posted
What happens when a big nation declares it has the right to preemptively strike any smaller nation that it considers a threat? The small nations that it might consider threatening do whatever it takes to prevent any possibility of that invasion.
Thus, we can now see where President Bush's policies have led us...
quote:(CNN) -- Citing what it calls U.S. threats to topple its political system, North Korea says it is dropping out of six-party nuclear talks and will "bolster its nuclear weapons arsenal," North Korea's official news agency KCNA reported.
Thursday's report was the first public claim by North Korea to actually possess nuclear weapons.
And the thing is, it will probably work. Anybody think we will invade North Korea now that it has nukes (not to mention already used all our "political capital" by attacking Iraq)? And if we don't, how many other nations are going to conclude that the solution to U.S. threats to them is nuclear proliferation?
Because we have never suspected this before his administration, and we have never had problems with North Korea before this... Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just see it as an "in your face" thing, and it scares me a lot. It will make us look like hypocrites if we do nothing, won't it? And don't they pretty much figure we won't do anything, because we don't want to open that hornets' nest?
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To blame North Korea's wierd and dangerous behavior on the President's mismanagement is a stretch. Face it, thier leader is a power drunk nut who gets upset everytime three weeks go by without his name on the front page of the Washington Post.
Still, President Bush's decision to put this country with 1)Proven WMD, 2)Unstable and Anti-American agendas, and 3)True allies with in striking range of its weapons, on a back burner while focusing on Iraq was not the most logical decision.
And yes, we've known NK has had Nukes for 2 years. It has been argued that the reason we didn't invade NK to get them is that he would use them on our troops, and on Seoul, if we tried.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Curse you Bush! NK would have never bothered getting nukes if you hadn't been in the White House. Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Still, President Bush's decision to put this country with 1)Proven WMD, 2)Unstable and Anti-American agendas, and 3)True allies with in striking range of its weapons, on a back burner while focusing on Iraq was not the most logical decision.
I think Bush has been hoping that China would deal with it. Seriously.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
North Korea has been a problem for a long time. I don't even begin to blame Bush for the problem that NK is. I do worry, though, that his administration's "We'll kick your ass" brand of diplomacy will only serve to exacerbate these problems.
He's already set the stage for justifying preemptive strikes (on a target that was a much less clear threat.) At this point I'm not quite to the point that I think he'll attack NK, but if either side wants an active conflict, he's done a lot rhetorically to set the stage.
And every time he mentions NK, it only serves to underscore the flimsy excuses he gave us for invading Iraq. I think our reputation internationally has been shot and I think it's clear that this administration doesn't much care.
As for SK attacking NK: I don't think they'll face North and sneeze without the blessing of the US.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
North Korea would have announced this no matter WHO is in office. Their leader has hated the U.S. through many administrations, and would have built nukes no matter what. He has his own agenda....
posted
I woldn't be surprised if this is coinciding with a significant advance in their nuclear weapons program.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm seriously wondering if the paranoid, delusional tendency of Bush-haters to blame absolutely everything on him could be classified as a mental illness.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If North Korea managed to develop the technology to build a nuclear bomb and then manufacture more than one within four years then to their engineers.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Kim Jong Il is a PARANOID PSYCHOPATH. Your reasoning has no effect on him!
Which makes me wonder what would happen if Freud and him met.
"You Sir, are a Paranoid Psychopath" "No I'm not! I have nukes!" "Your aggression tells me your subconscious is protecting you from realizing the truth that you are a paranoid psychopath." "No.... I have nukes. Would you like to see them!?" "Tell me about your mother..." "Ok, bye bye Austria!"
Posts: 9754 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
All of NK's weapons grade nuclear material was under lock and key (and being monitored) until we cut off diplomatic contact and called them part of the Axis of Evil. Kim Jong Il is insane, not stupid. He is the head of a cult of personality, which depends on him preserving his position of authority. Once we broke our treaty with him, undermining his authority,
And recent analysis in the news has come out that the evidence we had for NK breaking the treaty first (they had certainly bent it by dragging their feet on deadlines, but those deadlines were agreed to independently of the treaty, and we were dragging our own feet on the deadlines we were obliged to meet) was as substantial as the evidence we had for Iraq working hard on nuclear weapons -- not at all. So its not at all clear NK would have done this under any President, because they were following the treaty until we broked it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know that part of the treaty was to help NK with non-nuclear power generation, and that was the treaty we broke (failed--completely, I think--to uphold).
But was that under the Bush administration (the current one, first four years), or during the Clinton administration. I don't think that it occuerd during the 1st (George Sr. ) administration.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, This Article is very anti-Bush, but it makes some good points on the history of Korea and the U.S. relations.
This one is a little drier read, but also takes a look back
quote: Initial identification of the program by the CIA in the early 1980s was not immediately followed by concern that North Korea was seeking to develop nuclear weapons (see "A Ten-Year Projection …"). By the mid-1980s, CIA analysis discussed not only the components of the nuclear program, but the potential that North Korea would, indeed, seek to develop nuclear weapons.
Anyway, there is lots of information out there if you want to see how it has been handled ever since the Korean War (which has never really ended)
posted
Actually, the treaty I'm referring to was for nuclear power generation with LWR (Light Water Reactors).
Basically, we agreed to (in cooperation with SK) provide sufficient LWRs to replace their existing plants, which produce more weapons grade material more easily. In return, they give up all the weapons grade nuclear material they had already made and dismantle the older plants. Until the new plants go online, the existing weapons grade nuclear material was to remain in NK, but under lock and key, and the existing plants only continue to operate within strict parameters (set by the IAEA, I think) and with close monitoring.
The construction of the LWRs had been lagging, due to delays on both sides. However, progress was being made, and side effects were actually going quite well (lots of low level economic talks between NK and SK).
Then we got hold of "evidence" (which has since become public and found to be unpersuasive, much like every bit of "evidence" for Iraq working hard on a nuclear program) that they were proceeding with a disallowed nuclear program (they're allowed to conduct nuclear research, just not nuclear weapons research). We told them we were ceasing diplomatic contact until they obeyed the treaty, including ceasing further progress on the LWRs.
This "discovery" was remarkably coincident with a speech where NK got termed part of the Axis of Evil (I know the way I keep insane people with large armies calm is denouncing them).
In response to our breaking the treaty, NK removed the monitoring devices from its existing plants, and a bit later siezed the weapons grade material. That they already had a supply of weapons grade material large enough for several modern bombs is no doubt why they were able to construct a weapon so quickly.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, Jay, dropping large bombs on their nuclear plants, causing mass deaths as those plants are necessary to keep the country running, is absolutely certain not to provoke the insane dictator to use their nuclear weapon in retaliation.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tests by America’s Department of Energy have convinced American officials that North Korea may well have supplied the uranium hexafluoride gas—partly-processed uranium which can be spun in centrifuge machines to make enriched uranium for either civilian or military uses—that Libya turned over to inspectors a year ago when it abandoned its once secret nuclear-weapons programme. The evidence is not irrefutable, but the conclusion is also based on traces of plutonium found on the canisters concerned, as well as a third piece of evidence not so far made public. Earlier this month, America put its case to China, South Korea and Japan—possibly the real reason for Mr Kim’s latest tantrum. If the analysis is correct, it puts North Korea just one step away from one of the Bush administration’s red lines: the export of weapons-useable material itself.
posted
It is convenient to assume North Korea is crazy and that our policies in no way influence what they do, just as it was convenient to assume Al-Qaeda was just a bunch of monsters bent on attacking America for no particular reason whatsoever other than a vague hatred of "freedom", and just as it was convenient to assume Saddam Hussein continued to have vast WMD weapons stockpiles he was intent on giving to Al Qaeda even as weapons inspectors found no evidence and as analysts pointed out no strong connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Unfortunately, often the facts contradict what is most convenient to believe.
The facts are as follows...
1. North Korea became increasingly more hostile after Bush took office Prior to Bush's election in 2000, problems with North Korea existed but were intermittent and stabilized. After Bush gave them the cold shoulder that year (and especially after the 'Axis of Evil' comment), the timeline indicates a rapid series of escalations. Is this sudden increase in hostility at the same time Bush took office and radically altered our policies towards N. Korea just supposed to be a coinsidence?
2.The Bush Administration gave them every excuse to feel threatened and feel the need for nukes. We proved, through Iraq, that we are willing to overthrow governments we dislike, unilaterally, without direct provocation. And we proved to North Korea that we intensely disliked their government - we called it an Axis of Evil and cut off meaningful relations with them. Thus we proved to them that we could very well invade them, and gave them a very strong motivation to develop nukes before we attacked. (If it became apparent China might overthrow the American government, you better believe we'd be building weapons left and right.)
3. North Korea even warned us this would happen if we did not change course. They suggested that if we did not stop our hostile policies toward them, they would build nuclear weapons.
4. Now, as it happens, North Korea says that it is because of our aggression, just as they had warned.
It's a clear and rather direct link between Bush's policies and the North Korean development of nukes. Those policies gave them reason to do it, they warned us they would do it because of those policies, they became increasingly hostile only when those policies began, and when they finally did it, they claimed it was because of exactly those policies they warned us about.
Had North Korea been a problem before? Yes. Might they have had some sort of program before? Probably. But the fact remains that signs pointed to that problem being largely stabilized before - before we gave them the reason and motivation to step up their efforts to full-blown hostility. Even if it were merely an excuse to justify something they had long wanted to do, we still handed that excuse over to them, without which they likely could not have gone forward.
America needs to recognize that our decisions have CONSEQUENCES. We cannot afford to sit back and assume the rest of the world is totally irrational, that nothing we do influences them, and that anything bad that happens was unavoidable and unconnected to our choices. When you poke a crazy guy with a stick, the crazy guy tells you to stop, you don't, and the crazy guy goes berzerk, the lesson is that you probably shouldn't go around poking crazy guys with sticks. To say "Oh, they're just crazy - they would have done it anyway" and go off continuing to poke others is asking only for more trouble.
quote:When you attend a funeral It is sad to think that sooner or later Those you love will do the same for you And you may have thought it tragic Not to mention other adjec- Tives, to think of all the weeping they will do But don't you worry
/ Em - / B7 - / Em - C7 B7 / Em - / B7 - / Em F#7 B7 / - /
No more ashes, no more sackcloth And an armband made of black cloth Will someday never more adorn a sleeve For if the bomb that drops on you Gets your friends and neighbors too There'll be nobody left behind to grieve
/ Em - / F - / B7 - E - / E E7 A F#7 / B7 - E B7 /
And we will all go together when we go What a comforting thought that is to know. Universal bereavement, an inspiring achievement Yes, we will all go together when we go
/ E - A - / - F#m B7 - / E E7 A F#m / B7 - E C7 /
We will all go together when we go All suffused with an incandescent glow No one will have the endurance to collect on his insurance Lloyd's of London will be loaded when they go
posted
Yes, cautious diplomacy has worked real well with NK.
People like Kim Jong Il still make decisions explicable by rational choice theory, its their priorities that are insane, not how they evaluate decisions. With that understanding, NK may be and was being handled. Handled with tongs and gloves, yes, but significant progress was being made: trade between NK and SK was opening up, general talks at a high level were starting to take place, NK's means of nuclear production were all being monitored, and existing nuclear material was being monitored and would be removed in the future, et cetera.
We threw a lot of progress away because people wanted to see evidence that wasn't there for political reasons, I think.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu, can you source this stuff please? I'd love to read more about how we were handling NK and specifically keeping their nuke programs under control
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu, the North Koreans were working on a nuclear program long before Bush came into office. Ditto the Iranians. Ditto the Pakistanis. Etc. The fact that smaller countries, other than the old-fashioned 'big two', would be acquiring nukes has been known and discussed for a long time.
Nukes are, for any country, an extremely rational choice for them to make. Why is everyone focusing on Nk when we, as a country, can just look in the mirror for the country that has the most nukes and the largetst military. Hel-lo. If it's a good idea for us, why not for NK?
This is what I mean when I say that diplomacy won't work with NK to get them to get rid of their nukes. Any way the North Koreans look at it, getting nukes is a good idea. Without nukes, they are virtually nothing and have no say in international affairs. Their military, while large, is a kind of Polish calvary at this point, is it not? They have little in the way of economic pull. Nukes are the only thing they have going for them.
I'm sure Bush didn't help with his comments. On the other hand, let's be perfectly honest. North Korea is pretty evil. We have had troops at their border for decades engaging in intermittent hostilities with their troops.
Do the North Koreans want war? I don't know. I doubt it. But ask yourself this, whether or not they 'want' war, what best assures that they will be able to live in peace, having nukes, or not having nukes? If the cold war teaches us anything, it's that the fear engendered by nukes is a deterrent to war. Whether or not the North Koreans are willing to haphazardly use their nukes, it is a fact that no one is going to attack them now.
The problem, to me, isn't North Korea wanting war. It's the fact that, as was alluded to upthread, they are willing to sell arms to virtually anyone. So, the problem, to me, isn't North Korea specifically. The problem is 'rogue' groups who will use what North Korea gives them.
posted
Yes, they were, except as already noted that nuclear program was at least largely contained -- we had our eyes on all their reactors that could produce weapons grade material, and we had all the weapons grade material they already had under lock and key.
Compare this to now when they've made a bomb from the weapons grade material. I know which situation I prefer them to be in.
Paul -- I'll dig up some sources for you later, I'm posting quickly between classes right now. Remind me.
edit: and no, SS, nukes were not a good idea no matter what. By putting off nukes NK was getting badly needed food shipments and modern reactors which would, in addition to not producing much nuclear grade material, produce more power at a lower cost. For those tradeoffs NK was demonstrably willing to at least put significantly off their acquisition of nuclear weapons.
posted
:drumroll: Bush made a mistake with the "Axis of Evil" remark, just as he did in setting WMDs as a pretext for the war on Iraq. But I guess if we do invade either Iran or North Korea, it will disprove my argument that we invaded Iraq as a continuation of Gulf War I, which was precipitated by Saddam taking over Kuwait.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I think Iran and NK are working the world stage marvelously right now. When North Korea is put under the microscope, Iran starts to twitch enough to get public attention. The UN and the US shifts its attention.
When it gets a little hot for Iran, all of a sudden NK pulls out their sword and charges up a flight of stairs like the mad brother in "Arsenic and Old Lace".
Ever think they are working together to keep folks looking back and forth rather than looking right at the problem?
I think we're all being played, played for time.
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
to their engineers.
