N Korea Again

[FishGuy]

Yesterday they declared they were to start Nuclear testing again in order to secure it's self against US hostilities.

I really cannot understand how this will help. As I am aware the US isnt threatening them in any Military sense just through embargos. Surely this has just threatened their security more. Although there is the trouble in the Mid East to me this nuclear issue looks far more serious. The whole world is against this action (not sure where the chinese really stand though) so why are they persuing it.

[Valleysboy1978]

The Chinese are asking for some calm (mostly because they are smack next to N. Korea and don't want to openly condemn the action - fair enough)

I agree that this is potentially very serious, especially when the missile is capable of reaching Alaska, scary thought. I think they are persuing it as a bargaining chip with the Americans, to try and stop the US bullying them around (their view, not mine). Unfortunately they cannot simply go into N.Korea and stop the weapons from being developed as this could be seen as an act of war in itself. They simply cannot be stopped in the short term. However, embargos could be tightened even further until they relent.

In the mean time Japan, China, South Korea, Russia, India, Pakistan, Alaska are all at risk:
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41849000/gif/_41849108_north_korea_3_416x309.gifSource: BBC News website 2006(c)

[Ex-FB]

I believe they asked for a non-aggression pact with the US, so that would imply that their biggest concern is a US attack. Given that Bush singled them out in his axis-of-evil speech (which was strange as 2 of the countries in this "axis" were actually mortal enemies), and he then promptly invaded one of the three countries mentioned, it would seem that they are persuing the only course open to them. Get the bomb before the US get's out of Iraq and decides to attack them.

If you were in their shoes, isn't that exactly what you would do?

In fairness, they would have nothing to gain and everything to lose by firing their weapons first, so they would probably be okay, let's face it, they are not just going to build the bomb and then start firing them off at the US and wait for the US to return fire and wipe them off the map. However it is disturbing in that once they start building nuclear weapons and have four or five of them sitting around, the temptation to sell one might get pretty high.

[kleinma]

North Korea has a habit of sturring things up when they aren't getting much international attention...

[FishGuy]

I must have missed something, where/how does North Korea figure in the Axis of Evil?

[kleinma]

Axis of Evil is just a label that they put on the countries that are well "Evil" to them...the term itself has roots in WW2, but since its somewhat of a well known term, they just use it now to specify countries that are enemies of the US...

[mendhak]

It's a form of pre-emptive caution. It's all about pre-emptive action now. :)

[Ex-FB]

North Korea has a habit of sturring things up when they aren't getting much international attention...
You've hit the nail on the head. They're like a petulant child.


As for the Axis of Evil thing. I believe that Axis was another term for a group of allies (used in world war two to differentiate between our Allies (UK, Canada, US etc.), and their Allies (Germany, Japan etc.)) You know, Axis, joined together, rotating around the same point etc.. It seems a misnomer to call Iraq and Iran Allies in Evil given that at the time of the speech they were mortal enemies. :ehh:

[demotivater]

North Korea's nuclear ambitions didn't suddenly start with the invasion of Iraq. This situation is likely the most serious on the planet. Nothing good is going to come out of this. If anyone ever needed China, now's the time.

[kleinma]

Its funny how our biggest enemies in WW2 were Japan and Germany, but now they are both "allies" of the US. (Japan probably more so than Germany)

So perhaps after we bomb the crap out of North Korea and Iran, they will be our allies too???

[FishGuy]

Okay but why are they Enemies of the US, what have they done wrong in the first place?

It seems like a silly vicious circle to me!

[demotivater]

Speech writer David Frum explains the term Axis Of Evil:

"I suppose the phrase begins with this insight which I picked up from a lot of people, which is, terrorist groups and terrorist states have associations and relationships, but they're not necessarily coordinated. There isn't some central body. There isn't some central directorate. The relationships between these groups are awfully opportunistic. Between these groups and these governments, they're awfully opportunistic, and they often hate each other. They just happen to hate the United States even worse."

[kleinma]

Well they are all developing nuclear weapons.

People often make the case that the US has no right to tell people who can and can't make nukes, especially since the US was the only one to ever use one (2) in combat.

However North Korea did drop out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty) which is basically the same thing as saying "We are gonna make some nukes over here"

Pakistan never signed it. They are the primary reason why this whole nuke thing is an issue today. A guy by the name of AQ Kahn developed a modified way of making nukes that was easier for countries to use. He successfully developed a nuke for Pakistan. However he also sold these designs and even materials through a black market network running out of Africa and the Middle East. He sold this to Iran and North Korea along with others.

If you recall, Lybia not too long ago decided to give up its quest for nukes. However this was only after the CIA had infultrated the network and seized a load of supplies coming from Kahns underground network, to Lybia.

I watched a show on History (or maybe discovery) called Nuclear Jihad, it was pretty interesting.

Pakistan claims AQ Kahn is a "criminal" and he is now under house arrest in Pakistan, however from the documentary I saw, he isn't suffering all that much, and is still a hero in Pakistan. He also has never been allowed to be questioned by western authorities about his black market activities...

Non the less, any of these emerging nuclear nations (or any nations that get attacked by them) have Pakistan to thank.

[FishGuy]

So they are in the Axis of evil becuase they are an enemy of America
They are an Enemy of America becuase they are developing Nukes
They are developing Nukes becasue they feel the US is hostile towards them and need security.
The US is hostile because they are devloping Nukes.

Round and Round we go!

[kleinma]

Except these countries tend to claim their nuke programs are for peaceful power generation. We accuse them that they are really trying to make bombs, and they of course deny that up and down...

Now all of a sudden N.K. says "Hey look we are gonna test a nuke we made"

I don't know what type of "war" planning our government does, but I would have to imagine that they are reluctant to use nuclear weapons of a mass destruction scale (like WW2) unless all hell was breaking loose on the planet.

Our military has so many devistating non nuclear weapons, we hardly need nukes anymore.. they are mostly just a defense mechanism. However these other countries are building what they would essentialy use as their primary weapon if they wanted to attack us.

[demotivater]

So they are in the Axis of evil becuase they are an enemy of America
They are an Enemy of America becuase they are developing Nukes
They are developing Nukes becasue they feel the US is hostile towards them and need security.
The US is hostile because they are devloping Nukes.

Round and Round we go!
It's fashionable to say "because of America", but there are bigger issues than that. If that was their motivation, they'd have taken steps decades ago. Dear Leader is a complete whacko, it's more of a regional thing than his "fear" of the US. Same in Venezuala where Che wannabe Chavez is using the "US is planning to invade" excuse for his military buildup.

[Ex-FB]

Let's face it though, the US's track record of invading countries it doesn't like is pretty high in the last 5 years, so maybe they honestly do feel threatened. I can't honestly blame them for wanting to defend themselves. If the US was threatened, wouldn't you want to defend your country from the aggressor. Wouldn't you see it as your duty? If you put yourself in North Koreas or Venezula's shoes, wouldn't you do exactly the same as them?

As for using the nuclear weapons for attack, I would argue that no nation is going to go down that path with the US as it would mean instant obliteration. Therefore the only sane reason for North Korea to be deleloping the bomb would be for defensive purposes. All this scare mongering about North Koreas missiles being able to reach North America is merely political manouvering (a defense mechanism to deter the US from invading), and to be honest of not much concern to me.

What is of far more concern is such a power building a bomb and then selling a spare one onto to some other group. In this day and age, if someone is going to launch a nuclear warhead at the US, why would they go to the expense, risk and self incrimination of firing a long range missile from their own country and hoping that it hits the target. A far more realistic scenario is somebody stuffing it into a boat and sailing it into New York harbour. That is the bit that I would be concerned about.

If they're worried about the coast guard detecting the bomb, then fine, just make sure you go into US waters when the wind is blowing towards New York. If they suspect something, set it off as they board the boat and the fallout will sweep across New York anyway. If they don't board you, sail it all the way past the island and let her rip.

That is the scenario that would concern me. :(

However, to be honest nuclear attack is a very expensive and tricky thing to do. If their aim is to scare the American people (something that I would argue they have unfortunately succeeded in doing), then a few car bombs after football/baseball games (in the parking lots as the crowds are coming out) would ensure widespread fear, have a massive phsycological effect and all for very little expense/effort. Unfortunately, these soft targets are almost impossible to police. We have to douse the flames of terrorism before more stuff like this happens - because you cannot rely on catching them in time before each attack.

[RobDog888]

Doesnt this sound like th Cold War is starting all over again?

[MasterBlaster]

Doesnt this sound like th Cold War is starting all over again?

No. Korea is already bankrupt. And Israel will bomb Iran back into the stone age before they let them have nukes. YabbaDabbaDooo.

[demotivater]

It goes further than a fear of a NK attack on the US. That is highly unlikely. However, the South is obviously our ally, and an attack on them would draw us into war, which would domino China/Russia/Japan etc etc into war. Also, if NK gets nukes, Japan will press forward and become nuclear, the whole face of that region would change. Russia wouldn't stand for the shift in the balance of power and neither would China (we all know the love China and Japan have for eachother). Things go a lot deeper than those countries being scared of the US (as I said) - or the US being afraid of any of these hillbillies actually hitting the mainland with a nuke. Hell, NK couldn't even push their last missle a couple of minutes into the air. Someone asked over and over earlier in this, or another thread what these guys ever did to the US. It's a bigger issue than what is directly done to the US. That shouldn't need explaining.

As for a nuke being exploded in the US by other means, that's a very real threat. It's made the rounds recently that there is already a nuke in the US and the American Hiroshima is on it's way. Chances are, it's complete bunk coming from Islamic terrorists attempting to create more psychological terror. Then again, they've carried through with a good majority of their threats so far. Supposedly, we'll find out any time now. What's the old saying, things have to get worse before they get better?

[Shaggy Hiker]

Ya know, we are technically still at war with N. Korea. There has never been a peace treaty signed, only a truce. The Korean war is officially still open.

However, there's a good reason for N. K. to be stirring the pot: The country is pretty much devastated. There isn't enough of pretty much everything over there. The nuke issue gives them some leverage, and they are masters of leverage. I remember reading about them going to the extent of shaving down the legs of the chairs used by opponents during negotiations so that they would be physically lower. They need help, but won't ask for it. Instead, they want to bargain for it, and this is the lever they have to use.

[Valleysboy1978]

Doesnt this sound like th Cold War is starting all over again?Did it end? Or did the teams simply change?

[Shaggy Hiker]

Did it end? Or did the teams simply change?


Neither one, this is just half time.

[yrwyddfa]

Do I have to whitewash my walls, just in case, then?

[zaza]

In the Axis of Evil, nuclear weapons make you.

[demotivater]

Reports say they conducted the test.

Link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,218699,00.html)

[shakti5385]

They done it today... Report Says in order to secure it's self against US hostilities.

[mendhak]

It was short of the 4 mark on the Richter scale. Maybe it really was an earthquake. :D

[Valleysboy1978]

What's worrying is not so much that the country has nuckear weapons but by the mental instability of their leader

[mendhak]

"Kim Jong Il... brother of Menta Lee Il."

-David Letterman

[Valleysboy1978]

"South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon has been nominated by the UN Security Council as the successor to Secretary General Kofi Annan" - Well that's good timing! :lol:

Source (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6034305.stm)

[honeybee]

Yesterday they declared they were to start Nuclear testing again in order to secure it's self against US hostilities.

I really cannot understand how this will help. As I am aware the US isnt threatening them in any Military sense just through embargos. Surely this has just threatened their security more. Although there is the trouble in the Mid East to me this nuclear issue looks far more serious. The whole world is against this action (not sure where the chinese really stand though) so why are they persuing it.

OK, first question, who's the US to impose embargoes on North Korea? Surely North Korea wasn't involved with 9/11? Or maybe Bush now wants to propagate theories linking bin Laden with N Korea?

And when the US is raising hell over the North Korean nuclear tests, what do they have to say about the person who supplied N Korea with the nuclear technology, the great Pakistani nuclear scientist?

.

[honeybee]

What's worrying is not so much that the country has nuckear weapons but by the mental instability of their leader

And you mean to say the people who nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki were mentally stable/sound? That's even more frightening. Because it means they did it in cold blood!

.

[Valleysboy1978]

And you mean to say the people who nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki were mentally stable/sound? That's even more frightening. Because it means they did it in cold blood!

.They were at war! The Germans would have certainly had no problems dropping a thermonuclear weapon on their enemies. They may have even dropped one on India....I would imagine you'd have a different opinion if that had happened.

[Suzzi]

I honestly think North Korea faked the nuclear test just to get the worlds attention.

Let's face it, you could go to all the hassle of building a bomb, or you could just get a few tonnes of explosives, bury them in the sand and throw some radiocative waste on top - radiocative waste is a dime a dozen these days. All you need to do then is stick one North Korean in the middle of the cave with a box of matches and Hey presto, your very own nuclear test site.

[zaza]

Hmmm (http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1230/nork-data-it-was-a-dud).

[Shaggy Hiker]

OK, first question, who's the US to impose embargoes on North Korea? Surely North Korea wasn't involved with 9/11? Or maybe Bush now wants to propagate theories linking bin Laden with N Korea?

And when the US is raising hell over the North Korean nuclear tests, what do they have to say about the person who supplied N Korea with the nuclear technology, the great Pakistani nuclear scientist?

.

None of that is required. Legally, we are still at war with N. Korea, which makes our relationship with them fairly unique in the world.

[Suzzi]

None of that is required. Legally, we are still at war with N. Korea, which makes our relationship with them fairly unique in the world.
Not trying to be picky, but I kinda got the impression that you were still at war in Iraq and Afghanistan.... or am I missing something? When does a declaration of war end when there is no government left in the country you are invading? Is it when you get the first camel driver to wander past to sign a form as a representative of their country? Or is it once you have squashed out all resistance.....? [Serious question actually]

[chocoloco]

Apparently, If US does not go along very well with a country, that country becomes axis of evil.

[chocoloco]

Its ironic that US creates this hullballooo against countries performing nuclear tests when they're the only ones who've actually used one ....

[MasterBlaster]

Of course it's hullballooo becaused the US was one of the countries that suggested sanctions. Not because the UN UNANIMOUSLY VOTED FOR SANCTIONS!

[FunkyDexter]

Of course it's hullballooo becaused the US was one of the countries that suggested sanctions. Not because the UN UNANIMOUSLY VOTED FOR SANCTIONS!Couldn't agree more. It's pretty hard to portray the US as a bully in this case. NOBODY wants Kim Jong Ill (or however you spell it :rolleyes: ) with his finger on the button. ....apart from Kim that is.

While the US may be the only nation to have used Atomic weapons I really don't have a problem with them, or any other nuclear nation, throwing their weight around a bit to prevent other nations from going nuclear. Nuclear proliferation is a very bad thing and any diplomatic mechanism short of outright war to help prevent it is alright by me, even if it does smack a little of hypocracy.

[disruptivehair]

They were at war! The Germans would have certainly had no problems dropping a thermonuclear weapon on their enemies. They may have even dropped one on India....I would imagine you'd have a different opinion if that had happened.

Someone was going to drop a nuke on someone during World War II. It was just luck, fate, whatever you want to call it that we did it first. Could have been the Russians, could have been the Nazis...but it wasn't.

[yrwyddfa]

I think that nuclear proliferation will always be around in much the same way that cancer, by virtue of existence, will also always be around. It is, I think, now endemic in the world we live in. We cannot, however much we might want to, uninvent technology, or uninvent knowledge.

I think that, in this case, the US, whether unilaterally or otherwise, are doing the world a huge favour by holding strong to their approach: it must be said that other nations, in this case, must pull along side the Americans to further strengthen the US stance.

It is, of course, not so much nuclear proliferation that's the problem, it is, as has been said, the person who controls the arsenal that's the real issue. This guy in Korea has consistently shown that he desires nuclear weapons and is not only developing the intrinsic technology, he also has an active development plan for delivering such weapons. He may not be too far down, but it will not take long, perhaps within a decade, for the N Koreans to be capable of ICBM launches.

There is, therefore, if one follows this line of reasoning, an argument to suggest that if one is democratic then one should be allowed to support a nuclear arsenal; this argument is flawed.

Although some will say the current approach of the Nuclear powers amounts to hypocritical, it is, unfortunately, because, for the worlds security, their hands are now tied. They will be tied until the world, in it's entirety, agrees not to allow the existence, or development, of any nuclear weapons. And frankly, that, in any conceivable notion of a foreseeable future, is infinitely unlikely.

[Suzzi]

Couldn't agree more. It's pretty hard to portray the US as a bully in this case. NOBODY wants Kim Jong Ill (or however you spell it :rolleyes: ) with his finger on the button. ....apart from Kim that is.

While the US may be the only nation to have used Atomic weapons I really don't have a problem with them, or any other nuclear nation, throwing their weight around a bit to prevent other nations from going nuclear. Nuclear proliferation is a very bad thing and any diplomatic mechanism short of outright war to help prevent it is alright by me, even if it does smack a little of hypocracy.

True, no one wants North Korea to have the bomb, but if you look at it from their point of view, they absolutely must have the bomb to stand any chance against Bush focusing his next "war" on them. He has already branded them part of the axis of evil, and a terrorist state etc. As has already been mentioned, they would be insane not to be pursuing the bomb.

Note: It's not just the US's fault they are going after the bomb, but as Putin recently stated, the current approach of threats is not a good method to co-erce them.

I suspect an assurance that they wouldn't be attacked by the US in the near future would go a long way to defusing the situation.

[MasterBlaster]

I suspect an assurance that they wouldn't be attacked by the US in the near future would go a long way to defusing the situation.

It's not like that hasn't been tried already. The last time that happened the UN helped them build reactors for energy and they built the nukes anyway.

[SurfDemon]

It's not like that hasn't been tried already. The last time that happened the UN helped them build reactors for energy and they built the nukes anyway.
Did the US offer them a non-aggression treaty? I can't find any mention of it in google (which is not to say it didn't happen).

[MasterBlaster]

Did the US offer them a non-aggression treaty? I can't find any mention of it in google (which is not to say it didn't happen).

Sort of, It was part on the deal they reached with Clinton. The US via the UN retrofitted their existing power plants with a deal to build new ones when the old ones maxed out. The stipulations were that NK Agree to onsite IAEA inspectors on the spent fuel. Non-agression was implied, I'm not sure and seriously doubt a formal treaty was ever signed or could be because of existing UN resolutions regarding NK and the existing ceasefire between the US and NK. It's all just useless paperwork any way. Why would the US give them a hand in their energy crisis if they were going to invade them? Meanwhile, the entire time that this was going on NK was working on black market nukes with plans to use the spent fuel from the US reactors to fuel them. Another in a long line of "gifts of mass destruction" to an enemy by the freaking headsmackers the US votes into office every 4 years. In the end GW Opened his goddamn mouth again spouting off krap about evildoers and gave Kim Jong Il an excuse. One thing I'll give him is that shortly before they were added to GW's sheit list of evil. The US busted a korean ship carrying tools for building nukes. His reasons were valid but he would have been better off keeping his mouth shut. At least Korea wouldn't have had an excuse for kicking inspectors out. Sound familliar? cough Iraq cough.

[SurfDemon]

Thanks! I didn't know any of that history, like all history it gets soooo complex so quickly that everyone believes they are in the right.

I've been reading up a lot on Napolean recently, and depending on who wrote the historical accounts you wouldn't believe you were reading about the same individual. In the end, I guess the only point of view that really mattered to Napolean was what he thought his reasons were. He thought he was beloved of the people (which to a certain extent he was) and was heralding in a new age of enlightenment into Europe (and Russia). I guess it's the same from Kim 'lls point of view. He probably feels hard put upon and the victim in all of this, despite world opinion to the contrary.

Unfortunately, it's like trying to get an armed gun off a petulant youth. He knows that as soon as he gives you the gun, you're going to give him a right smacking, so he daren't hand it over, also he wants to try to use this gun to bargain for a cheeseburger. Whilst you could easily give him the cheeseburger, it's not going to solve anything because at the end of the day you still have a youth waving a gun around. Either way, you've got the same problem.

To be honest, although I am very careful about ever recommending violence as a solution, this is one of the few situations where a sudden accidental death might bring around a change in leadership and therefore open up the possibilities of meaningful dialog with the West and avert maybe thousands of deaths. Although I fully understand his reasons for doing what he is doing, I cannot see Kim Ill ever participating in the global peace process.

If he doesn't die accidently, then the best we can hope for is to at least contain North Korea until a change of leadership takes place naturally. Unfortunately, he is likely to chose his successor, and he is likely to be cut from the same cloth. So, we are left with the same problem. I see little choice but to try and befriend them and hope for the best.

[Shaggy Hiker]

There's more to it than that. The deals to help them out by the Clinton admin etc., were ended by Bush early in his first term. This included subsidized oil shipments. Bush did this on the principle that he wouldn't do anything for them until they did....whatever. It doesn't really matter what Bush wanted them to do, even though what Bush wanted was some reasonable concession. The result was that crucial energy supplies delivered via the Clinton admin deal, were ended.

To N. Korea, this was coersion, which, in fact, it was! Bush was saying effectively "You want this oil? Well, here's what you have to do to get it!" This makes sense to lots of people, but lots of people are also morons. North Korea is a strange place, but not an unknowable place. We have decades of experience in negotiating with them (heck, National Geographic even did an article on them that included the peculiarities of those negotiations). Any rational observer would have known EXACTLY what N. Korea would do in response to this. After all, they are hyper sensitive to "saving face". This is a country that is so attentive to relative positions that they shaved the chair legs on their opponents chairs for negotiations so that they would appear taller than their opponents (a trick I have heard Bill O'Reilley uses, as well).

Using the oil as a weapon to hold over them to get them to dance to our tune was perfectly designed to cause them to go nuclear. They may not respond well to carrots, but the stick has ALWAYS caused them to go the exact opposite of the desired direction, even if it means starving their own population. They do this simply because of face, rather than some deeper long-range strategic planning. When we cut off their energy supply, even though that supply was nothing but a bald faced bribe for good behavior, the only option they had was to break the seals on the nuke plant. Once that was going, they had no reason not to continue to the next logical step.

We could have prevented it by simply accepting that an alternative energy supply was the cost of keeping this rogue elephant from running amok. Consider that the baseline, and try to negotiate a better deal from there, but recognize that the cost of abandoning that baseline, no matter how distasteful such a bribe was, would be a nuclear N. Korea.

Well, little wonder that Bush admin couldn't see that. Especially during the first term, Bush made this mistake over and over: If somebody was not obeying, take the stick to them, never the carrot. All stick, no carrot. Cost him the senate, cost him Korea, cost him UN support in Iraq....hmmm, there were a few others, too. I suspect it came from his business background, as all carrot no stick is a common business practice where one person is the boss, and the others rise and fall by his favor. In politics, everybody has other pressures, and are not dependent on the leader for their livelihoods. Bush was always shocked when he beat on somebody and they didn't fall into line. His mistakes tended to be costly to him. This one was costly to the world. He mended his ways after losing the senate in his first term. He learned that senators might not fall in line, they might simply prevent him from getting anything done. With N. Korea, he didn't learn. Now what?

[MasterBlaster]

There's more to it than that. The deals to help them out by the Clinton admin etc., were ended by Bush early in his first term. This included subsidized oil shipments. Bush did this on the principle that he wouldn't do anything for them until they did....whatever. It doesn't really matter what Bush wanted them to do, even though what Bush wanted was some reasonable concession. The result was that crucial energy supplies delivered via the Clinton admin deal, were ended.


I guess to expand a bit, Bush caught them red handed with their hands in the nuclear black market cookie jar. The oil shpments were to be stopped until another agreement could be made with the UN. NK refused to return to the negotiating table with any one other than the US directly, something they knew could never happen without UN Involvment, so the oil never got turned back on. That was a no win situation regardless if the oil kept flowing. Either way they'd still be building nukes. I figure that if US and Soviet power companies with a budget bigger than NK's entire worth can have a few meltdowns, the Nkorea situation will solve itself in full fluroescent green glory.