[Spliffdaddy]

Here's what the so-called 'experts' claim our best options are.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapc...ons/index.html

According to U.S. think tanks and policy analysts, there are four ways of dealing with the nuclear deadlock.

• Hand out aid and security assurances if North Korea dismantles its nuclear program. Former U.S. president Bill Clinton tried this approach in 1994. That pact collapsed after the North violated the deal and pocketed handouts, blaming Washington for not fulfilling its obligations.

• Military strike. This could trigger a full-scale war, with missile attacks, radioactive fallout, economic turmoil and massive refugee flows. U.S. troops in Japan and South Korea could become nuclear hostages.

• Starve Kim Jong Il's regime of money, slapping sanctions and embargoes on the grounds the North is an outlaw of the nonproliferation treaty. Block the country's hard cash from illicit trade and cut off food aid. This is likely to worsen a massive humanitarian crisis on an economically isolated nation.

• Put up with a nuclear-armed North, and accept Pyongyang may export weapons. This could spark an arms race if South Korea, Japan and Taiwan became nuclear powers to defend themselves. Interdict suspected illegal goods through the 11-nation Proliferation Security Initiative, set up in May by Washington to allow the U.S. and its allies to search planes and ships.

The U.S. administration is divided on North Korea, not only because its partners in East Asia have all but ruled out the first option, but because it is not sure what Pyongyang wants.


--------------------------------------------------------------


You guys might be surprised to hear me say this, but I don't think the US should be involved in North Korea in any capacity except funding humanitarian aid such as food and medicine.

This isn't our problem and we shouldn't be part of the solution. While we have a vested interest in a resolution to the NK 'standoff' - the lack of a resolution doesn't mean we MUST create one through force. Until NK is a direct threat to the US mainland, it really isn't a problem for the US to solve. Some will argue that products from NK's current nuclear program could be sold to terrorists...which would pose a 'direct threat' to the US right now, and therefore require an immediate (military, no doubt) 'solution'.

Today, it's not quite yet a problem for the US to deal with. It's on our radar screen and closing fast, though. The simple fact of the matter is that there exists no easy solution. If ever there was a high liklihood of failure and misery - this would be it.

Make us proud, folks. Nip this problem in the bud. That way you won't have to whine about the US screwing it up tomorrow.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
This isn't our problem and we shouldn't be part of the solution. While we have a vested interest in a resolution to the NK 'standoff' - the lack of a resolution doesn't mean we MUST create one through force. Until NK is a direct threat to the US mainland, it really isn't a problem for the US to solve. Some will argue that products from NK's current nuclear program could be sold to terrorists...which would pose a 'direct threat' to the US right now, and therefore require an immediate (military, no doubt) 'solution'.

Today, it's not quite yet a problem for the US to deal with. It's on our radar screen and closing fast, though. The simple fact of the matter is that there exists no easy solution. If ever there was a high liklihood of failure and misery - this would be it.

Based on that same analysis, why did/do you support the invasion of Iraq?

Stop making excuses for America - you're beginning to sound like a tree-hugging peacenik.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
You guys might be surprised to hear me say this, but I don't think the US should be involved in North Korea in any capacity except funding humanitarian aid such as food and medicine.

This isn't our problem and we shouldn't be part of the solution. While we have a vested interest in a resolution to the NK 'standoff' - the lack of a resolution doesn't mean we MUST create one through force. Until NK is a direct threat to the US mainland, it really isn't a problem for the US to solve. Some will argue that products from NK's current nuclear program could be sold to terrorists...which would pose a 'direct threat' to the US right now, and therefore require an immediate (military, no doubt) 'solution'.

Today, it's not quite yet a problem for the US to deal with. It's on our radar screen and closing fast, though. The simple fact of the matter is that there exists no easy solution. If ever there was a high liklihood of failure and misery - this would be it.

Make us proud, folks. Nip this problem in the bud. That way you won't have to whine about the US screwing it up tomorrow.

I don't want to totally derail what could be a great discussion on the specifics of the NK problem, but I can't help but say that your statements here are almost exactly what many of us "peaceniks" and "Saddam Lovers" have been saying about Iraq all along.

On the continuum between "grave and gathering"<----->"imminent" threats to the US, NK is so much closer to imminent than Iraq could have ever dreamed of being.

I find your analysis to be spot on when it rules out direct military confrontation with NK. I only wish that kind of clear-headed pragmatism had prevailed on the Iraq "standoff".

BOT:

I disagree on one point, however. The US cannot simply ignore the issue and pretend it doesn't concern us. NK may or may not be a direct threat to us right now, but we can't be sure. They certainly have infinitely more capable delivery systems than Iraq ever had and might be able to reach the West Coast already. I don't think we can take that lightly.

In addition, the US can't pretend it doesn't concern us when a large part of this "crisis" is directly a result of Bush's confrontational tactics. Its not coincidental that NK started barking shortly after being called a member of the "axis of evil".

I'm not saying Bush created the problem, but he did bring it into the pissing contest we have now with his rhettoric and actions. In fact, I seem to remember a lot of Bush supporters arguing that pushing NK's button's was a smart move in order to get things going. I'm surprised to hear the Bush camp now arguing it's not our problem.

NK's top demand is a non-aggression pact with the US. All this "axis of evil" and pre-emptive war and Bush Doctrine of not allowing anyone to develop nuclear deterrant has clearly rattled their cage. I can't pretend to think that wasn't on purpose. Bush rattled the cage, he can't walk away from it now.

NK doesn't want a war. We don't want a war. We both know that any saber-rattling is a total bluff so there is no point in continuing the charade. Signing a non-aggression pact doesn't hurt our position because everyone already knows we won't be invading anyway.

An embargo is wrong-headed as well. The last thing we need is to drive an already desperate and isolated regime further towards the brink. They have everything to gain and nothing to lose, we can't get what we want by pushing them even further towards have even less to lose.

We should be happy to extend an invitation to NK to rejoin the international community of nations. If we've learned anything from the end of the cold war until now, its that brutal regimes cannot survive prosperity and peace. Their control and intimidation of their own populations requires external threats to maintain nationalism and suppress dissent--not to mention abject poverty which can also be blamed on those same external threats.

The key to weakening the regime is to empower the people. That will require carefully and specifically crafted agreements and cooperation that bring necessary food and aid into NK in exchange for peace and mutual security. A humanitarian committment to NK will eventually yield the political goals we have. Time is on our side.

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
The key to weakening the regime is to empower the people. That will require carefully and specifically crafted agreements and cooperation that bring necessary food and aid into NK in exchange for peace and mutual security. A humanitarian committment to NK will eventually yield the political goals we have. Time is on our side.

Well put.

[Millennium]

It is a sad fact of diplomacy that nukes change everything.

Seriously. Whether or not North Korea could actually hit the US is up to debate, but frankly, they don't need to hit the US anyway. Politically, it would be better to wipe Seoul or Tokyo off the map and blame it on "US aggression", because the usual traumatophobes wouldn't dare allow the US to do anything militarily in response. If they actually struck the US, on the other hand, I doubt anyone would mind if the US struck back (as long as nukes weren't involved in the retaliation). Note how there was broad international support for the war in Afghanistan -at least, at the time- but not nearly so much for the war in Iraq. The same principle applies, and Kim Jong Il knows this. He's insane, but he isn't stupid.

Essentially, North Korea has hostages. There is no straightforward way to deal with a situation like that. These four possibilities -and their drawbacks- show this problem. There are no easy answers when nuclear weapons are involved.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Millennium:
It is a sad fact of diplomacy that nukes change everything.

Seriously. Whether or not North Korea could actually hit the US is up to debate, but frankly, they don't need to hit the US anyway. Politically, it would be better to wipe Seoul or Tokyo off the map and blame it on "US aggression", because the usual traumatophobes wouldn't dare allow the US to do anything militarily in response. If they actually struck the US, on the other hand, I doubt anyone would mind if the US struck back (as long as nukes weren't involved in the retaliation). Note how there was broad international support for the war in Afghanistan -at least, at the time- but not nearly so much for the war in Iraq. The same principle applies, and Kim Jong Il knows this. He's insane, but he isn't stupid.

Essentially, North Korea has hostages. There is no straightforward way to deal with a situation like that. These four possibilities -and their drawbacks- show this problem. There are no easy answers when nuclear weapons are involved.

which is why the WMD justification for regime changing Iraq is counterproductive as a deterrent for other countries. What we essentially have indicated by our actions is not that WMDs are wrong, but that unsuccessfully getting them in hand BEFORE the US can invade is wrong.

This will only lead other countries to conclude they need to ACCELERATE programs to obtain WMDs instead of abandoning them....or pursue them at the same rate but more secretively.

counterproductive.

If you really wanted regime change to work as a deterrent, you'd regime change NK as an example to Iraq, not the other way around.

(not that I'm avocating regime change, just making a point)

[itai195]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
which is why the WMD justification for regime changing Iraq isThis will only lead other countries to conclude they need to ACCELERATE programs to obtain WMDs instead of abandoning them....or pursue them at the same rate but more secretively.

counterproductive.

Given Libya and Iran's recent steps toward nuclear disclosure, this theory appears baseless for the time being.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by itai195:
Given Libya and Iran's recent steps toward nuclear disclosure, this theory appears baseless for the time being.

and North Korea? Pakistan? India? Israel?

I don't think my theory is baseless, there's plenty of basis for some countries coming to those conclusions. Obviously, some will not. But the point is, the present policy does not logically encourage anyone to abandon their WMD program, when they see kid glove diplomacy used with NK and regime change with Iraq.

This isn't really all that difficult a theory to understand, I wouldn't think.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
and North Korea? Pakistan? India? Israel?

Other than North Korea they all already have nuclear weapons. The original post said:

This will only lead other countries to conclude they need to ACCELERATE programs to obtain WMDs

Anyway I'm just saying I've heard this before, but recent events indicate this theory doesn't really hold water, or its oversimplified. It doesn't fit all the evidence.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by itai195:
Given Libya and Iran's recent steps toward nuclear disclosure, this theory appears baseless for the time being.

Neither of which can be claimed as a victory for the Bush Doctrine no matter how hard they might try to spin it that way.

The wrangling over nuclear programs in those states goes back years. In fact, the US bullying only worked because the UN is there to play good cop through years of diplomacy and respectful negotiation.

Without the UN playing that role, the Bush Doctrine is hopelessly inadequate and can only lead to arms races or brinksmanship. It leaves no room for alternatives.

And the vital role of the UN is imperiled by the US newfound unilateralism and utter disdain for the very process that seems to continually work.

I'm not adverse to the threat of force, but that only works if the back door of diplomacy is still a credible option. Without that, the only possible response to the threat of force is to call the bluff.

[villalobos]

Originally posted by Millennium:
...He's insane, but he isn't stupid.
...

that IS funny.

villa

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
According to U.S. think tanks...

Aaaaahahaha!

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
which is why the WMD justification for regime changing Iraq is counterproductive as a deterrent for other countries.

Except for Libya dismantling. Or Iran's recent cooperation.

And the world reknown Dr. Nuke Proliferation of Pakistan also just gave us a complete listing of the many nations he has sold nuclear weapons blueprints to, and a detailed overview of his international proliferation ring.

It's doubtful any of those would have happened had it not been for the War on Terror and the ousting of Saddam's regime.

[itai195]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Neither of which can be claimed as a victory for the Bush Doctrine no matter how hard they might try to spin it that way.

The wrangling over nuclear programs in those states goes back years. In fact, the US bullying only worked because the UN is there to play good cop through years of diplomacy and respectful negotiation.

I understand that none of this is happening in a vaccuum and organizations like the UN have a role to play as well. But I disagree with Lerk's theory on the basis that it's not supported by recent events. I don't think that Bush can take all or even most of the credit, but I have to admit that his administration played an important role.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Except for Libya dismantling. Or Iran's recent cooperation.

And the world reknown Dr. Nuke Proliferation of Pakistan also just gave us a complete listing of the many nations he has sold nuclear weapons blueprints to, and a detailed overview of his international proliferation ring.

It's doubtful any of those would have happened had it not been for the War on Terror and the ousting of Saddam's regime.

You sound as if Dr. Kahn was some sort of "lone gunman" who was finally caught.

This is a complete fiction born of political necessity. Perhaps you're curious why Dr. Kahn has already been pardoned?

Kahn is the scapegoat for Pakistan's dirty little secret. His public slap on the wrist is the political theater that allows Pakistan to remain an "ally in the war on terror" despite the fact that it has spent the last decade doing exactly what we accused Saddam of doing.

It is precisely this kind of selective enforcement that is counter-productive in the long term. Together with our continued short-sightedness in picking "allies".

Once upon a time, Saddam was an "ally" in the "war on terror" long before Bush came up with that spiffy new name. Just as OBL was an "ally" in the war agasint communism.

Just like the murderous, Islamic fundamentalist warlords in Afghanistan are today's "ally", they are already quickly becoming tommorrow's next "grave and gathering danger".

We seem to make the same mistakes over and over again. We need a 50 year plan rather than a "get me re-elected" plan.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
You sound as if Dr. Kahn was some sort of "lone gunman" who was finally caught.

Actually, I was replying to the argument that "regime changing Iraq is counterproductive as a deterrent". ( I cited Libya's dismantling and Iran's recent cooperation).

My point with regards to the War on Terror was: if we weren't on the case, the revelation/confession of the proliferation likely would not have occurred.

I fully understand that the Dr. Kahn affair is more complex, but for the purpose of my reply, there was no need to write a modern history of Pakistan's nuclear program and documenting theories as to the "true" scope and operations of their nuclear proliferation.

[thunderous_funker]

Both Libya and Iran were far more influenced by internal affairs than by US aggression in Iraq.

As for Pakistan, the "war on terror" and our cozy relationship with the military regime there didn't do anything for proliferation. That is, of course, unless you consider "confessions" to be a solution to the problem.

I realize that the duplicity of declaring one nation that sold WMD to rogue states and terrorists an "ally" and invading another on false accussations of the same might be lost on you. Unfortunately, it isn't lost on America's enemies. Nor on our increasingly skeptical allies.

Forgiving Pakistan while invading Iraq hurts America's credibility in the world. It emboldens our enemies and gives pause to our allies. Counterproductive to the long term goals of the war on terror.

Invading Iraq which doesn't have WMD while treating North Korea (which does have WMD and declared intent to use them pre-emptively against us) with kit gloves tells the world that our threat of force is hollow rhettoric reserved only for those too weak to oppose us. It renders the Bush Doctrine meaningless.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
You guys might be surprised to hear me say this, but I don't think the US should be involved in North Korea in any capacity except funding humanitarian aid such as food and medicine.

I'm not surprised in the least. There's nothing in North Korea for the US.

[Spliffdaddy]

Is that why the rest of the world never makes an effort?

[tie]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
The key to weakening the regime is to empower the people. That will require carefully and specifically crafted agreements and cooperation that bring necessary food and aid into NK in exchange for peace and mutual security. A humanitarian committment to NK will eventually yield the political goals we have. Time is on our side.

I agree time is on our side. I disagree that increased humanitarian aid is the way to foster change.

If we are serious about helping the North, we need to precipitate a crisis. An external crisis is nearly unthinkable given their supposed nuclear weapons, and an internal crisis would also be extremely dangerous.

I think we can support the status quo indefinitely. Small changes to the status quo -- increased ties with South Korea, increased (or slightly decreased) humanitarian aid -- won't really change anything.

As long as North Korea has WMD, we can't afford to change the status quo. It is impossible to make and enforce a humanitarian commitment which doesn't help the regime more than it hurts it.

So in the short and long term, we need to start with disarming North Korea. Fully enforced disarmament is impossible at the moment, but our chances of getting it increase as the regime is put under more internal pressure. In the mean time, any humanitarian aid above some bare minimum is counterproductive.

If we achieve disarmament (which we have to suspect will only be partial -- as in Iraq, except it is unlikely we will be able to set up nearly as powerful inspections in NK as in Iraq), then we can consider the next step.

Perhaps precipitating an internal crisis will be less risky at that point. If not, then we have to believe South Korea that incrementally improved ties will slowly improve things, and in another generation or two North Korea's regime will accept change.

I don't trust my own judgement here; perhaps the South Koreans are right. I certainly would never have predicted the dramatic changes in China recently.