OT: A Nuclear North Korea

[Atrocities]

Randall, don't worry about it. You were honest and that is all that any one can ask for. Same with AMF. God knows he has every right to be angry and hateful of the man. I simply just want to keep the thread as on topic as I can without pissing people off about bad political calls and historical mistakes. When we start pointing fingers after the fact, even though they are valid points, it detracts from the dicussion about what too do now. And that, WHAT TO DO NOW, is what the thread is about.

Edit: rephased slightly.

[AMF]

Atrocities said:
When we start pointing fingers after the fact, even though they are valid points, it detracts from the dicussion about what too do now. And that, WHAT TO DO NOW, is what the thread is about.

Ah. Now I see what you're saying.

If this thread is SOLELY about what to do re: the DPRK bomb now that they have it, the answer is probably "not too darn much".

[Randallw]

God knows you guys have every right to be angry and hateful of the man

sorry, but I was the other way.

[Thermodyne]

AMF said:
Unfortunately, getting 'the bomb' is a perfectly rational response for most nations in today's world. Living in a world where the only remaining superpower calls you part of the axis of evil and pre-emptively invades another nation, while simultaneously ignoring those nations that have developed nukes, then the message is clear: the only way to protect yourself against the aggressive superpower is to develop nukes. So, Iran and the DPRK develop nukes. And no one is surprised. Except perhaps Bush.

But, golly gee, maybe if Bush hadn't refused to talk to them at all for the past six years, we wouldn't be here today. Sputing off about an "axis of evil" is a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is what happens when you put a dum@ss cowboy into a man's job. Bush is clearly the worst president in then history of the US.

He is not the best president we ever had, but then he is not the worst either. What the heck, lets take a look at all this.

He failed to win the war on terror and invaded Iraq for no reason. Well he has failed to win the war, but he did move the front lines out of the US. And he did invade Iraq with little cause. Nothing more than countless cease fire violations, an attempt on the life of a past US president, the violation of a UN aid package agreement. And some faulty intelligence on the state of military developments in Iraq. But then Iraq is the key to the region. And it was a soft target and we knew it. And we had to do it with a rather small force, but then I guess we have to place that at the feet of the previous administration. They were the ones who said that there was no need for a large standing army in a post Soviet world.

As to the only remaining super power, just exactly why is that? Do you have an explanation? Or did you just pluck that from an article in Screw magazine. I guess that’s were you got your rules of diplomatic engagement from too. You seem to have forgotten that we are at war with one of them, and that the other committed an out right act of war against America. Sure they had some bad advice from the French but they did it anyway.

But in getting back to your post, I have to agree that Bush is not made of the same stuff as some other presidents. But then I also have to than god that he isn’t made of the same stuff as his predecessor. By the way, how many Americans has the bush administration killed with the paramilitary forces of the FBI and ATF since taking office? Same question for the Clinton administration? What happened to those thousands of domestic terrorists that the Clinton administration was after? Oh, never mind, I forgot, they turned out to just be NRA members.

In closing, I have to agree, he is not a great president. But he is in no way the worst. Not even if we only look at the last two. I realize that the popular press, Time, Newsweek, New York Times, Washington Post, Screw, Penthouse, Rolling Stone, and The Enquirer might say otherwise, but then they were all for Gore weren’t they!

[dogscoff]

Sometimes I have to just shake my head and wonder about the state of the world.

1st, any nuclear deterrence gets its strength from the creditable ability to follow through if required. The actual use of the weapons would be a failure. The idea is that should the bad guys create a situation where the only option was nuclear weapons, then they would be used. This deters the bad guys from crossing the line. This has been the case in Korea since the 50’s. It’s just not talked about much and people have forgotten.

I agree with what you say. I was just trying to pre-empt all the gung ho eejits who will jump in with cries of "Why don't we jes' nuke all them pesky Ko-reens off the daymn map?"

[dogscoff]

Should it come to war and in such a way as to allow the US to move ground forces into the region, then North Korea becomes a footnote of history in less than thirty days after the start of hostilities. While the north’s army is large and has big numbers on paper, they are not combat effective. They would do little more than create a target rich environment on a modern battle field. It would be a standard battle. AA suppression, followed with decapitation of the command and control. Then what remained of the air force would be eliminated. After that we would probably hold them in place with arty and air strikes until evidence of starvation among the ranks became visible.

I'm not denying anything you've said in theory, but you seem to be assuming the US would be bringing their full military might to bear. In practise, given the current US political climate, I can readily imagine the generals complaining bitterly about being sent in with only the minimum forces to do the job, which would surely result in a less straightforward victory.

Then there's the whole policing/ peacekeeping/ reconstruction/ insurgency quagmire currently giving the US such a headache in Iraq.

The real reason we don’t go to war is the cost to the US tax payer. There is very little to gain, and it’s not really in our backyard.

There, now you've put your finger on it.

If the US/the west does go into NK, I sincerely hope they learn from Iraq and make preparations for the peace as they do for the war. I think they would though, they have nothing to gain from anarchy in NK like they did in Iraq. That said, I don't think they'll go in. Either China will bully some kind of compliance out of Kim, or the world will simply lay siege to him.

[Renegade 13]

My opinion of the matter...

First off, they aren't even sure it was a nuclear detonation. The effect could have been simulated using conventional explosives, since if it was a nuke, it was a tiny one. However, regardless of which it was, it's quite obvious why NK did it. As usual, they're going to use their nuclear technology to blackmail more aid out of the rest of the world. It's an ongoing cycle; North Korea starts up their nuclear program, the rest of the world has a fit and agrees to try to bribe NK to stop their nuclear program. Any and all aid that goes to NK then is used to keep the army fed and loyal to those in power, which in turn keeps them in power. Then, a year or two later, they start up the nuclear program again and start the cycle over again.

I think that if it was a nuclear detonation, they may have exhausted their supply of enriched uranium or plutonium to do it. Think about it; it was a tiny explosion, by nuke standards. It was either a) a conventional explosives look-alike, b) a very small nuke, or c) a fizzle. If A, then NK's threat is no more than before. If B, NK still isn't much more of a threat than before. If C, then NK still has a fair ways to go before they actually have serious nuclear technology.

As for NK's excuse that they want to develop "the bomb" out of self-defence, well that's a load of ****e, and I think everyone knows that. Neither the US, nor the rest of the world has any interest in attacking NK unless NK does something way out of line. Just look at all the nations on Earth who could have nukes but don't (Canada for one). Are we afraid the US is going to invade, simply because we don't have a nuclear deterrent? I think not.

There may only be 8 or 10 countries in the world that are maintaining a nuclear arsenal, but I bet there's 5 times that many who could build a bunch of good sized nukes within a couple months if they put their minds to it. In short, NK's excuse seems rather hollow...but then, everyone already knew that, right?

[RonGianti]

Renegade 13 said:
I bet there's 5 times that many who could build a bunch of good sized nukes within a couple months if they put their minds to it.

Like Japan.

A Japanese nuke would be the size of a briefcase and level most of North Korea.

[Atrocities]

Hey guys, please keep on topic if you would and avoid the the temptations to of being distracted by past events. While everyone has the right to an opinion about how we got here, its would be better for the health of the topic if we just let the past stay in the past and focus on the current topic of what do we do now.

There is no need to get into a point counter point dicussion of who is to blame. The Bush comments just take us off topic so please again, don't dwell on them. Thanks.

[Thermodyne]

Atrocities said:
Wow! I guess the world didn’t see this one coming. Sarcasm aside, this is one nation that ought not have the bomb. Why do I say this, well it is my sincere belief that the leaders of North Korea, specifically Kim Jong-il, are the kind of people that don’t care about the moral implications of having the bomb. This is evident by the fact that while his nation starves, they spend more and more money on armament.





I firmly believe that Kim Jong-il will sell either the technology, a weapon, or God fearing both, to any one who will pay. Those among his client list would most assuredly be terrorist groups and or nations. (Iran for one)

I believe that neither Clinton nor Bush is directly to blame for this, both did what they thought was right given the information at hand at the time. Clinton was lied too, and Bush simply can’t abide a lair. As far as the blame game goes, at least for this thread, the blame for North Korea having nukes rest squarely around the neck of Kim Jong-il himself. The guy is simply a slimly sneaky lying weasel out to boost his own ego and pocket book at the expense of his nation and people.

Now that North Korea has the capability to make nuclear weapons, what should the world community do about it?

Edit:
For the purpose of this thread I ask that those who choose to participate please focus on the question of what to do next now that North Korea has the bomb. I am sorry that I did not make this distinction sooner. Thank you.

The US should take the opportunity to impose a maritime quarantine on North Korea. We should also remove all US personnel from South Korea, making it known to all that the defense of the south will be a nuclear counter strike on the north. Compared to a garrison force, it is a lot less expensive to target a few SLCM at the north. We should then compel the Chinese to bring the issue to a close; they are after all the ones who made the problem in the first place. I would think that a little “Chinese Inspection” of their imports to America would be incentive enough for them to act. As an additional incentive, we could begin talks with the democratic nations of the region on the issue of providing them with nuclear deterrents of their own. Only nations that could rapidly build their own weapons would ever be actually considered, but that would be kept private.