Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: I Have a Question for Kerry 19

Journal by pudge

North Korea seems intent on not moving forward in the multilateral talks until after the November elections, saying Bush cannot be reasoned with. We know Bush's strategy: complete nuclear disarmament in a multilateral agreement, and no concessions until that is agreed to. We know what Clinton's strategy was: bilateral treaties to freeze nuclear weapons programs, not dismantle them.

What would Kerry do? So far he's said Bush is doing the wrong thing, but hasn't quite said what he would do. He's said drawing down the troops sends the wrong message, but he's also said that it sends the wrong message to be forceful with North Korea (e.g., calling them part of the Axis of Evil, refusing to deal bilaterally, etc.).

So, Senator Kerry, what would you do? I won't ask why Kim Jong Il apparently favors Kerry over Bush, because that is not only a cheap shot at Kerry, it also opens Bush up for cheap shots FROM Kerry. :-) But I do want to know what Kerry would do, specifically. I want to know how he plans on getting a permanent solution to the problem -- which neither Bush or Clinton have thus far succeeded in -- without sending any of the "wrong messages" he's been decrying.

And further, if his plan includes complete nuclear disarmament, will Kerry stand up right now and say so? It seems this is the sticking point, and that North Korea is delaying on the hopes that Kerry will be softer on it. These delays in an agreement are delaying our safety. Kerry can help make us all be safer right now by saying he will work to disarm North Korea of all its nuclear weapons programs. Will he do that?

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

I Have a Question for Kerry More

I Have a Question for Kerry

Comments Filter:
  • I'd like Kerry to come out and acknowledge that they're a tough case, because they're hardly likely to swallow their pride.

    Why not start with a nuclear freeze, then start work on dismantlement after you've already frozen it? NK isn't going to agree to immediate disarmament without a few nuclear explosions in their cities. Why guarantee the negotiations fail when you could get something constructive out of 'em, and build on that later?
    • Why not start with a nuclear freeze, then start work on dismantlement after you've already frozen it?

      Because the last time we tried a freeze, they later secretly and illegally resumed their programs.

      Why guarantee the negotiations fail when you could get something constructive out of 'em, and build on that later?

      IMO, a freeze constitutes failure. But Kerry is welcome to try to make that case, if he wishes.
      • Wouldn't a verifiable freeze be preferable to today's situation, with NK openly pursuing (and probably already posessing) nuclear weapons?
        • Wasn't the last "freeze" hailed as a "verifiable freeze"?
        • Exactly as Jhon said. We've been down that road *several* times, and it has failed often. Under Clinton in 1998, they were doing nuclear weapons business with Pakistan, while under bilateral freeze agreements. Then they tried again, and they started up their programs again under Bush, supposedly because Bush included them in the "Axis of Evil." Yeah right. And I've got a bridge to sell you (a nuclear bridge!).
    • Why not start with a nuclear freeze, then start work on dismantlement after you've already frozen it?

      That "freeze" was how we got into this mess in the first place.

      NK isn't going to agree to immediate disarmament without a few nuclear explosions in their cities. Why guarantee the negotiations fail when you could get something constructive out of 'em, and build on that later?

      I'm not so sure about that. As one expert pointed out, the key difference between them and Iraq is oil: not in the "war for oil"

      • Re:baby steps (Score:3, Insightful)

        by pudge ( 3605 ) *
        Threatening that stream of handouts could be a big bargaining chip. On the other hand, Japan was dependent on US supplies of oil in the late 30s, and I'm sure we all remember how they reacted to supplies being shut off!

        Which is why multilateralism is so important. While the five nations are not in complete agreement, they are united in one belief: that the Korean Peninsula should be free of all nuclear weapons. When you're the DPRK and Russia, China, Japan, South Korea, and the U.S. are all saying this
  • In May 2003, as primary candidate, John Kerry published Next step on Korea [johnkerry.com]. Does this answer your questions?

    It looks like an incremental, carrot-and-stick approach, but they expect Pyongyang to always take the first step. The carrots are assurances about their security, and "technical" assistance, whatever that means. He's said in a couple of reports that he would reopen direct talks with NK, although somewhat bizarrely, he would also continue the regional talks.

    More recently, his campaign has gotten vagu
    • August, not May.

      And no, it does not.

      And man, is it filled with lies. DPRK knows that we would never accept a nuclear peninsula, and always has known it. And it is simply false to say that we refused to talk directly with them. That never happened, and it is a lie. What happened is that we refused to talk *bilaterally* with them, because bilateralism has proven a failure.

      But then, Kerry says, where do we go from here? And he doesn't say. He says Bush is not handling it the right way, but that his pl
      • Fair points. I don't know who would be better on North Korea. I read a couple of links on what Kerry said, and sometimes he says that you have to remain "engaged" even though you know the other side isn't complying. That doesn't sound too promising. Then again, the alternative may be worse.

        I really wish EMP bombs existed. Nobody in the DPRK even has electricity except for the kleptocracy and the war machine. We'd solve THAT problem neatly.
        • I don't know who would be better on North Korea.

          Me neither! :-) None of us really knows anything, and we're all trying to predict the future, and we all suck at it.

        • I really wish EMP bombs existed. Nobody in the DPRK even has electricity except for the kleptocracy and the war machine. We'd solve THAT problem neatly.

          EMP bombs do exist - but the associated mushroom cloud and nuclear fallout tend to result in PR problems. Unfortunately creating an EMP without a nuclear bomb is rather more difficult - although there are some nice bombs in a similar vein: strands of graphite sticking to and shorting out your electrical substations, anyone?

  • And I'd also like to hear what Kerry thinks should be done.

    It's a mexican standoff imo.

    We can't invade because the costs are too high(well, unless you hate South Koreans, West Coasters and the Japanese), hence a hardline approach doesn't work. At the same time, I doubt he's going to disarm. He needs that deterrant.
    • I can only see two approaches: being easy on them (incremental, bilateral, concessions, what we've tried before) and being tough on them (demanding no less than full dismantlement, multilateral, no concessions until compliance is accomplished). There are probably others, but that is all I really see. And Kerry -- I hate to say this because it is so tired, but there it is -- seems to be advocating both sides.
    • Well, shoot!

      You say we can get rid of the left coasters? Where do we sign? ;-)

      I agree. But I also remember that folks on the left don't like the idea of a missile defense shield. Sure, I'll hear that it is not technically possible, but then again, I hear that cloning organs with stem cells is not possible, but we should be working towards that according to the left.

      Bush is doing what is able to be done, there is nothing Kerry or anyone else could do to make the situation defuse. Personally, I think t

Slashdot Top Deals

The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford

Close