North Korea

[Azure79]

We all still love you Hades.

[Darque]

Thread Pruned.. by about a pages worth.

 

Everyone needs to take a step back and calm down.

 

This bickering won't lead to anywhere worthwhile.

[Judge Hades]

Darque for the win!

[~Di]

I highly doubt North Korea has the military capability to attack US mainland with a nuclear weapon, much less with more convential arms.

 

Launching a full-scale nuclear assault on the USA isn't their main objective anyway.

 

I don't think anyone is seriously concerned about NK attacking the US mainland. I think the concern is that NK will attack South Korea (along with the 37,000 American troops stationed there) or Japan. Since both countries are our allies, we'd be sucked into a shooting war pretty quickly.

 

... What if China and North Korea promise economic cooperation and slow integration into the free-market economy if NK can maintain their political autonomy? What if NK agrees to slowly open their markets to the US and agrees to use the Peninsula as a trading hub between China, Japan and Korea, also open to US corporations...

 

Oh come on. North Korea has broken every agreement it has ever made. We are in this situation now because North Korea broke its word. Even Dubbya has more brains that to ever believe anything NK says.

 

Despite many people claiming that Kim Jong Il is a unreasonable, crazy despot, I think he is smart gambling man...

 

I disagree. I think he's nuttier than a sack of squirrels.

 

The US won't be able to just bomb NK or invade the country either. Not with a powerful China crouching in the background.

 

If Kim drops a nuke on Seoul or flattens the place with a barrage of conventional weapons, the US will indeed bomb the squat out of NK. It will have no other choice. Ignoring such an action is an engraved invitation for any country to simply murder our soldiers and bomb our allies at will, because we are too weak or cowardly to respond.

 

I'm curious as to see how this will turn out. I hope the situation does not escalate as my entire family is in Korea.

 

I hope the situation doesn't escate either. I hope your family, and you, will stay safe.

[Judge Hades]

I too do not want it to escalate but the US is taking the wrong course of action by not getting directly involved at the negotiation table for both North Korea and Iran.

[Dark_Raven]

I'm glad to see that NK's good buddy China speaking out against them instead of staying neutral and not say anything. Now NK is surrounded by those who oppose what they have done and wish to continue to do with nuclear technology.

[~Di]

As a parent, I can tell you that two things will assure you will raise a selfish, tantrum-throwing brat: The first is making threats you never enforce; the second is capitulating to blackmail, which is exactly what "you do what I want or I'll shoot off a nuke" is, folks.

 

The USA (and in fact the whole freaking world) is guilty of the first when dealing with North Korea. If the USA now gives in to NK's threat and does what it wants (i.e., one-on-one talks and eliminating sanctions), then the threats will continue and escalate. Blackmailers who keep getting what they want continue using extortion because it works.

 

So I sincerely hope that : First, Bush shuts has fat face with the "unacceptable" and "will not be tolerated" crap until he's ready to shove one up North Korea's personal DMZ; and second, that he never gives in to Kim's blackmail, and continues to refuse to meet one-on-one with NK so long as NK uses extortion to force its will.

[Judge Hades]

I don't see how much real progress can be done by not meeting with North Korea directly. If China was going to do something about this they would have. Now I am not saying we should give in to NK's blackmail. Bush's rhetoric needs to stop, I agree. Either back up that rhetoric or shut up. Theodore Roosevel said it best: "Speak softly and carry a big stick."

 

However due to the blunders of the Bush administration, a good chunk of our military forces are tied up in Iraq because we invaded a country whose leader was no threat instead of going after the real threats like North Korea and Osama.

[Azure79]

Hey Di~, thanks for your concern.

 

As for the US attacking NK, I meant as a means of a pre-emptive strike in direct answer to a supposed nuclear threat. I guess that wasn't clear from my wording.

 

Yes, I would fully expect the United States to launch a counter-attack if NK invaded the South. The scenarios I described were some ideas going back and forth when we were discussing some plausible stances that the North might take if they did attack and occupy Seoul, from a Int'l PolySci course I was taking in Korea. If NK had China at their back, I seriously think that the US or any other government would at least think very carefully before launching retaliatory attack.

 

But of course, who starts wars with a cool and clear head?

 

I used to think Kim Jung Il was deranged and crazy too. I mean with the entire population brainswashed into thinking he's some sort of saviour figure, who wouldn't become a little delusional. Now, I think he just has huge balls.

Edited October 12, 2006 by Azure79

[JohnCrichton]

im sorry but if it was up to the US, then only they would have nukes!

 

Don't get me wrong - i dont want NK to have these weapons but it is a fact that bush have had the chance to get out of this earlier if he had negotiated fair with NK.

 

Instead he choose the: listen to what i say or be damned!

[Tigranes]

NK will never have China behind them if they attack anyone, simple enough. North Korea, or the North Korean situation, is nowhere near advantageous enough for China to do so, economically or politically. China might be 'neutral' or make life more difficult for the US camp to negotiate, but in a situation of real hostility China will pull out and either stay quiet or help get rid of the NK threat.

 

And without foreign help, South Korea doesn't even need anybody else to defeat the North Korean army. Actually, that's one ofthe reasons I want American troops out of there - Americans (regular ones) don't want to be there, Koreans don't ant them there, Nobody needs them there, and in the case of a war American reticence to let anybody else command their units around in any way will simply create communication and national pride friction. Conventional warfare is not at all a real danger for anybody. It's 1/ blackmailing from NK and the continuation of this situation; 2/ from that it could lead to an eventual breakdown of the NK and thus, nukes; 3/ guerilla warfare and missile hits, etc, from NK to esp. SK and Japan. That's what is dangerous.

 

So, American troops need to go; but probably not now, timed well enough so that it's not seen as any sort of concession to NK. That, and the stupid rhetoric needs to stop; either talk and act, don't talk and act, or don't talk and don't act. Talking and not acting is the worst combination.

 

THe question, of course, is exactly what can we do? Say NK keeps making nukes. US and rest of the world stop aid and stuff. THen it becomes, who backs down first? If nobody backs down, eventually NK fires nukes. If US backs down, the longer it goes the worse it is for US, lose-lose. If NK backs down.. well, will it is the question? Will it ever?

 

P.S. Lastly... NK's statements on nuke testing say it will create a more peaceful and balanced world. Naturally, everyone including the media (*cough* impartial my donkey synonym *cough*) say that is a load of bull. But as long as US has nukes, and as long as US will not give them up... it's not actually bad from a neutral standpoint for NK to get nukes. The only problem is that NK is more likely to use them than US. The idea of NK getting nukes on its own, just like for Iran and other nations, is perfectly acceptable; US has an unnatural position of power and influence and their government has way too much license to engage in illegal acts such as the violation of Iraqi and Afghanistan sovereignty, and could do so in many other places with some sort of excuse. The possession of nukes from nations not willing to cooperate with this kind of crap only makes it better - the downside is not that NK has nukes, but that it is more likely to use them. Theoretically, nobody should have nukes, but if US does, then it's not necessarily entirely bad for NK to *have* them. It is bad for anyone to *use* them. Unfortunately, those 2 things are never mutual exclusive.

 

P.S.2. The above mentions at Iraq/Afghanistan does NOT necessarily mean that I thought US had no right to intervene, it was bad, etc, etc. Quite apart from the specific reasons and whatnot, I am saying just the fact that US was able to just getup and do this shows that with the right reasons ('right') they can do it with NK and Iran and so on too. It's only natural that they want to deter them with nukes, and that itself cannot be critcised lest we be hypocrits. Even if I'm south Korean and am bloody scared of the fact.

Edited October 12, 2006 by Tigranes

[alanschu]

Urge to kill rising.

[Nartwak]

Yes, I agree with alanshu.

[Dark Moth]

How is it hypocritical for placing more value on the lives of your fellow citizens than some random person from another country?  I place more value on the lives of people I know and the family I have over strangers.  I place more value of strangers who are citizens of my own country over strangers of a foreign country. I don't see anything hypocritical about that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course you wouldn't. And this comes from the guy who cries a river for some individuals beaten up by Uwe.

 

Sorry, carry on.

 

Actually, I do agree with Tigranes on a few points. Though I don't think N Korea or Iran having nukes is so much an issue of them 'defending themselves' as much as it is about them gaining worldwide influence. Nukes are like the viagra of nations - everyone wants them in order to feel bigger.

 

There is one issue however that I have regarding MAD. The whole concept of MAD (mutual assure destruction) is like a deterrant based on the assumption that a country won't use nukes first because doing so would ensure that other countries use nukes against them. However, and this isn't necessarily the case with North Korea, we face enemies on many fronts, particularly the Islamic extremists, who have no fear of death whatsoever and live, in a sense, to die. For many of them, their ultimate boon would be to die in glory knowing that they had killed as many infidels as possible. Likewise, one thing that worries me most about N Korea or Iran aquiring nukes is whom they might sell them to once they do. If Iran aquired nukes, I have no doubt it'd use them to gain widespread influence in the ME, and possibly sell them to their puppets in Hizbollah, and maybe even al-Quaeda as well.

Edited October 12, 2006 by Dark Moth

[julianw]

Nuclear arms suck. You can't hug your children with nuclear arms.

[Tigranes]

I don't see the post Dark Moth is quoting. O_o

 

How is it hypocritical for placing more value on the lives of your fellow citizens than some random person from another country?

 

Some ideal / belief sets would disagree with that, but that's irrelevant. I'll work on your level, then; if you are doing that, and therefore wanting nukes only for yourself and your friends, then NK/etc are doing exactly the same thing. Then 'idealistically' neither side is doing anything wrong... but there is still conflict and polarisation. Just because there already has been. Is that really a constructive approach? Is it really okay to just say "we'll do what's in our interests, if you interfere you're our enemy"? Sure, it's a sound approach in theory, but practically, what will you say if it results in a NK nuke in California? Will it be solely NK's fault? Yes, it would be; the blame would go to NK, but the reasons won't go to NK alone.

 

Anyway, to DM: yes, you're right. I'm not quite sure that, say, the Iran administration as a whole would be quite as extremist as the very people who suicided bombed 9/11, though.

[Colrom]

Nuke or no nuke, it's widely accepted that North Korea has enough conventional weaponry trained on the south to turn Seoul into a smoking crater in hours.  And although Kim probably can't launch a nuke on a missle, he can certainly drop one out of an airplane.  Or he can try.  I imagine the USA would blow it out of the sky before the tail fin crossed the DMZ.  This is still a truly scary and sucky situation, because Kim is simply not a rational human being.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

While I agree there is reason to be concerned about Kim and the NK I am not convinced that the information we work with is accurate. I keep finding subtle twists of misinformation and propaganda that I can recognize. So I wonder what misinformation and propaganda I am accepting because I don't recognize it. I don't like that.

 

I'm not convinced that Kim is as crazy as he is portrayed in the western press - especially the press which is US owned and otherwise affiliated.

 

There are certainly other leaders in NK. So what do they say and do - and why?

 

So far as I can tell the US has certainly been working against NK interests and has gone out of its way to be offensive and damaging. And we make threats that are subtle enough to avoid western notice but must certainly be seen as significant to NK.

 

Meanwhile the NK is reported to make claims and threats - but never threats of offensive action -but then we regularly step on folks toes so we are justifiably concerned. Often the sourcing of the news makes the exact nature of the treats uncertain.

 

I'm not sure what all this accomplishes that can be good for normal folks.

 

Maybe the problem is that there are too many sorta crazy folks out there and over here all trying to accumulate power by force and intimidation. So far as I can tell that always works out badly for the regular folks who don't live in estates and palaces and even works out badly for some of those who do.

 

I hate the idea of being a forced puney participant in a fight among elephants and maniacs who think they might be elephants.

Edited October 12, 2006 by Colrom

[Tigranes]

Are both Kims as crazy as they sound to be? Probably not. Could be, though. Or even more crazy. Or whatever.

 

Hell, there haven't even been any NK's state actions that seem 'crazy'. Just uncooperative, pushy, etc. But not downright insane. THat'd be like calling Khomeini, Saddam, etc, etc, all 'insane'.

[Walsingham]

I'm not convinced that Kim is as crazy as he is portrayed in the western press - especially the press which is US owned and otherwise affiliated.

 

It's entirely your prerogative, but I decided he was a basket case when he opted to run a represssive police state, kill millions of his citizens by economic mismanagement and ideological fervour ...and have that haircut.

 

But I'm sure he's a lovely man. "

 

Seriously though, I accept the general principle of trusting Western Media on a guy. But you have to also accept that mistrust can only get you so far. I mean why not distrust everything? Maybe the Burmese junta are terrific chaps who stroll around their streets barefoot embracing their loving citizens?

[Lucius]

Dictators are bad m'kay?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

... except for General Musharraf, he's so huggable.

 

[Walsingham]

I tell you if I were a dictator I'd go the Chinese route. No medals at all. I mean if yuo have supreme power why put up with the tedious business of lugging all that metal around? It's not as if anyone can call you a coward anyway.

[Tigranes]

but would you wear a suit?

 

Anyway, Walsingham, it's not as black and white as that. Most media 'adjustments' to the faraway verisimilitude are more like, "here's a guy who's pretty bad, let's make him pretty really bad." Besides, since when was NK a 'bad state' by definition? By what standards? Freedom? You mean that ancient Greek ideal of eirene? Democracy?

 

Without getting into 'universal values/morals' stuff again, though, even if kim and NK are 'evil' by default it doesnt allow for all the media gallivanting, all the "OF COURSE everything Kim does is evil, he is unstable, he has problems with his father and his sexuality".

Edited October 12, 2006 by Tigranes

[Lucius]

Of course he's a nutjob and a scumbag of a leader, he holds enormous parades while his population suffers in worker camps, and has the most outrageously closed propaganda shrouded country on the planet.

[Judge Hades]

Some ideal / belief sets would disagree with that, but that's irrelevant. I'll work on your level, then; if you are doing that, and therefore wanting nukes only for yourself and your friends, then NK/etc are doing exactly the same thing. Then 'idealistically' neither side is doing anything wrong... but there is still conflict and polarisation. Just because there already has been. Is that really a constructive approach? Is it really okay to just say "we'll do what's in our interests, if you interfere you're our enemy"? Sure, it's a sound approach in theory, but practically, what will you say if it results in a NK nuke in California? Will it be solely NK's fault? Yes, it would be; the blame would go to NK, but the reasons won't go to NK alone.

 

Anyway, to DM: yes, you're right. I'm not quite sure that, say, the Iran administration as a whole would be quite as extremist as the very people who suicided bombed 9/11, though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Never did I say I wanted nukes. Read what is there, and not your interpretation.

[Colrom]

My tendency to adopt a knee jerk us vs them alignment has been irrevocably damaged in part because there have been so many cases where - because of technical expertise or other specialized knowledge - I have known that certain western media reports have been misrepresentations or outright lies.

 

Because of that and a general disregard for situational and affiliation based ethics I take alot of info with a grain of salt.

 

Because my sources are largely western they get salted most. But other sources get served with salt as well.

 

I have also seen enough US adminsitrations actively seek to starve or otherwise economically harm targeted foreign populations so - while I think Kim is a lousy leader - I also think he is not the only one - and would like to see positive reform here and there and everywhere. That's my agenda. Not some stupid war with NK.

Edited October 12, 2006 by Colrom