Nk Gets The Bomb,
tbZBeAst
Join Date: 2003-01-26 Member: 12755Members
Join Date: 2003-01-26 Member: 12755Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Isle of Wight next, say officials</div> So, Kim Jong Il and the NK government <a href='http://www.economist.co.uk/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1745088' target='_blank'>have admitted they have nukes</a>. What does that really mean?
It looks like everyone <i>suspected</i> that this was the case, but now its been confirmed has it altered the balance of power in Asia any? Its bad news for South Korea for sure - but is it any worse than the conventional weaponry already pointing at Seoul?
NK was quick to come to the negotiation table following the victory in Iraq - and this was (probably rightly) seen as the result of them being intimidated, but in retrospect was it just a media coup to give them the platform to show off their shiny new toy?
Are we now in the situation where communist China is the moderate voice, siding with the US and the West?
Discuss.
It looks like everyone <i>suspected</i> that this was the case, but now its been confirmed has it altered the balance of power in Asia any? Its bad news for South Korea for sure - but is it any worse than the conventional weaponry already pointing at Seoul?
NK was quick to come to the negotiation table following the victory in Iraq - and this was (probably rightly) seen as the result of them being intimidated, but in retrospect was it just a media coup to give them the platform to show off their shiny new toy?
Are we now in the situation where communist China is the moderate voice, siding with the US and the West?
Discuss.
Comments
Nope. Because Bush has threatened to throw nukes himslef and there are plans for the usage of tactical nukes as well. It doesn't seem as if the US administration really cares about the consequences of nuclear weaponary.
Anyway, I don't think the conflict will get any worse because
1) USA is not interested in NK (geopoliticaly)
2) North Corea is comparatively too strong.
I don't think anyone is going to suggest that even someone as unstable as Kim Jong Il is going to actually <i>use</i> nukes.
1. Let N. Korea keeps the nukes and don't give into their demands. Not gonna happen, as Bush has stated time and time again that a nuclear korean peninsula is not an option.
2. Trade food and fuel for Nukes. This WON'T happen. We did this deal in 93 and look where it got us? Here. Plus it sends the message to every crackpot dictator that getting nukes gets you what you want.
3. Attack! Bush really can't go to war because it will destablize the entire region, as well as be 'urinate' (lame swear filter) at China's feet. Plus, I doubt the US people want another war- we're turning towards domestic issues now. The War on Terror will slide behind the scenes till we take out Iran :-D. It should be noted that this is the preferred option of NeoConservatives in the White House (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft)
4. Strongarm N. Korea via China. China is the only thing keeping N. Korea kind-of afloat, but China's having its own economic troubles. The US could levy action against China in response to its N. Korean policy.
5. Covert Op. It is possible the US will surgically strike N. Korea nuke facilities assuming diplomacy fails. Doubtful things will escalate to this point.
6. Give S. Korea nukes. NO. Won't happen. Destablize, annoy China, scare entire region. Not good.
7. Force N. Korea to comply. How, I don't know: I'm not the president (yet). So this is really up in the air.
I think Bush wants (and politically needs, for his image) a diplomati victory in North Korea, or at least a (US) bloodless coup. I think he'll get it, either way.
But what I meant by saying that USA is geopolitically not interested in North Corea is that there are no considerable resources in NK nor is there any need for American presence, yet. The USA can't afford to solve this military, in any way, same applies to NK and neither of them is interested in a military conflict. Which is a good thing of course. So I guess there won't be any real consequences at the moment and people will forget about it, soon.
I thought China was Peoples Republic(or something like that), not communistic nation <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
It's all looking a bit mad over there at the moment. Personally I'd suggest the best chance of keeping NK "in-line" comes from China, who obviously aren't going to be keen on <i>anyone</i> lobbing nukes around in their back garden..
Its interesting that Jammer brought up the previous attempt to defuse the situation by giving NK a better deal. It obviously hasn't worked because history is repeating itself. I'd agree that caving in would send the wrong signals out.
I'm not sure that the US Navy could strongarm China, not if the PLAAF had anything to do with it. I think its more likely that China would have a vested interest in the status quo, leaving NK as a stalking horse (if I'm going to be paranoid). What does China have to profit from an escalation in the region? What does it stand to lose? Its comfortable leaving NK making noise, and staying quietly in the background. Unfortunately, with NK kicking off, and China siding with the US, how isolated will NK be feeling? How do you "force N.Korea to comply" with someone so unstable in charge?
That said, I'm confident that China and the US will seek a diplomatic solution, and because its benefactor is behind the move, NK will eventually come into line. The trouble is, they're in breach of anti-proliferation treatise, and the last payout set a precedent. Where next for Kim jong il?
An interesting situation. NK probably had this all planned out to a tee, then that silly virus had to come along and make them 5th page news in Asia...
I personally I agree think we need a surgical strike against their nuke plants, as well as economic sanctions and a dedicated attempt to overthrow Kim from within.
But, apparently the older son is a bit crazy, and got arrested trying to sneak into Japan because he wanted to see Disneyland. The younger, less internationally arrested son is now the heir apparent.
Let me see if I can dig that article up . . .
And... disneyland. We should totally let these guys have nukes with someone like that in charge. Who are the people that keep saying we shouldn't design an anti-ballistic missile system for rogue nations?
I must ask why is this view taken? Take a trip a few thousand kilometres around the globe and take a look at India - Pakistan. Two nations that need no excuse to go to war and with a heritage both political and religious that encourages conflict, yet they do not attack each other. The threat of nuclear retaliation by both sides is simply too great.
North Korea is fully aware of the consequences of a nuclear attack on US forces or US allies, and as such they would have to be in an absolutly dire situation to ever even contemplate using their arms against Sth Korea, because the US's response, be it conventional or nuclear, would completly wipe out the North Korean government and leadership.
North Korea gets what they want with nukes: a balance to the US/Sth Korean alliance. Whilst not quite a MAD scenario, North Korea could destroy at least Seoul and might be able to hit the US west coast, which is enough retaliation to make a detterance stratagy feasible.
The region might actually become much calmer with this development, as the possibility of an actual war between the 2 koreas would be greatly reduced. North Korea would become far less paranoid as they have a safe guard now, and might start opening their borders a little more. Try looking at the situation from the Northern perspective: their military, compared to Sth Korea/US military forces, is pretty much an obselete force that would be scythed down by modern US/Sth Korean firepower and technology. Nukes bring in an equalizer for the North to counter the South's overwhelming military advantages.
Of course someone now is going to bring up the "giving WMD to terrorists" arguement, but consider the following. Why would North Korea, having worked so hard to make their weapons, hand them over to terrorist groups, knowing that if the sale was ever traced back to Nth Korea, as it very well could be, the North would be turned into a smoking wasteland? Russian stockpiles would be far more tempting for terrorist groups, especially as so many Russian nukes are even now unaccounted for.
In any case I know I'll be fried to a nice crispy shade for this post but what the hell, I havn't posted in these forums for a bit. Might as well come back with a bang <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Other than that I have to agree with Ryo-Ohki on this one, maybe it does turn out to be sort of a balancing force, although something within me still doubts that weapons can prevent "evil", for lack of a better term. Having read an article about this maybe two month ago, I am not really surprised nor shocked that NK has those Nukes. Two month ago they said they would use them any minute if as much as a flower was picked in their country by US forces. Did that really shock anyone? Certainly not me because it is only one more megalomaniac figurehead with an attitude who could send us all to hell. Nothing changed.
Oh, if you didn't notice, I despise Kim Jung Il just as much as anyone, but I don't think he's more likely to use his Nukes than Bush.
That was biting sarcasm incase you missed it. A stalinist dictatorship with WMDs is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Make no mistake- we'll take Kim Jong out before we let him keep the nukes.
Uh... actually we do... for quite a while too and if I'm not mistaken you live in the country this man runs.
Seriously though, all the points you brought up in the sarcastic part of your post, Jammer, could be said about the US as well. The US have sold weapons to unstable nations, use their Nukes to "lean" on countries and "bully" them into complying and as said before, Bush will use those weapons as quick or slow, however you want it, as Kim Jong.
Now about that stalinist dictatorship thing we can talk...
Let's count the number of nations Bush has threatened with a intial nuclear strike:
Goodness, that was fun!
The closest thing Bush has said was that it will react strongly against any WMDs attacks...
You have nothing to your argument other than the fact you dislike Bush. Kim Jong we have evidence... such as his starving peoples, the luxury of his officals lives, his commision of a 19 Volume set on his greatness... need I go on?
You're also painting arms sales in black and white. Since the start of WW2 to the end of the Cold War, the US said 'The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend'. We didn't support the good guys- we supported the better guys.
And no, my sarcasm really can't be applied to the US unless your subscribe to the 'Underground' (aka ultra liberal conspiracy theorists) news, where the REAL truth is.
This argument is pretty much "I think the US is overall, a force of good in the world." vs "US is crappy!"
This argument is pretty much "I think the US is overall, a force of good in the world." vs "US is crappy!" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If that's all it boils down to, here's average-joe UK's perspective
I think a lot of us are pretty much cool with the states, and are reasonably sure that yer average American is not "Teh Gre4t Satan!!11".
America has proven itself culturally superior to most of Europe through its creation of better rawk music ( despite scoring significant own goals when it decided that pro wrestling was a cool idea..)
A lot of us are a bit concerned at your choice of leader though...
If it's a "Who's Least Nuts??" contest voted on by the rest of the world Bush would win comfortably I reckon, but I wouldn't like to guess what the margins would be...
Sorry if I dragged this a bit OT, but it's not as simple as America = Eviiiil!! or America = Righteous!! for most of us.
/2p worth
Don't look at me, I was rooting for McCain, but when he dropped out, I was rooting for Al "Ken Doll" Gore.
Please, lets keep this on topic. N Korea with Nukes is bad, good? what will happen? GO!
Basically what you seem to be saying is that it's fine and dandy for US allies to have nukes because OF COURSE they'd never use them. Never mind that North Korea couldn't use their weapons either. Sit back and look at the situation: what possible situation would North Korea use it's nuclear arsonal? The same as every nation which has nukes: they're a deterrance against an invasion.
Nuclear weapons are political and diplomatic weapons, not actual military devices, simply because their very use is well nigh impossible. You can yell and scream that North Korea is lead by a crazy leadership with cunning plans for world domination, but what proof do you have of this? Plenty of people called Stalin crazy, and he never used the bombs he had. Neither did any of the other Soviet leaders, and they certainly were of the same ilk as Nth Korea's leadership. If the North was lead by an insane power hungry dictator, the minute that first nuke was ready it would have been launched at Seoul. Big surprise there, it WASN'T.
Kim Jong won't win any prizes for world's best leader, that's for sure. But the guy isn't crazy. He wants these weapons to ensure his country is safe from invasion and offset the US military pressence in the South. Nothing crazy about that.
We have seen almost 60 years go by since the last major war ended. Thats a heck of a long time without a major war, given the track record for the past 1000 years. Why havn't major powers, despite having the motivations to attack one another gone to war? Nuclear weapons. Bizzare though it may sound, nuclear weapons have been and continue to be, weapons that prevent war and promote stability. 2 nations will not go to war if both can anhilate the other in a split second. India won't go to war with Pakistan any more than the US will go to war with Russia. Hence I see no problem with a nation like North Korea having nuclear arms: they're never going to be used, same as every other arsonal around the world.
The world learned to live with the USSR and China having nukes, and both those nations were, or still are, ruled by brutal absolutist dictatorships. If you're going to use the arguement that dictatorships with poor human rights records, egotistical leaders, and power hungry generals then let the 7th fleet set sail we're going to China!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And if Kim Jong says he won't do any that, its cool, cause he's trustworthy- dictators historically have been, you know.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've already stated why this won't happen: Kim Jong CANNOT use his weapons against any regional powers. China: ally, and can respond. South Korea: protected by US. Japan: Protected by the US. Nuclear saber rattling is utterly pointless; both sides know the other one with never actually go through with a nuclear strike. Kim Jong can bluster on all he wants, the fact is we don't have to trust him. We simply have to look at what 50 years of deterrance strategy have taught us: nuclear weapons just don't get used.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay, I do believe you that Kim Jong is not a kind person and I really do dislike him, but I said that before. Now, about Bush I guess I'll go to the other post, but let me say this, I don't dislike him.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You're also painting arms sales in black and white. Since the start of WW2 to the end of the Cold War, the US said 'The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend'. We didn't support the good guys- we supported the better guys. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To me it looks like you are painting black and white here. There is no good and bad guys on the planet. Only because you call yourself the good guys, it doesn't meen you actually are and it certainly doesn't meen that the others have to be the bad guys.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And no, my sarcasm really can't be applied to the US unless your subscribe to the 'Underground' (aka ultra liberal conspiracy theorists) news, where the REAL truth is. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually I prefer "Ultra liberal peace loving appoccalypse theorist".
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This argument is pretty much "I think the US is overall, a force of good in the world." vs "US is crappy!"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If this is the impression you get from me than you either didn't read many other posts from me or I just didn't post enough recently. I do not dislike the US, I have nothing against anyone living there (except some people I know personally... <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> ) and I would never say "US is crappy".
The US has an interest in protecting its power. The world has an interest in stablitity. US power is key to that stablity. Anytime you've had a radical shift in world power, you get a war. If history tells us anything, wars increase in bloodiness as time goes on (in proportion to scale, of course).
Therefore...
It is in HUMANITY'S best interest to keep the US in power. Giving other countries the ability to deal on an equal diplomatic and military ground with the US whittles away its power, thus whittling away world stablity.
And that is why we don't want the proliferation of nuclear weapons. "Living with it" is NOT an option.
Ryo- The guy is insane! Stalin was a brutal murder, but he wasn't nuts. He didn't have an ego. The reason N. Korea demanded unilateral talks with the US was to boost up Kim Jong's ego. This man cares about having a place in history- nuclear weapons give him that power. Using them, even more so.
The world balance of power has always meant mutually assured destruction. It was the futilty of a nuclear attack that kept the world in power. The US could attack the USSR, but we'd die anyway... so there was no point. Kim Jong doesn't have the means to destroy the US (yet...), so the power balance preventing the use of Nukes isn't there. He's facing social unrest, problems abroad, he'll use nukes to get into history before he's taken down.
And yes messiah, the US isn't always the 'Good Guy'... but we're usually the better guy. (Same old tricks... attacking America by comparing to a Utopian standard)
What a typical conservative attitude: CHANGE BAD!
And BTW, wars do not always get more bloody as time goes on. Think of the First Gulf War, which had twice as many casualties on our side as the current one(although it was still an amazingly small amount, but that's another story)
And I don't think Change=Bad, but I don't automatically assume Change=Good either. A change in the world balance with more nukes is certainly a BAD thing. I see the a change to a world where a country wouldn't think they need nukes to prosper would be a GOOD change. Don't generalize, you'll always be wrong :-P
I think some particularly inciteful stuff posted with regards to the purpose of the weapons. Invasion by the US is a big issue in NK, particularly with US bases overlooking the border. IIRC it was something Kim Il Sung had a real bee in his bonnet about, and drummed into his people (and presumably his son). As an extension of this (and the other stuff listed above) its easy to see these nukes as stand-off weapons, therefore, should the US never invade, the nukes will probably never even see a launch vehicle. I also think MonsE is right about the origins of the technology, its easier to see the Russians selling it than China atm.
Hamster - the US is culturally better because it has better rawk music? Sic transit....
I have to say I'm a little worried about what Jammer has been writing. Setting aside the issue of whether the US has a vested interest in altruistic stability, and the moral advancement of the world, I'm concerned that Jammer seems to be setting his nation apart and above the rest of us. Now I'm sure that no-one could argue that the US has a big and scary military, and an equally big and scary population. That doesn't give it the mandate to act the bully. Might doesn't necessarily make right. Neither does it mean that the US is qualified to act as the world's policeman. Erosion of the US's power, doesn't mean an erosion of world stability, on the contrary, it levels the playing field, <i>meaning that a democratic consensus of nations is needed to make policy, and if necessary, war</i>. Would you be so in favour of supporting a single powerful nation to maintain the status quo if it was Germany? Or Britain? Or China?