after
Re: (Score:2)
They also agreed to freeze their nuclear weapons program. They lied, and continued the program regardless.
The simple fact is: under Clinton, Yongbyon was shut down; after Bush's policy change, Yongbyon was restarted and producing nuclear material. Clinton: large success; Bush: utter and disasterous failu