I don't know how many of you have kept up with the news lately, but trouble is afoot, no double.
The the unaware, I will summarize very briefly: -N. Korea has been steadily gaining weapons-grade plutonium and uranium for years. -N. Korea shot a 2-stage Taepodong missile at waters near hawaii on America's independence day. -If wikipedia or google information on Korea's missile capabilities, you'll read that there's speculation to the existence of a 3-stage Taepodong missile which could reach main-land US. -The taepodong-2 could be fitted with nuclear weaponry. -Any missile fired at America would neccesarily need to travel over Japan to reach its goal. -The missile crashed 45 second into flight, however the Korean Central News Agency is claiming that this was intentional. -There are news reports that Russia has attempted to broker a nuclear arms deal with N. Korea. -Bush has resolved to be patient with a diplomatic course of action, but there's reason to believe that alternative course of actions are being prepared, if not already considered. -America's missile defense system is not verifiably functional. -The UN is currently debating calling all UN member nations to sanction N. Korea. -N. Korea has publicly state that it would interpret any nation imposing sanctions on it as a war threat. -Japan has imposed partial sanctions on N. Korea. -Russia and China are against imposing global sanctions are N. Korea, and have veto power as Security Council members.
That's a rough cut of what's going on around the pacific Ocean. I'd like to discuss the publicized Japanese reaction a bit, in light of OSC's work.
It would appear to me that the Yamato Spirit is coming to believe in the "Neccesarian" view detailed in Children of the Mind.
A resolution to apply global sanctions on a reportedly hostile nuclear power is extreme action. Furthermore, there are reports that the Japanese military is analyzing it's attack capabilities to determine the potential effectiveness of a pre-emptive strike. They have reportedly been unwilling to compromise the scope and effectiveness of the sanctions whatsoever, except to delay them long enough for diplomatic envoys to parley with N. Korea.
I am reminded of the attitude the Japanese Neccesarians took to the Starways Congress. It is not a perfect parallel, perhaps, but I found it interesting.
posted
So... are you saying that applying sanctions is similar to ordering the use of the MD device?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see the issue as too different in a few very important ways to draw a direct parallel...
1) N.Korea is actively TRYING to develop devastating weapons, and doing so in a very aggressive manner.
so if instead of the existing plot the Lusitanians had actually developed the descolada virus on their own and then had started tossing probes containing it near populated starsystems then perhaps...
2) additionally, N.Korea has repeatedly been warned/discouraged away from developing nuclear arms and was already on very shaky terms with many of the world's powers...
Admittedly preemptive strikes would be unwise and unjust, but other than that I see few usable parallels.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Guess what country has spent the most time and money developing nuclear weapons in recent years? the good old USA... but its ok for us to develop them because we would only use them in in self defense... the US would never do something like START A WAR preemptavely... (what the hell does preemptave mean anyway... it means that you are the agressor, the attacker, not the defender)
I'm not saying any of this in defence of N. korea, I just think that when us americans start to get worried becuase a new country is developing Nukes, we need to take a step back and see how the rest of the world feels about us.
Posts: 104 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:-N. Korea has publicly state that it would interpret any nation imposing sanctions on it as a war threat.
In other words they're warning us not to. But if you can get several dozen to all at once, they'll back down.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dab, if someone is threatening my family or neighbors I'm not going to wait for him to pull out the knife,the gun, or his fist and watch them as he attacks the victim and then decide "Okay, I can now at this time counterattack this individual" I'm going to jump in there the second he threatens anybody and try to fight him off.
This is similar to the international situation- when North Korea starts to threaten other countries (not even the US- but say... Sotuh Korea) or when evil dictators use their resources to attack their own citizens or another contry's then yes I think that we are morally obliged to help before the impending doom to the victims of their tyranny.
Also there is a major difference between a rogue nation like North Korea who has a history of threatening its neighbors and the United States. Sorry- I would rather the United States get 10,000 more nuclear weapons before I saw North Korea get 1.
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doesn't North Korea already have nukes? Just making sure we are all on the same page, what with people accusing the US of preemptive action.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know my argument is a little weak because things are more complicated than white and black. my point is that if we want to be a nuclear state, we should act more responsibly as a nation when it comes to war. If we are seen as an agressor overseas than of course other countries will feel the need to also become nuclear states, and develop new technology that will enable them to defend themself. If I was N. Korea I would probably be doing the exact same thing.
Posts: 104 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
shawshank, where you have to be careful is the nature of a "preemptive strike." If a man is shouting at you and waving a knife in your general direction it may be appropriate to call the cops, get some neighbors to come out and back you up, perhaps even wrestle the knife away from him.
However, it would not be appropriate to shoot him in the head, unless he's actually done something with the knife and/or is absolutely though to be in the process of throwing it at you... I'm thinking general rules of engagement for military forces, the police etc here.
I'm not saying you're advocating an inappropriate preemptive strike, but I think your logic as stated could lead one there.
dab, I don't for one second disagree that the US should not be exempt to this kind of thing and we often don't see what we look like to others because we're looking out from the inside (or at least I am, since many on the board are not from the US). it's an interesting comparison to make and I'm going to have to think on it: how similar/different are American actions/perceptions from those of N.Korea (or other nations) from a purely objective viewpoint?
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:If a man is shouting at you and waving a knife in your general direction it may be appropriate to call the cops, get some neighbors to come out and back you up, perhaps even wrestle the knife away from him.
However, it would not be appropriate to shoot him in the head, unless he's actually done something with the knife and/or is absolutely though to be in the process of throwing it at you... I'm thinking general rules of engagement for military forces, the police etc here.
If you wait until you are positive that he's stabbing at you instead of waving it at you, you're probably dead. In that situation, I think you are perfectly justified in shooting. I'm pretty sure that police general rules of engagement agree with me.
The second last thing* you ever want to do is try to wrestle the knife away. That's a good way to die. If given the choice, I would definitely shoot him (endangering his life) before I'd try to wrestle the knife away from him (endangering my life).
*The last thing you want to do is just let him kill you. Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
yeah yeah yeah, I'm not saying the wrestling is a good idea, I was just stretching for appropriate responses when the assailant is still more or less in the armed battery situation, rather than on the way to or at assault.
ok, perhaps a little severe in the "wait until you're absolutely sure that he's throwing it at you" thing, but I think the principle is still there. Now I'm curious to read police rules of engagement.
I guess the questions are: If a man is yelling at you holding a weapon can you shoot him? What if he's waving the weapon? what if he is throwing/firing weapons in your general vicinity but clearly not at you? how many warnings to put down the gun must be given before firing is acceptable?
Once someone defines those then I'm alright (and I'm sure it's exactly what police and militare rules of engagement do).
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
IIRC, a man 25 feet away with a knife has over a 50% chance of crossing that distance and stabbing you before you can shoot him, even if you have your gun drawn.
I doubt that rules of engagement are the same for everybody, but my friend who was a cop in Oklahoma told me that if somebody had a knife out within 25 feet, he was considered to be already using deadly force. An acceptable response to that is to shoot him in the chest.
Of course, this is second-hand from something I was told over a decade ago. I am not a cop, a military man, and I don't really know a lot about that sort of thing.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The standard distance to practice shooting for police and military pistol shooters is seven meters, or yards, because by the time a person is at that distance, they can reach you by the time you remove your firearm and fire it.
that is a sidebar thing.
My real response is that Russia is already rolling back old reforms, and becoming the fascist dictatorship they used to hate.
Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not saying that the politics of OSC's Children of the Mind perfectly parallel current events.
All I'm saying is that some of the political pressures and movements are curiously reminiscent of the Enderverse politics. I mean, when I read the shaddow series I found myself thinking "Yes, these things could happen. These things described are not at odds with history as I understand it. Furthermore, I believe that OSC has grounded his writing in a rich understanding of history and politics."
I will explain the correlations I see presently- Modern Day Japan and the Neccesary Japan of CotM:
Neccesarian Japan exists centuries into a future. Japanese political influences has been given centuries to strengthen and mature. The political leverage demonstrated by modern Japan will suffer no direct comparison.
Even still, Japan sponsored a resolution requiring all UN Member nations to sanction the trade of all military technology and goods with N. Korea, denouncing the missile tests as a threat to regional stability, and charging N. Korea with certain diplomatic responsibilities without pre-condition. The security counsil passed this resolution unanimously. Friends, that is a strong statement for a formerly communist state and a communist state to vote for. Again, China did not abstain, it voted FOR the resolution. The compromise was made by the dropping of required military preperation by all member nations. Even without invoking Chapter 7, I'm totally impressed that the world managed to unify this statement. I am further impressed by the strength of the Japanese political influence that it was passed relatively unscathed.
Japan may not hold the swing vote in the Starways Congress just yet, but I feel like recent events suggest a hitherto unknown political leverage for Japan.
MD device and Sanctions: Like the disparity between Neccesarian Japan and modern Japan, matters of scale need to be taken into account.
Consider the following: -Both North Korea and Lusitania had been warned by intergovernment bodies (U.N. and Starways Congress, respectively). -Both North Korea and Lusitania have repeatedly violated intergovernment orders to which they promsied to be obedient to (missile moratorium and policy of non-involvement, respectively) -Both North Korea nd Lusitania posess Weapons of MD (Mass Destruction)*. (Nuclear weapons and Descolada, respectively) *Note: "Mass Destruction" and weapons that constitute the capability of mass destruction are relative to the size of the mass. -Both North Korea and Lusitania, when faced with intergovernment pressure, have withdrawn themselves politically and are considered to be in "rebellion" (To International Politics and to the starways congress, respectively).
So, N. Korea and Lusitania are both nations in isolation in possession of such power that it is a threat to established civilization as a whole.
Now, we knew what was going on in Lusitania, and why the people made the choices they did. You've got to be aware of how it looked from the outside, though.
Don't think that I consider the character of North Korea's government or the reasons behind their actions to be on par with that of Lusitanians. I merely point out that the known political forces are not unsimiliar, relative to their scale.
So, is military sanctions comperable to the MD Device? No. Nuclear strike is comperable to the MD device. Military sanctions is on par with the previous matters of policy voted by the Starways Congress, or perhaps a Quarentine.
Nevertheless, the MD Device was not the first measure taken in response to troubles with Lusitania. The diplomatic effort is a still a bold move for the entire security council to get behind, because it forces N. Korea to tip their hand. Either they'll comply and all will be down, or they'll act in rebellion to the U.N. resolution, and will effectively have countermanded the Security Council. Whatever actions may result, the political powers of the U.N. have agreed that the current events in Korea must not be allowed to continue as they are.
On Pre-emptive strike:
How any of you could have read ANY enderverse book and not understand the concept of pre-emptive strike is beyond me. You might dictionary.com or wikipedia it for more details, but I'll provide a rudimentary explanation.
Pre-emptive strike is to commence an attack in expectation of an attack, rather than in reliation to one, or by some independent initiative. The goal is to gain such an advantage over one's enemy as might not be gotten if one were to wait for the enemy to throw the first punch.
Recall if you would the picture of Ender on his raft on the lake during his shore leave. Ender kills a bee approaching him, and comments to Valentine that he's very good at pre-emptive strike and has learned a lot about it. Furthermore, the dangerous creatures of the lake have learned to leave well enough alone. In this case, Ender predicted the malicious attack of the bee because he knew it's nature. He killed the be before it attacked him, and thus prevented any harm from coming to him at the expense of the bee's life on the assumption that it would, in fact, attack him. The case is exactly the same for the shark's in the water. Ender might not surive a shark attack so well if he were to wait for them to come for him. By seeking out the sharks and harming them first, he taught the sharks that Ender=pain, and spared himself harm.
The concept of pre-emptive strike is particularly important in nuclear politics. Because of the concept of the so-called "Mutually Assured Destruction" (MAD), there is an inherent balance of power between the developed nations with nuclear capabilities. The security of nuclear nations is dependet on their ability to relatiate to any nuclear attack in kind, to mutually devastating results. This was what the cold war was all about.
New nuclear powers tend to make the world nervous. New communist nuclear powers which keep themselves politically isolated and are vocally hostile to the west makes western powers very nervous indeed. And this is where pre-emptive strike becomes an issue.
North Korea cannot withstand a nuclear pre-emptive strike. There is no MAD for North Korea. That North Korea could choose to pre-emptively attack another nation with nuclear weapons is it's one and only true leverage over nuclear nations. To pre-emptively strike another nation with a nuclear weapon would have consequences devastating to the target, to North Korea, and perhaps the world. Their only trump card is not entirely desirable. They're playing the hand they're dealt because they're unwilling to be subservient to other nations. They're willing to keep the threat of nuclear holocaust hanging over half the world, rather than to politically submit to iternational government.
Pre-emptive strike in this situation has another side to it. North Korea has made itself very dangerous. It could potentially benefit the US to pre-emptively strike North Korea, thus removing that threat. It would be over much greater profit for Japan to pre-emptively attack North Korea, for the danger to Japan is far more tangible than it is to the US. That would really stir the pot, politically. Pre-emptive strike assumes hostility. It uses the end to justify the means. Internationally, pre-emptive strike is a disrespectful to the targeted nation's sovereignty and might brand the striker as recklessly agressive. Pre-emptive strike is really only politically safe to do when the consequences of NOT pre-emptively striking are palably clear, and far out-weight the aggresivenes of a pre-emptive strike. Were Japan to see nuclear weapons pointed at their island, and to take pictures, sending some planes over to destroy them where they stood would probably be understood globally.
Anyhow, that's what pre-emptive strike is and how it bears on the current political circumstances.
Things being what they are, recent threats to Japan's security have brought the re-militarization of the country into the realm of possibility after 60 years of pacifism. Pre-emptive strike has been discussed at length, and it's debatable whether realistic threats neccesite militarization, or whether a will to militarize has blown up a minor threat to justify militarization.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
