North Korea. BOOM. Discuss.

Posted by: music

North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 09/10/2006 04:38

North Korea. BOOM. Discuss.


North Korea says it has carried out its first test of a nuclear weapon, the state news agency (KCNA) has reported.

It said the underground test, carried out in defiance of international warnings, was a success and had not resulted in any leak of radiation.

[...]

The White House said the test, if confirmed, would constitute "a provocative act".

[...]

In Tokyo, ministers were called to an urgent meeting, and the government set up a special task force.


Internation reaction so far is here.

Posted by: sn00p

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 09/10/2006 05:30

Quote:

The White House said the test, if confirmed, would constitute "a provocative act".



Provocative Act, White House, Pot, Kettle, Black!
Posted by: visuvius

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 09/10/2006 05:47

Modestly surprising but I don't think anything particularly dramatic is going to come of it. I think China and South Korea are the only ones who can really do anything about it.
Posted by: julf

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 09/10/2006 06:49

Quote:
Modestly surprising but I don't think anything particularly dramatic is going to come of it. I think China and South Korea are the only ones who can really do anything about it.

Now, if there was oil in North Korea, it would be a different matter altogether...
Posted by: DWallach

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 09/10/2006 13:32

Agreed. China is in the driver's seat here. If China decided to pull their support from North Korea, the whole place would collapse. Of course, that would send millions of refugees into China, which is exactly what they don't want. South Korea would be thrilled if they could just merge / take over North Korea in the same fashion as Germany reunified. If China pushed hard enough, maybe something like that could genuinely happen.

Amusing thought: if China truly wanted North Korea and South Korea to merge, what would they do to make it happen? Can they do it without military action?
Posted by: tonyc

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 09/10/2006 14:18

Quote:
South Korea would be thrilled if they could just merge / take over North Korea in the same fashion as Germany reunified.


Uh, you sure about that? The economic and social impact of such a unification would be devastating. While I'm sure South Korea isn't thrilled about having a nuclear power to their north run by a batshit insane dictator, I haven't ever read anything that suggests they'd want a unified Korea, and all of the problems that would come from it.

China is indeed in the driver's seat, but their interest is in prolonging the situation, not defusing it. North Korea provides good leverage for China against the United States, and as long as China is seen as kinda-sorta trying to help us, they can enjoy the benefits of playing both sides. China will do NOTHING about this until they themselves feel threatened, which they obviously do not. And, while the US still has a fair amount of economic leverage, that advantage is eroding very quickly as well.

This is yet another miserable foreign policy failure from GWB, and no amount of "toughness" is going to fix it. Multilateral talks don't help either, because China isn't in our corner, and South Korea, Japan, and Russia have no power. Bilateral diplomacy, in the form of direct talks and negotiation with DPRK, would seem to be the best way to slow down the escalating tensions, but it's something that this administration will not do.
Posted by: siberia37

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 09/10/2006 14:52

I read that USGS confirmed a 4.5 magnitude earthquake in the area where the said test was conducted- so they are probably not lying. The nuclear weapon will get N.K. what they want- no one will mess with them anymore. They will get some slap in the wrist sanctions imposed on them which China will generally ignore.
Posted by: DWallach

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 09/10/2006 16:36

I had a chat with a Korean expert at lunch today. Here's his read on the situation. China has been using North Korea as a buffer between itself and South Korea The U.S. forces in South Korea are that much farther away from the border with China. As such, China is decidedly not interested in any kind of Korean unification. Given the level of Chinese pull in North Korea, they could very well decide they've had enough with the present North Korean government. At that point, the only remaining question is exactly how hard they'd have to push to overthrow the government and install another one.
Posted by: tonyc

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 09/10/2006 16:59

Quote:
Given the level of Chinese pull in North Korea, they could very well decide they've had enough with the present North Korean government.

That's fair, but I'm not sure they've had enough of it yet. We can't hand the ball off to China and hope they someday decide DPRK needs a regime change. We need to engage in bilateral talks, if for no other reason, than to show that we are interested in a peaceful outcome.

But, don't believe me, listen to Bush 41's National Security Advisor and former South Korean ambassador Donald Gregg's take on the matter.
Posted by: music

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 09/10/2006 20:54

Quote:
The U.S. forces in South Korea are that much farther away from the border with China. As such, China is decidedly not interested in any kind of Korean unification.


I believe that to be true.
I also suspect that China wouldn't want the current regime to completely topple for a couple of reasons: (1) they really don't want to deal with a few million starving people streaming into China, and (2) if North Korea just becomes part of China, then suddenly China has a border with South Korea -- which, as you just said, they don't want that either.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 09/10/2006 23:46

Quote:
Bilateral diplomacy, in the form of direct talks and negotiation with DPRK, would seem to be the best way to slow down the escalating tensions


The USA (and the other asian players) have been in negotiations with North Korea since the early 90's to prevent them from developing nukes. Several agreements were made over the years and the DPRK broke the agreements every time. That's why they have so many sanctions against them. More talking isn't going to help much.

North Korea is also the biggest and most accurate counterfeiter of US currency, which is another source of conflict and sanctions. It's also supposedly the driving force behind why the US re-designed its paper currency.

What would you say to them through bilateral diplomacy "in the form of direct talks and negotiation"? What can you possibly say to make them stop?
Posted by: DWallach

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 10/10/2006 01:27

Quote:
What would you say to them through bilateral diplomacy "in the form of direct talks and negotiation"? What can you possibly say to make them stop?


The U.S. can't say much. China, on the other hand, has a lot more to say.
Posted by: tonyc

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 10/10/2006 12:54

The answer to your question is simple, and best expressed in the words of blogger Glenn Greenwald:

Quote:
Where a country like North Korea is engaged in conduct that we would like to stop, we have three options:
(1) wage war against them;
(2) engage in diplomacy and attempt to reach a negotiated solution; or
(3) do nothing.

If we remove option (2) from the list -- as Bush followers want to do in almost every case and as the administration repeatedly does -- it means that only options (1) and (3) remain. And where option (1) is not viable -- as is the case with the U.S. vis-a-vis North Korea (mostly because we already chose option (1) with two other countries and are threatening to do so with a third) -- then the only option left is (3) -- do nothing. That is exactly what we have done while North Korea became a nuclear-armed power, and we did nothing because we operated from Rubin's premise that diplomacy and negotiations are essentially worthless, which left us with no other options.

This toxic notion that hostile countries can't be negotiated with -- or that attempts to negotiate with them are thinly disguised gestures of weakness, appeasement and surrender -- seems to be grounded in the belief, one could almost say the neurosis, that every country is Nazi Germany and every leader is Hitler and therefore are beyond reason. But none of the countries whom we are told can't be negotiated with has displayed that type of irrationality or self-destruction. To the contrary, Kim Jong Il -- like Saddam Hussein -- seems obsessed with self-preservation and with perpetuating the power of his regime. The same could be said for Syria's Bashar Assad, just like his father before him. And whatever else one wants to say about them, the Iranian mullahs seem to be among the most rational and calculating actors on the world stage.

They may be oppressive and tyrannical and even evil. But that doesn't mean they are irrational or beyond the realm of reason. What seems irrational is the refusal to negotiate with them, because we then have no good options. We can't wage endless war. In fact, we can't even successfully wage the current wars we are fighting given our limited resources. And even if we could, doing so doesn't seem to enable us to achieve our objectives (see e.g., Iraq and, more and more, Afghanistan).

Diplomacy and negotiations -- including with irrational and oppressive regimes -- have been the key to maintaining stability and peace since the end of World War I, at least. Ronald Reagan fought against the same anti-diplomacy factions now in order to negotiate with the Soviet Union precisely because it was the only real option. Once you decide that negotiations are a worthless instrument, you're left with only two options -- endless war-making, or standing by and doing nothing in the face of growing dangers.



I really can't say it better myself, so I'll leave it at that for now.
Posted by: hybrid8

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 10/10/2006 13:28

I'm far more worried about the US having nukes than I ever will be about North Korea. Or China, or France or Pakistan.
Posted by: DWallach

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 10/10/2006 13:31

There's a missing option: unilateral sanctions. North Korea was basically funding itself by producing expert forgeries of U.S. currency. The U.S. has cranked down hard on that, for obvious reasons. In effect, the U.S. was unwillingly giving significant financial support to North Korea, and now it's not. That's arguably one of the reasons that North Korea got serious about bomb-making.

Now, the big question remains how and what China will do. Unlike the U.S., they do talk to the North Koreans, and may now be willing to threaten them.
Posted by: Redrum

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 10/10/2006 15:00

Quote:
I'm far more worried about the US having nukes than I ever will be about North Korea. Or China, or France or Pakistan.


Why do you think you/Canada is in danger of being bombed by the USA?

Maybe China and North Korea will take over the USA someday and you can sleep better.
Posted by: rob

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 10/10/2006 15:30

Quote:
I'm far more worried about the US having nukes than I ever will be about North Korea. Or China, or France or Pakistan.

You're just posturing. While Bush may be a bit of a twat, I don't believe the US would launch a pre-emptive strike on another country. North Korea, however, is a dictatorship and the dictator in question is possibly certifiable. Kim Jong Il has absolute power over his military and his finger is on the button. If I were a neighbour of North Korea right now I'd be feeling very uncomfortable.

Rob
Posted by: tonyc

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 10/10/2006 16:24

I hate to crib Glenn Greenwald's blog again, but he responded to your argument in an update to the post I cited earlier:

Quote:
A couple of commenters have argued that there is a fourth option -- U.N. sanctions -- but sanctions are properly seen as a negotiating tool and thus a subset of option (2). Sanctions are intended to pressure a country into capitulating to an agreement on favorable terms. But whether they are viewed as a tool for negotiations or as an option unto themselves, they are scorned just the same by the anti-diplomacy crowd as a form of "appeasement." The argument that is advanced is that countries such as North Korea and Iran are so irrational, deceitful and evil that they can never be trusted to comply with the terms of any agreement -- whether the agreement is brought about by negotiations or sanctions. Only regime change, via military force, provides the necessary assurances.


Sounds about right to me.
Posted by: hybrid8

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 10/10/2006 16:52

Now I have to be worried that the US would launch an attack on Canada for me to be worried about nukes in the US? Come on. I'd be just as worried if I were living IN the US. Besides, the current Canadian Prime Minister positioned himself as a carpet for the US long before he was elected, there would be no need to launch anything. Canada would be the 51st state long before anyone ever made any suggestion of moving a single soldier.

At least with N. Korea you know who's finger is on the button. With the US there's no telling who's really pulling the strings. It's not G.W. who likely has to use the majority of his synapses to keep his lungs moving air.
Posted by: hybrid8

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 10/10/2006 16:55

Rob, you do mean a pre-emptive NUCLEAR strike. Because Iraq and Afghanistan are obvious and fine examples of pre-emptive strikes. And I also suppose those atomic strikes at the tail of WW2 weren't pre-emptive either...

A strike isn't the only thing to be fearful of though. Every nuke out there is one more target for sabotage, accident, theft, etc.
Posted by: frog51

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 10/10/2006 20:44

Interesting discussion of what a 4.x magnitude would mean over at http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002832.html

A little scathing

[edit - and the attachment has nothing to do with defensetech, but was on B3ta.com, is related and it amused me.]
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 10/10/2006 21:27

Quote:
The answer to your question is simple, and best expressed in the words of blogger Glenn Greenwald


Glenn Greenwald isn't taking into account that we've exercised option (2) for over a decade. NK broke the agreements that were made.

And option (2) isn't effective without the threat of options (1) and (4) as bargaining chips (war and sanctions).

It's not Bush's fault, it's not Clinton's fault; it's NK's fault that they're breaking all these international agreements and threatening the South. It's also not our fault that Bin Laden and the other wacko islamofacists want to forcibly convert the West to Islam. It's not Bush's fault we were attacked on 9/11 and it's not Clinton's fault either. Again it's not our fault. When are we going to stop blaming ourselves for the atrocities committed against us by our enemies? We're undermining our own interests and falling apart as a country because of this divisive self-blaming.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 10/10/2006 21:47

Here's a good read on the background of the DPRK. It's long, but thorough. I don't know who wrote it cause the guy who posted this in another forum didn't provide the link.

Quote:
In the post 9/11 world, states with nuclear weapons and states attempting to acquire nuclear weapons have a close eye being kept on them. One of these nation states that the US and the world are watching is North Korea. North Korea was officially created in September of 1948. The United Nations had created an election commission to oversea the elections for the entire Korean peninsula. However, the communist government in the north refused to cooperate and held its own elections. With the North and South having it’s own form of government, they both also had different ideas on reunification of the North and South. In June of 1950, war broke out between the two rivals. At first, the fast advancing northern army easily overran the south’s forces, but with the reinforced United State’s army, they pushed them back up north all the way to Pyongyang. From there, Chinese “volunteer” soldiers drove the UN force again to the south, where fighting would take place for two years. After more than three years of fighting, a truce was signed on July 27, 1953.

After the Korean War, Kim II Sung’s (North Korean’s leader) foreign policy was still concentrated on reunification of the north and south. Both sides made overtures towards each other, but no progress was ever made. Even to this day, the North Korean’s government’s foreign policy is still geared toward reunification, but now he has an ace up his sleeve that he did not have before. The Korean government has access to nuclear weapons and technology, presenting a problem for both the world and especially the United States with its large contingent of forces in the south. Even in present time, North Korea seems to be a thorn in the side of the US and its allies in the region. It has become a difficult situation for the current and prior administrations as to how to handle the situation with the Korean government. It has become a cat and mouse game between a “wild” dictator from the North Korean government, and the current and prior administrations. Both sides have to look and their cards in their hand, play wisely, and try to get the upper hand on each other.

From the end of the Korean War, North Korea did not have a lot of activity until the nuclear issue. Not until the mid 1980s, was the world starting to face a stand off with the North Korean government. In December of 1985, North Korea had agreed to sign on to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty (NPT). Under the articles prescribed in the treaty, North Korea has eighteen months from the date that they signed the treaty, to stop all producing and researching of nuclear weapons. North Korea linked their adherence to the treaty, to the withdrawal of the United State’s nuclear weapons that were based in South Korea. In September of 1991, President Bush withdrew all nuclear weapons based abroad, 100 of those that were based in South Korea. In response to this, President Tae Woo of South Korea announced that he would declare a nuclear free Korean peninsula, which prohibits possession of nuclear weapons and nuclear processing facilities. By the end of 1991, both the North and South had signed the act. In 1992, North Korea and declared nuclear materials to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). However, the IAEA found problems in the initial report and asked the North to clarify some issues.
In early 1993, the IAEA requested a special inspection of two sites that were believed to store nuclear waste. North Korea in turn refused to allow these inspectors to enter their country. Then North Korea announced that it would be withdrawing from the NPT within three months.

North Korea used a provision within article X of the NPT that allows a country to withdraw for supreme national security considerations. After talks with the United States in June, North Korea suspended the withdrawal from the NPT, and agreed to the full application of the IAEA safeguards. For the United States’ part, the US agreed not to use any force (nuclear or conventional) against North Korea. After a second meeting between the US and NK, the North agreed to start renegotiating with the IAEA on inspections and stated that, they might be willing to make a deal with the US to replace the North’s nuclear reactors with light water reactors, which are proliferation resistant.

In the beginning of 1994, after negotiating with the IAEA, the North agreed to allow the inspection of seven of its declared nuclear facilities. A month after the agreement was made; the inspectors arrived in the north. While the inspections were being conducted, one of the inspection teams ran into a snag. They were denied access to a plutonium processing plant at one of the sites. The IAEA in turn, responded with a “slap on the wrist” by demanding that the north comply with all the agreements and safeguards that they had agreed too.

In the following June of that year, North Korea announced the withdrawal from the IAEA, the IAEA contended that even though the Korean government withdrew, the agreements in the NPT were still being honored by the Korean government. The only difference is that North Korea is not an active member of the agency.

An agreement was finally reached after three months of bilateral talks with the United States and its allies. Under the agreement, Pyongyang current and future nuclear weapon’s program would be terminated in return for economic benefits. The deal that was reached would not be fully implemented for another decade, but it was a good breakthrough. Pyongyang announced on November 1, 1994 that it was taking the appropriate steps to implement the framework agreement that was reached on October 21, 1994. Some of the key agreements on this framework were:

• North Korea would get a letter of assurance from the United States that would make arrangements for the provision of the light water reactor project, with a target date of 2003

• International Community would supply an alternative source of fuel while the North’s reactors were frozen – The alternative energy would be in the form of heavily oil for heating and electricity, the rate would be 500,000 tons annually

• Upon assurances from the United States for the delivery of alternative fuel sources, the North would freeze its reactors and eventually dismantle - The dismantling of the reactors will be completed when the LWR project is completed
- The freeze on the reactors will be fully implemented within one month of October 20, 1994, the IAEA will be allowed to monitor this freeze

• After October 20th, a date will be set for US and the North’s experts to talk

• After set of talks, will discuss arrangements for spent fuel storage and ultimate disposition

• Within three months of October 20th, both the US and North Korea would reduce trade barriers and investments -Will also upgrade bilateral relations to Ambassador status


While the agreement states that the spent nuclear rods must be moved to a third country before the components for the first two light water reactors is received by the North, the rods will still remain in North Korea’s supervision for years. This is not an optimum setting for the US, but it is good enough for a starting point. The IAEA took the role of monitoring North Korea and its compliance with the framework that North Korea had agreed with. The IAEA was designated to start the monitoring of North Korea around the end of November. On November 28, 1994, the IAEA had announced that there was confirmation that work had been halted at both the Nyongbyon and Taochon nuclear facilities; both of these facilities were also considered non-operational by the IAEA.

Between the end of 1994 and 2000, the majority of issues that the US had to deal with in their relations with North Korea were over the building and exporting of missiles. Probably the most important situation had arisen in August of 1998 when the North Koreans had launched a three stage Taepo Dong-1 rocket. This launched alarms across the US intelligence community, as it caught them off guard on how far Pyonang really was in their missile research and acquired technology.
The other big issue in this period was the amount of sanctions that the United States had put on North Korea and its coporations. Multiple different situations put sanctions on North Korea, their trading partners (such as Iran or Pakistan) or corporations that have ties with the North. Some inspections were done between 94 and 2000, but no evidence was found to show any violation of the framework that was agreed upon back in 1994. In late 1999, (five years after the agreement was signed) officials signed a key contract with the Korea Electric Power Corporation to begin the construction of two light water reactors in Kumho, North Korea. The reason behind the delay to get the contract signed was related to the complexity of legal and financial challenges, along with the tense situation from the political climate related to the launch of the Taepo Dung-1 missile back in August of 1998. In the year 2000, the US imposed more sanctions on a North Korean firm for supplying missile technology to other countries such as Iran. North Korea was not showing any slow down in its supplying of other countries with missile technology. The United States conducted another inspection of a site in North Korea in May of 2000; the conditions had not changed since the first inspection in May of 1999.

With the election of a new US President in 2000, North Korea was not sure as to how the new administration was going to handle the foreign policy with Pyongyang. At a press conference, Secretary of State Colin Powell stated “plan to engage with North Korea is to pick up where President Clinton left off. Some promising elements were left on the table and we will be examining those elements.” After a meeting with South Korean President Jim Dae-jung, President Bush told reporters that he “looks forward to, at some point in the future, having a dialogue with the North Koreans, but that any negotiation would require complete verification of the terms of a potential agreement.” The North Korean government didn’t take too kindly to these words or the tone that was used, and they canceled a meeting with the United States. This meeting had been arranged so that the two sides would discuss political reconciliation between the two countries. In June of 2001, President Bush completed his policy towards North Korea. Bush stated that serious discussions needed to take place with Pyongyang, especially concerning the implanting the agreements laid down in the framework.

On September 11, 2001, the world changed in terms of how the United States views renegade countries. In January of 2002, Bush gave his State of the Union speech for the country. In his speech, Bush criticized North Korea for “arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction while starving its citizens.” Bush branded North Korea as one of the “axis of evil”, along with Iran and Iraq. He stated in his speech that the axis of evil was; “arming to threaten the peace of the world.” A few months after the speech was given to the nation and the world, Bush refused to certify North Korea’s compliance with the agreed framework. Over the next few months, the US put increasingly more pressure on the North Korean government to comply with the framework agreement. In October of 2002, the “bombshell” was dropped in relations with the US and North Korea when James Kelly, the assistant secretary for East Asian and Pacific affairs, visited the North Korean government in Pyongyang. At this meeting, the north admitted to having an active program to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. The only reason the North Korean government came out about their program was that the US was fully aware of the program being in use in North Korea. Before coming out with this information, North Korea repeatedly denied having any program of the sort. With this information out, Pyongyang was very much in breach of the framework that they had agreed to. State spokesman Richard Boucher stated, “North Korea’s secret nuclear program is a serious violation of North Korea’s commitments under the agreed framework as well as under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty…”

With the major announcement from North Korea about having a nuclear program, the shipments of heavy oil were suspended, and the fallout continued. In late November 2002, the IAEA passed a resolution that called on North Korea to clarify its “reported uranium-enrichment program.” Pyongyang rejected this demand from the IAEA, saying that the IAEA’s position is based on its biasness towards the United States. From this point, the North Korean government took even more of a drastic step. It sent word to the IAEA that it will be restarting one of its functional reactors and will be opening the other nuclear reactors frozen under the agreed framework. The government also demanded that the IAEA remove the seals and monitoring equipment from the nuclear facilities. Following this, the North Korean government also sent word to the IAEA that the matter over the nuclear facilities was between the US and the North Korean government, not the IAEA. They further went on to state that either the IAEA will remove the seals or monitoring equipment, or the North Korean government will. Within two weeks of sending the message to the IAEA, North Korea cuts the seals and removes the monitoring equipment, allowing the movement of fresh rods into the reactor. Within weeks of the removal of the seals/monitoring equipment being removed, North Korea demands the withdrawal of the IAEA inspectors who left by the end of the year.

With the withdrawal of the inspectors, the IAEA had to act. Within the first week of January 2003, the board of IAEA governors convened and adopted a resolution that condemned North Korea. This resolution stated that the board condemns Korea’s decision to restart its nuclear reactor and resume operation of its related facilities. It calls for North Korea to meet immediately with IAEA officials, reestablish the seals and monitoring equipment, and make information known to the IAEA about their uranium-enrichment program. It further states that the agency is allowed to verify that all the North’s nuclear material is declared, and subject to safeguards. A week after the resolution passing by the IAEA, North Korea had announced their withdrawal from the NPT, effective immediately. Although as stated before, Article X does allow a country to withdrawal from the NPT, the country must wait three months until it’s officially out. North Korea made the argument that because it made the announcement back in March of 1993, and only suspended the decision, that it was not subject to the three-month notice. However, the IAEA rejects this notion, and states that the agency still considers North Korea bound to the NPT for its three-month period. In response to North Korea’s rejection of IAEA’s 2002 and 2003 resolutions, the IAEA adopts a resolution in February of 2003 stating that North Korea is in non-compliance with its obligations under the NPT, and refers the matter to the United Nations Security Council for review.

Within two months of withdrawing from the NPT, US officials confirmed that the five-megawatt reactor has been restarted; this reactor had been frozen under the Agreed Framework. A month later, the United States along with North Korea held trilateral talks in Beijing. North Korea had told the US delegation that it had produced nuclear weapons and had them available. This is the first time that Pyongyang had ever admitted to having nuclear weapons available. At this meeting, the North Korea delegation had told the US representatives that it might be willing to give up and get rid of their nuclear programs and stop the exporting of missiles, however they would want something considerable in return for this action. The US in return, said that it wants the immediate reversal and elimination of the North’s nuclear weapons before it discusses any type of benefits for Pyongyang. (RL report) The North further drops a bomb shell stating that it might even test the nuclear weapons, and even more of a major issue, export them to another country.

Between May and June, President Bush drew up support from countries located in North Korean’s region, between meetings with the South Korean president and Japan’s Prime Minister, the message was clear; “We will not tolerate the possession of nuclear weapons by North Korea.” Both countries stated that there needed to be tougher restrictions on North Korea from the international community. Bush expressed his desire for South Korea and Japan to be included in the talks with North Korea, to ratchet more pressure upon Pyongyang. Pyongyang’s response to this was to still demand a one on one talk with the US, they said that it would be more “fruitful” to multilateral talks if the one on one talks occurred first.
President Bush held a joint news conference with South Korea, in that conference the Japanese Prime Minister stated that; “South Korea, the United States and Japan should take a tougher measure if North Korea escalates the situation further.” President Roh of South Korea took a more passive stance with his statement that “the Republic of Korea takes greater weight on dialogue, while both dialogue and pressure are important factor in regard to the issue of North Korea.” However, in multinational meeting, South Korea and Japan rejected the US’s proposal for the halting of the light water reactor in North Korea. This further complicates matters for the US, as the halting of the reactor was viewed as another ratchet of pressure upon the North Korean government.

In August of 2003, the North Korean government released a press statement that stated the only way to dissolve the current crisis, was for the US and Pyongyang to sign a non-aggression pact. It continues on to say that it is virtually impossible for any type of inspections to be done on the North Korean facilities without changes to the US policy against Pyongyang. However, the US doesn’t see any change necessary, and continues to put pressure on the demand for the elimination of nuclear weapons and programs.

The first of six party talks were held in Beijing in August of 2003. Unfortunately, things did not go well. North Korea did agree with the five other countries on having a nuclear free North Korean peninsula, but had demanded from the United States diplomatic recognition, a security guarantee and aid before it allowed any type of inspection or monitoring of the nuclear program. North Korea also had threatened to test a nuclear weapon, using it as a bargaining chip from the other nations. The US on the other hand demanded that North Korea disarm and dismantle any nuclear weapon or program before any benefits would be given to the North. The talks didn’t come out with any viable resolution, and North Korea announced afterwards that they don’t see any reason to continue these kinds of talks, and consider the possession of nuclear weapons as a self-defense measure.

In the Fall of 2003, North Korea continued to restart its nuclear program with having all of its nuclear facilities are currently now online. Between the United States and North Korea, both sides still state the need for each other to comply with the demands held in the August 6 party conference. Not a lot of progress was made in the Fall, as both sides did not have any indication of budging from their positions. Not a lot, if any progress was really made up until the start of the second round of six country party talks in Beijing. Even at this second meeting, no progress was made except for the meeting of a third round in June. Both the US and North Korea’s position on the matter stayed the same from the year before, not making any type of real indications of backing down.

At the third round of 6 party talks in Beijing, as with the other round of talks, there was no agreement that came out. The only semi-agreement that was made was for that all parties had agreed that the way to denuclearize was to use a step by step program; each program would start with the freezing of nuclear programs on the part of the North Koreans. However, each side had different proposals as to how this was to be done. The US proposed that North Korea freeze their nuclear program for three months in exchange for security assurances and energy benefits provided by China, Japan and South Korea. North Korea on the other hand reported that in order for there to be a freezing of nuclear facilities, there must be a reward given to them that includes the removal of North Korea from the state sponsored terrorism list, lifting economic sanctions and the participation of the initial energy provision assistance.

Between the third round of talks and the end of 2004, North Korea took an even more defiant stand against the United States. Pyongyang rejected the idea of returning for another round of six party talks, until the US makes appropriate steps in the North’s demands. First, the US must drop its hostile policy towards the North and join a program that provides economic aid to North Korea. In response, Colin Powell rejected these terms, saying that in order to receive any type of aid, the North must dismantle their nuclear program first and he urges the North to rejoin the talks for a fourth round.
For the year 2005, there still has been no progress on the situation with North Korea. For the first time, (in February) North Korea admitted to having nuclear weapons to the public, citing the need for possessing the nuclear weapons as “self defense”. Furthermore, it goes on to blame the need for nuclear weapons because of the hostility the United States shows towards Pyongyang. Talks for the fourth round did begin however starting in September of 2005. On the first day, an agreement was reached that stated the North would “abandon all nuclear weapons and nuclear programs”. In return, the US stated that it had no nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula and the US had no intention of attacking the North with any type of military action. All parties agreed to setup another meeting sometime at the end of 2005 in Beijing.

As of right now, this is where the United States and the North stand. Unfortunately, as North Korea has shown in the past, they cannot be trusted to uphold any type of an agreement. The North has shown that it cannot be trusted, they continued to stall for time in the early 90s with the nuclear program, and they’re starting it up again in the present time. The United States is correct in its assessment of North Korea; they cannot be trusted, period. North Korea has not shown any willingness to abide by any agreements set forth by the United States or the international community, they continue to agree and then either later disagree or outright go behind the international community’s back and do it anyway.
North Korea now holds an “ace card”, of two if not three available nuclear weapons. With the US having assets in the Korean region, the United States must now take an even stronger stance against North Korea, giving into their demands will do nothing but promote more delays in the long run. They say that a man can learn a lot from looking at the past, let’s just hope the US and the international community sees that we aren’t dealing with a rational nation, but a rogue nation that doesn’t care about how it perceives itself to the world and will do anything to keep a hold on its power.
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 10/10/2006 22:27

Quote:
Because Iraq and Afghanistan are obvious and fine examples of pre-emptive strikes.


Can you explain to my two active synapises how Afghanistan was a pre-emptive strike?

Quote:
Besides, the current Canadian Prime Minister positioned himself as a carpet for the US long before he was elected, there would be no need to launch anything. Canada would be the 51st state long before anyone ever made any suggestion of moving a single soldier.


Another fine example of "Canadian" being defined as "not American".
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 10/10/2006 22:28

Quote:
It's not Bush's fault, it's not Clinton's fault; it's NK's fault that they're breaking all these international agreements and threatening the South. It's also not our fault that Bin Laden and the other wacko islamofacists want to forcibly convert the West to Islam. It's not Bush's fault we were attacked on 9/11 and it's not Clinton's fault either. Again it's not our fault. When are we going to stop blaming ourselves for the atrocities committed against us by our enemies? We're undermining our own interests and falling apart as a country because of this divisive self-blaming.


This whole self blaming thing that started up again about 2 seconds after 9/11 always reminded me of the arguements that women who were raped were somehow at fault because they must have been "asking for it" by how they dressed or something.
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 10/10/2006 22:41

Quote:
I hate to crib Glenn Greenwald's blog again, but he responded to your argument in an update to the post I cited earlier:

Quote:
A couple of commenters have argued that there is a fourth option -- U.N. sanctions -- but sanctions are properly seen as a negotiating tool and thus a subset of option (2). Sanctions are intended to pressure a country into capitulating to an agreement on favorable terms. But whether they are viewed as a tool for negotiations or as an option unto themselves, they are scorned just the same by the anti-diplomacy crowd as a form of "appeasement." The argument that is advanced is that countries such as North Korea and Iran are so irrational, deceitful and evil that they can never be trusted to comply with the terms of any agreement -- whether the agreement is brought about by negotiations or sanctions. Only regime change, via military force, provides the necessary assurances.


Sounds about right to me.


Calling me "anti-appeasment" would be accurate. However, I'm not aware of a single prominent author, speaker or commentator who considers sanctions to be a form of appeasment. I don't mind if we disagree, but I feel that's dangerously misunderstanding those whom I agree with on this subject. If we don't agree, let's at least be clear about how and what we disagree about.

I think that "skeptical towards diplomacy" is a more accurate description than "anti-diplomacy". Diplomacy is great between two sane countries but I'm not aware of it ever working with a dictatorship. The communists didn't have a great record of keeping their promises and North Korea was able to partly fund their atomic efforts and gained a soft-water reactor because we engaged in diplomacy with them (and we now know they lied from the get-go). And how are negotiations supposed to work with countries like Iran when before talks even start you have countries like France saying they will veto any call for sanctions?

To me, the real fear about North Korea is poliferation.
Posted by: FireFox31

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 10/10/2006 23:41

Good long post, Billy. THIS makes me thankfull that I wake up alive each morning. And I thought I'd missed the joys of the Cold War.
Posted by: Ezekiel

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 10/10/2006 23:52

"poliferation" - An unchecked spreading of pols?

-Zeke
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 11/10/2006 00:37

Quote:
"poliferation" - An unchecked spreading of pols?

-Zeke


D-oh! I have to get around to reinstalling that Spell Check on Mozilla Firefox! lol
Posted by: hybrid8

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 11/10/2006 03:34

Brad, I'll assume you were joking about Afghanistan. You can feel free to let me know when they declared war on the US though. And when they attacked the US or any of its possessions or allies.

Billy... Islamofascists? I suppose that's a stark contrast to the plain old regular fascism that's been growing in the US for the past few years. Yeah, our fascism is better than theirs.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 11/10/2006 04:18

Quote:
Brad, I'll assume you were joking about Afghanistan. You can feel free to let me know when they declared war on the US though.


Ever heard of Bin Laden? He and many other muslims have declared war on us.

Yes, I know most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi and lots of terrorists have been hiding in Pakistan. But unlike the governments of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, the rulers of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran refused to cooperate with the West in rooting out these terrorist organizations that have attacked us several times. In fact, they openly supported them. Two down, one to go. Good progress in my opinion.


Quote:
Islamofascists? I suppose that's a stark contrast to the plain old regular fascism that's been growing in the US for the past few years. Yeah, our fascism is better than theirs.


Whatever, dude. You must be either truly delusional or sympathetic to the enemy's cause, which is "convert to Islam or DIE".
Posted by: frog51

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 11/10/2006 07:33

Billy, do you honestly think that the 9/11 attack and ongoing issues are not Bush/Clinton's fault? Yes, directly they are the fault of some crazy militants, but do you understand why they got so militant in the first place? I know from the times I have been in the US that the media is completely warped and twisted, but you must at least have the common sense to realise that Afghanistan, Iraq etc were all shat on by the US first and have a fairly justified urge for revenge. Personally I dont't think killing innocents is the way to have that revenge, but the US killed their innocents first...and way more than 9/11 and associated events.
Posted by: hybrid8

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 11/10/2006 12:17

Obviously this isn't directed to Rory, just following on to his reply...

Afghanistan and Iraq had nothing at all to do with 9/11. OMG, blind faith in the party. Remember that the unprovoked invasion and war against Iraq was based on the supposition they had weapons of mass destruction. That was a blunder that some seem to be forgetting. Then you have a certain super power not following the convention (rules) of war at any point in the game. And now you just have an unjust occupation. None of this is reason for anyone to be pissed off of course. Every citizen of the US should be in outrage.

I think every terrorist past and present is a total and complete coward. You have to be a totally spineless pussy, beyond any sense of retribution, to become a suicide bomber. Ok, that's out of the way.

Being a critic of the US' actions in no way makes one sympathetic to the "enemy" - the fact is there is no one real enemy, and it certainly is not the muslim world. The US is the aggressor in every case, wake up!

These terrorists have been created and supplied by twisted US foreign policy over the past few decades. And this issue is still a problem. But you can't even say that the foreign policy is self-serving to the country as a whole. It's all monetary-based but only a select few get to profit. Certainly not the average citizen. They're just fodder which is probably the saddest thing of all.

There *is* an axis of evil. But it's made up of key people in the US, not in the middle east.
Posted by: hybrid8

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 11/10/2006 12:24

Go look up fascism in the dictionary and then get back to me. Or instead of getting back to me, go down to your local recruiting office and sign up for military service and request to be sent to Iraq or Afghanistan after basic training. Maybe once you've been away from CNN for a little while you'll finally see a bigger/different picture.
Posted by: BAKup

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 11/10/2006 13:20

Quote:
Maybe once you've been away from CNN for a little while you'll finally see a bigger/different picture.


No, it looks like he watches Fox News, you know, "Fair and Balanced"

/More like fairly unbalanced to me though.
Posted by: tahir

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 11/10/2006 14:45

Quote:
Personally I dont't think killing innocents is the way to have that revenge, but the US killed their innocents first...and way more than 9/11 and associated events.


"An estimated 655,000 Iraqis have died since 2003 who might still be alive but for the US-led invasion, according to a survey by a US university."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6040054.stm
Posted by: tonyc

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 11/10/2006 16:27

While none of the facts in the summary you posted are untrue, many of the editorial comments are leaps of logic, and unsubstantiated by the facts.

There are a million details and little wrinkles in the long saga of DPRK's attempts to become a nuclear power, and many of the exact details are not public knowledge. But it basically boils down to the following: (courtesy of Josh Marshall):

Quote:

1994-2002 -- Era of Clinton 'Agreed Framework': No plutonium production. All existing plutonium under international inspection. No bomb.

2002-2006 -- Bush Policy Era: Active plutonium production. No international inspections of plutonium stocks. Nuclear warhead detonated.



Talk all you want about DPRK's enriched uranium program and how it violated the original agreement, but Clinton's policies and bilateral agreement led to DPRK being forced to cheat, using the back door to acquire nuclear weapons. Bush's policy of heated rhetoric with no bilateral negotiations and no weapons inspections has led to the reactivation of the plutonium program in addition to the uranium program, leaving both the front doors and back doors wide open for business.

Calling this "blaming ourselves" is such a farce. The blame does, in fact, lie at the feet of the elected leaders who didn't do their jobs, and in this matter, the Bush administration's failure to negotiate bilaterally led to the collapse of the existing agreement, under which weapons inspections gave us at least partial visibility into and control over DPRK's weapons programs. DPRK then reactivated the plutonium program, and now they have bombs.

Is DPRK the aggressor? Of course. Is Kim Jong Il a liar? Without question. Is Bush to blame for abandoning the existing framework and replacing it with empty rhetoric? Absolutely.

I don't know about you, but I believe our elected leaders need to be held accountable for when they fail to protect their citizens.
Posted by: visuvius

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 11/10/2006 16:28

Quote:
...wacko islamofacists want to forcibly convert the West to Islam

Quote:
...the enemy's cause, which is "convert to Islam or DIE"


This is a fallacy that neocons and loonies like to constantly mention regarding the "war on terror". They want to believe that this is some good vs. evil thing where we have to utterly destory the enemy who wants nothing more than to eat our babies, and convert our men and enslave our women. This is a lie and a very clever tactic. These people do not give a rats ass if you find the path to Allah. They want US troops off the Arabian Penninsula, and they want justice in Palestine. These are their motives. Well at least those WERE their motives, now they are just pissed at the US and hate everything American. It didn't used to be like that. Yes there were factions that were hostile towards the US for the reasons mentioned above, but by and large, the average citizens of most muslim countries pretty much liked Americans. It was funny, cause I remember hearing a lot of people back home who just sort of, admired Americans because of their "movie star looks and exciting lives", they wanted to come here and partake in the american dream and all that nonsense. Now instead of a pissed off minority, you have half the muslim world hating the US. I can honestly again say that it didn't used to be like that.

There is never going to be a Caliphate going from Indonesia to Spain, and you, nor anyone you know is ever going to be forcibly converted to Islam. But keep believing that its what the terrorists want, and keep telling everyone that this is part of the eternal struggle between good and evil, and yet again, America is good, which obviously puts anyone muslim in the evil category.

BTW, I'm sure someone is going to find some quote, or link, or videotaped message where some asshole terrorist is saying something to the effect of, "the US WILL FALL, CHRISTIANS DIE, CONVERT OR DIE", this is about the same as a muslim watching a KKK or Aryan Brotherhood video and claiming that the white man wants to kill minorities and all white people want to create an Aryan empire.
Posted by: tonyc

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 11/10/2006 17:20

Quote:

Calling me "anti-appeasment" would be accurate. However, I'm not aware of a single prominent author, speaker or commentator who considers sanctions to be a form of appeasment. I don't mind if we disagree, but I feel that's dangerously misunderstanding those whom I agree with on this subject.


You breezed right past the point of Greenwald's post. Let's back off the word "appeasement" for a second, and look at the purpose of sanctions. Sanctions are a way to force another country into accepting an agreement they normally wouldn't accept without the sanctions in place. In the "carrots" and "sticks" parlance, it's a medium-sized stick, larger than "we'll be very mad at you' (the stick currently wielded by the Bush administration) but smaller than "we'll bomb the shit out of you."

Maybe there are no high-profile conservative pundits equating sanctions with appeasement, but there are certainly plenty of them saying that we ought to forget about negotiation. If we don't negotiate, and (as you've alluded to) we don't have the ability to impose sanctions, all we have left is military action. That's exactly what many of "those whom you agree with" are pushing towards.

Quote:
If we don't agree, let's at least be clear about how and what we disagree about.

Okay, I'll make a few statements, and you can give me your take on them.

When a conflict like this arises:

1. Diplomacy should always be the first step.
2. When diplomacy fails, diplomacy is still an option.
3. If you think diplomacy is no longer an option, you'd better be ready to deal with the conflict militarily.

The problem I have with the Bush policy towards North Korea, and the legions of conservatives lining up to say diplomacy with North Korea is dead, is that we have no other options. Even if you impose sanctions, at some point, you have to sit down at the table and get them to agree to something, unless you're willing to use force. It all boils down to either agreeing to something or involving ourselves in yet another war.

Quote:

I think that "skeptical towards diplomacy" is a more accurate description than "anti-dipylomacy". Diplomacy is great between two sane countries but I'm not aware of it ever working with a dictatorship.



Diplomacy can work with any two parties who want to avoid conflict. North Korea doesn't really want armed conflict with us, and we don't really want armed conflict with them. Therefore, we can engage in negotiations.

Quote:
To me, the real fear about North Korea is poliferation.


Agreed. They sold uranium to Libya, there's no reason they wouldn't sell a weapon to $BAD_ACTOR. But what's your solution?
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 11/10/2006 22:16

Quote:
Brad, I'll assume you were joking about Afghanistan. You can feel free to let me know when they declared war on the US though. And when they attacked the US or any of its possessions or allies.

As critical as I am of the Bush administration, I find it hard to argue with the conclusion that al Qaeda, who are believed to be responsible, and who have claimed responsibility, for two World Trade Center attacks, the attack on the USS Cole, and two attacks on US embassies, were the (irregular) army of the Taliban, rulers of the vast majority of Afghanistan in 2001. Generally speaking, when a country's army attacks you, multiple times, that's an implicit declaration of war.

Do you claim that al Qaeda were not responsible for those attacks, that al Qaeda was not the army of Afghanistan, or that multiple attacks on US property are not sufficient as a declaration of war?
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 11/10/2006 22:58

Quote:
You breezed right past the point of Greenwald's post...


Only because I tended to agree with most of it. I just thought that the one line I singled out was a misrepresentation and unfair. How can we discuss a matter such as this if we don't understand the other side's motives or concerns? I thought most of it was accurate but if you were to really think that people who dislike appeasment (such as myself), also consider sanctions to be a form of appeasment, I don't see how you'd even want to discuss the topic with the other side. (Sanctions = Appeasment) is stupid.

Quote:
"we'll be very mad at you' (the stick currently wielded by the Bush administration) but smaller than "we'll bomb the shit out of you."


I'm not sure that's the US's position on N. Korea. We've never ruled out sanctions but to be honest, Kim is such a nut that he has stated that sanctions would be an act of war. (Sanctions = Military Action) is stupid. Besides this, we do very little trade with North Korea as it is, so how effective can unilateral sanctions be? In my opinion, I think the US sees that the best solution is to encourage China to take action under the threat that Japan will move to militarize itself if they don't. That allows the US to take the non-hostile stance of "We can't promise that Japan won't hit you but we promise not to hit you unless you strike one of our allies."

Quote:
Maybe there are no high-profile conservative pundits equating sanctions with appeasement, but there are certainly plenty of them saying that we ought to forget about negotiation.


Only if negotiations equate to "give them whatever they want as long as they promise to not build a bomb". But that would be appeasment.

Quote:
When a conflict like this arises:

1. Diplomacy should always be the first step.
2. When diplomacy fails, diplomacy is still an option.
3. If you think diplomacy is no longer an option, you'd better be ready to deal with the conflict militarily.


Sounds good to me as long as you have some sticks (sanctions or force) to go along with any carrots. And we can't count on Trust. Everything has to be verified.

Quote:
The problem I have with the Bush policy towards North Korea, and the legions of conservatives lining up to say diplomacy with North Korea is dead, is that we have no other options. Even if you impose sanctions, at some point, you have to sit down at the table and get them to agree to something, unless you're willing to use force. It all boils down to either agreeing to something or involving ourselves in yet another war.


I agree. If Kim wasn't so damned insane maybe I'd feel better about it though. And I'm not aware of any conservatives leaders who are pushing for military action. I have read some blogs and forums where people are calling for this, but they are reacting emotionally and I don't really think they mean it. Some have proposed surgical strikes like Israel did against Iraq back in the day but those people tend to be political people. The military people that happen to be conservative strongly think that will be ineffective.

Quote:
Diplomacy can work with any two parties who want to avoid conflict. North Korea doesn't really want armed conflict with us, and we don't really want armed conflict with them. Therefore, we can engage in negotiations.


Let's hope you're right on the bolded part. If we do so much as mention the weather on the Korean peninsula, Kim announces it as an act of war. He also happens to pull some stunt every time national attention is pointed away from him.

Quote:
Agreed. They sold uranium to Libya, there's no reason they wouldn't sell a weapon to $BAD_ACTOR. But what's your solution?


Team America.
Posted by: tonyc

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 12/10/2006 03:19

We're actually pretty close on a lot of the underlying issues here, and I think if you reread the original words I quoted, you'll realize nobody is saying what you think they're saying:

Quote:
Sanctions are intended to pressure a country into capitulating to an agreement on favorable terms. But whether they are viewed as a tool for negotiations or as an option unto themselves, they are scorned just the same by the anti-diplomacy crowd as a form of "appeasement."


You said yourself that you don't consider yourself anti-diplomacy, rather, you consider yourself skeptical of diplomacy. So, the statement doesn't apply to you, nor to those who think like you do.

It does, however, apply to the more hawkish of conservatives who are truly anti-diplomacy, and among those are The National Review's Michael Rubin, whose statements were the inspiration behind Greenwald's blog entry. Rubin stated, in no uncertain terms, that diplomacy with North Korea wasn't an option, and did, in fact, liken anyone who wants to engage them in diplomacy as appeasers.

Anyway, I do think that's our main point of disagreement, but I do want to respond to this:

Quote:
I agree. If Kim wasn't so damned insane maybe I'd feel better about it though.


Yes, Kim Jong Il is insane, much more insane than Parker and Stone gave him credit for. But, if you think about it, that's EXACTLY why we need to keep bilateral diplomatic channels open.

I'm sure you've seen movies where a crazy person is about to do something stupid. Maybe he's going to end his own life jumping off a skyscraper, or detonate a bunch of explosives and kill a lot of innocent people. Sometimes, the situation ends in a bunch of gunfire. Other times, though, it ends because the good guys establish a dialogue with the crazy guy and talk him off the ledge, get him to drop the detonator, or whatever. No true trust relationship is established, but enough talking is done that maybe some common ground is found, or the crazy person has a moment of clarity and realizes what they're doing is, well, crazy.

Now, I'm not suggesting the US start taking foreign policy advice from Hollywood (though, sometimes I wonder if they are.) Nor am I suggesting that every crazy person will respond to being engaged in conversation. But, it seems to me that Kim Jong Il, being the egomaniac he is, just wants someone to listen to him. We don't have to trust him to listen to him, but listening to him may just give us information that helps us make the right decisions with our policies going forward. It may make him just a bit more hesitant to do something stupid if he thinks he might get something (a carrot, perhaps) if he doesn't.

Ultimately, there is NO drawback to establishing bilateral dialogue with ANY other country, no matter how crazy their leaders may be, unless you plan to go to war and destroy them. Anything short of that, and diplomatic channels should be open. Like it or not, people on "your side" (though, I suspect, further to the extremes of your side) are indeed suggesting that the time for diplomacy is over, and unfortunately, one of them lives at 1600 Pennsylvania.

Quote:
Team America.

Fuck yeah!
Posted by: music

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 12/10/2006 04:58

Quote:
And I also suppose those atomic strikes at the tail of WW2 weren't pre-emptive either...


OK, everyone else has ignored this because it is somewhat off of the main topic, but I don't think I want to leave this comment hanging out there.

One could perhaps argue that those two atomic bombs were unnecessary or uncalled for. In fact many people have done exactly that and it is very much in fashion now to say "the US knew the war was very nearly over anyway and didn't really need to use those bombs." Well, I believe that point has been argued here before and we could take this back to those threads if people want to argue it again.

HOWEVER, my point is that dropping atomic bombs on a country with which you have been at war for YEARS and have recently been firebombing their major cities on a nearly daily basis hardly constitutes a pre-emptive act.

Perhaps a gratuitous act, perhaps an inhumane act, perhaps a political act of saber-rattling for the benefit of the Soviets, but NOT a pre-emptive act.

The war was well past the point of pre-emption at that point.



...and while I'm off on this tangent I'll point out that the brutal firebombing of Tokyo, a city composed mostly of bamboo and paper at that time, was responsible for much more death and suffering than that caused later by the two relatively low yield A-bombs. [I need a citation for this to make sure that I am not mistaken on this point! Done: See below.]

Edit: According to Wikipedia, the firebombing of Tokyo on Feb. 23, 1945 resulted in 100,000 dead and 16 square miles of the city destroyed. This was possibly the most devastating single raid by aircraft in any war. In retrospect, this was almost certainly a war crime.
The ensuing firebombings on following nights killed yet more.
Also, the earlier firebombings in Kobe killed around 9,000 people but damaged the homes of around 1 million people.

In contrast, the Hiroshima atomic bomb destroyed "only" about 4.5 square miles and may have killed "only" 80,000 people during the explosion. Another 60,000 died later due to aftereffects over the next four or so months. The Nagasaki atomic bomb killed about half as many as the Hiroshima one. Probably 74,000 total.

Anyway, my point is: war is brutal. A large amount of death and inhumanity can be, has been, and will unfortunately continue to be inflicted even without nuclear weapons.

And my other (original) point is, those two bombs were not "pre-emptive." Whether or not they were justified is a completely different question.
Posted by: peter

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 12/10/2006 10:29

Quote:
As critical as I am of the Bush administration, I find it hard to argue with the conclusion that al Qaeda, who are believed to be responsible, and who have claimed responsibility, for two World Trade Center attacks, the attack on the USS Cole, and two attacks on US embassies, were the (irregular) army of the Taliban, rulers of the vast majority of Afghanistan in 2001. Generally speaking, when a country's army attacks you, multiple times, that's an implicit declaration of war.

Do you claim that al Qaeda were not responsible for those attacks, that al Qaeda was not the army of Afghanistan, or that multiple attacks on US property are not sufficient as a declaration of war?

I wasn't aware that Al Qaeda considered themselves the Afghan army (I thought they felt they acted on behalf of Arabs as a whole). But even if they did, I don't think that it counts if you unilaterally declare yourself to be a country's army, even if you share that country's goals (in this case America out of Arabia, justice in Israel/Palestine) but they don't share your methods (terrorism vs diplomacy). Here in the UK we have, or had[1], a terrorist group who went so far as to call themselves the "Irish Republican Army", but it wouldn't have occurred to anyone to count their attacks as a declaration of war by the Republic of Ireland, or (in modern times at least) that it might be valid or legal to invade the Republic of Ireland as a way of solving that terrorism problem, even though the Irish government shared the goal (Britain out of Ulster), because the Irish government had no truck with using terrorism to achieve that goal. (Quite apart from the fact that such an invasion wouldn't actually have worked.)

So yes, I do claim that Al Qaeda are not the army of Afghanistan, and that their attacks are not a declaration of war, least of all a declaration of war by Afghanistan.

Peter

[1] They still exist, but more as an organised crime ring than as political terrorists.
Posted by: tonyc

Re: North Korea. BOOM. Discuss. - 12/10/2006 13:24

The Taliban ruled 90% of Afghanistan at the time the 9/11 attacks occurred, effectively making them the country's national government. Al Qaeda and the Taliban had very close ties, and many of the same goals. Al Qaeda fighters were, in fact, integrated with the official Taliban army, there is no dispute over this. The Taliban also protected Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan after the US Embassy was bombed in the late 1990s, and then again after the attacks of 9/11.

It is technically true to say that the government of Afghanistan (such as there was) never declared war on the United States, but it's also technically true that the United States never declared war on the country of Afghanistan, rather, they assisted the Afghan Northern Alliance in defeating the Taliban militarily (for a while, at least.) Both of those statements are disingenuous, because the net effect of the United States action in Afghanistan was that of war, and the net effect of the Taliban's complicity in the 9/11 attacks (and their refusal to distance themselves from Al Qaeda afterwards) was that of war.

I'm certainly much more dove than hawk, but I think your argument hinges on a bunch of technicalities about who actually represented the country of Afghanistan or the Afghan army at the time. If it wasn't the Taliban, who was it?