Prediction for North Korea

[Chris Alger]

In the near future, and no later than next summer, the White House will announce a breakthrough in the North Korean stalemate. The catalyst will be US willingness to write a big check for the North Koreans, perhaps in the form of some kind of package to the Japanese and the Chinese acting as conduits for Pyongyang. It may or may not stall N. Korea's nuclear development, but its political system will certainly be left intact. Bush will strenuously deny the link, and attribute any success to "American resolve."

The foreign policy right will grumble, but blame the Democrats for failing to press for more aggressive action.

This won't happen if Bush's poltiical fortures turn around, or at least stop declining.

It will illustrate that the US doesn't consider Korea much of a threat to anyone, even if it's nuclearized, and how the US is entirely willing to bribe despots instead of "standing up" to them when short-term political considerations so dictate.

Just a hunch.

[MMMMMM]

I don't know, but North Korea is a real threat IMO. Recently North Korea threatened to nuke Australia if Australia were to support or participate in a proposed program to prevent North Korea from exporting weapons (or exporting drugs or counterfeit currency, their two other principal exports).

What to do, what to do...but the situation just seems to keep getting worse. Imagine how bellicose and blackmail-oriented North Korea would become if they actually had a deliverable arsenal of 60 or so nukes, which they could have within a year. WTF. Maybe it's time to tell them if they don't stop the BS we will bomb their reactors, and if they retaliate or go to war over it we will drop a nuke right on Kim Jong-il's dear head. So maybe the Dear Leader would realize he's outmatched and he's going to stay outmatched and not be allowed his dream of being able to threaten to nuke everybody who doesn't give him money or oil. And maybe the sooner we do this the better, because time is working against us, and the closer the North Koreans get to producing nukes, the more bellicose they become.

Since negotiations seem to just work in the DPRK's favor time-wise, and the North Koreans can be counted on to violate agreements anyway (what difference would it make to merely reaffirm the same sort of agreement they made with Clinton--they broke that and they'll break the next one too, secretly as before), here's a paraphrase of what I would envision as Bush's best course:

private conversation between Bush and Kim:

Bush: We have bombers in Guam, and we're going to bomb your nuclear facilities if you don't change your present nuclear course immediately and verifiably. And if you harm a hair on the head of South Korea, Japan or Australia, we're going to drop a nuke right on top of YOU.

Kim: (whatever he says)

Bush: You have 48 hours to take very major and positive steps, or else. Goodbye. (click)

Or perhaps better, send the bombers without warning to destroy the nuclear facilities, then get Kim Johg-il on the phone and tell him what is about to occur and if he does anything foolish in response he will cease to exist.

[MMMMMM]

Those may not be the best steps to take, but I feel we are being inevitably forced towards a confrontation with North Korea--a situation reminiscent of the Cuban Missile Crisis. However North Korea's leadership seems far more volatile, unpredictable and unafraid to engage in the worst kinds of brinksmanship. This problem must be dealt with ASAP. Perhaps a naval blockade of North Korea is in order, backed up by the threat of obliteration by missiles and bombers should they do anything rash.

Kim is obviously enchanted with the idea of nuclear blackmail, the holding millions of innocent people hostage to his rash threats. As ugly as the situation is, it could get a lot uglier if he is allowed to continue his nuclear buildup while discussions about negotiations continue.

Kim's a bold, perhaps insane, fox but I think he will back down if he finds himself staring down the barrel of a nuclear bomb aimed directly at his head. Washington should, concurrently with either a blockade or bombing of his facilities, announce that it has targeted every military installation and major city in North Korea with nuclear missiles. Since North Korea has threatened nuclear attack on various countries, this action and announcement would be justified. In colloquial terms, Kim needs for someone to put a gun to his head and tell him to sit down and shutup.

Negotiations won't truly work. It is my strong gut feeling that Kim's intent is to become a major nuclear power and to hold the world hostage. He will, of course, use the delaying tactics of negotiations and bluster to further his goal of full nuclear armament as speedily as possible.

[Chris Alger]

"Recently North Korea threatened to nuke Australia if Australia were to support or participate in a proposed program to prevent North Korea from exporting weapons (or exporting drugs or counterfeit currency, their two other principal exports)."

More accurately, N. Korea threatened to retalliate if Australia engaged in military actions against N. Korea, something the US has done on countless occasions, invariably refusing to rule out the use of nuclear weapons. In other words, N. Korea is a "real threat" because it reacted the same way we do when faced with the prospect of military force against us. Probably true, although once again you ignore the instigator to concentrate on the smaller fish playing defense against your side. Had you lived in the USSR you'd respond to threatened responses to Soviet aggression the same way.

The "program" to which you refer is the Proliferation Security Initiative, a US-directed operation to use military force to prevent N. Korea from acquiring or transferring WMD technology. 10 countries, including Australia, are scheduled to begin military exercises in September to practice intercepting ships to enforce an embargo. North Korea threatened military retalliation if the plan is actually put into effect, alleging a nuclear power that no one believes it has, yet.

Australia's government didn't take the threat seriously. "The Australian government Tuesday dismissed claims that North Korea would launch nuclear-armed missiles at Australia, the U.S. or any other country involved in the interception of North Korean ships suspected of carrying weapons of mass destruction. Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said Canberra did not believe the North Koreans had the capability to launch missiles over such distances - but warned that states could not allow them to reach the point where they could. In a separate reaction, Prime Minister John Howard also voiced doubts about the credibility of the threats." CNS News (http://www.cnsnews.com/ForeignBureaus/archive/200307/FOR20030715a.html)

The PSI and the nuclear arming of Austrail and Japan are the preferred options by the hawks, who hope that the threat of escalation will compel China to do our bidding by somehow forcing North Korea to do our bidding. Fat chance but from their prospective preferable to the threat of diplomatic success that could undermine reliance on military force. (In October 2002, North Korea offered to shut down its nuclear program in exchange for a nonaggression pact with the US, which the US found intolerable and non-negotiable). My scenario presumes that the diplomats are gaining the upper hand in the Bush White House.

[MMMMMM]

CA: "Probably true, although once again you ignore the instigator to concentrate on the smaller fish playing defense against your side."

So: in Chris Alger's world, WE are the instigator, not North Korea.

I think maybe I finally understand where you're coming from. Wow. Wow wow wow wow wow.

[MMMMMM]

CA: "(In October 2002, North Korea offered to shut down its nuclear program in exchange for a nonaggression pact with the US, which the US found intolerable and non-negotiable)."

North Korea had already agreements in place with the US regarding its nuclear programs, and it simply broke those agreements. Meanwhile North Korea extracted technology and other considerations from the US on the basis of those agreements. Now the North Koreans want more concessions from the US for essentially the same worthless promises. Call it blackmail--that's the way I see it. And blackmail certainly is an aggressive action.

North Korea has threatened to "set our cities afire", to nuke Australia, and to strike the continental US with missiles if we push for U.N. sanctions. It has made dangerous noises towards many of its neighbors. North Korea test-fired a missile over Japan--a very provocative and hostile action, especially given Japan's position of military for defense only. There was no reason at all North Korea had to test-fire that missile over Japan, except for the purpose of instilling fear.

Over the last few years, the Stalinists running North Korea have literally starved to death close to two million of their own citizens while stockpiling two years' worth of food and fuel for their armed forces.

North Korea sells weaponry to the most unstable regimes in the world. That is one of the principal reasons Bush branded North Korea as part of the 'Axis of Evil.'

North Korea's recent actions--as well as rhetoric--regarding nuclear weapons development are simply very aggressive towards many countries.

So when we tell North Korea it can't continue exporting weapons to rogue nations, you view that as aggression on our part. When we say we will not tolerate its nuclear weapons program, I suspect you view that as aggression on our part too.

Methinks you may well be a communist at heart, Chris, as well as an America-hater. Being a communist is one thing, but being a militant communist is quite another. So too is sympathizing with militant communism.

If you are not a communist, great. If you are, I don't really care that much--there are bound to be some communists somewhere--but if you sympathize with militant communism, I think that's really bad, deluded and unfortunate.

Well, for all your griping about the evils of the USA, just remember: Communism slaughtered close to 100 million of its own people--not in war, either, just ordinary citizens--and neither the USA nor the entire West can lay claim to anywhere near such a vast scale of horrors. Communism has truly been the force for the greatest widespread evil of the 20th century. And the most ironic part is that all those people died for absolutely nothing, for a bankrupt idea that had no chance of ever succeeding in the real world.

So choose your friends and allies wisely.

North Korea is not only communist, they're quite literally Stalinist; and allowing aggressive, unstable Stalinists today to acquire and sell nuclear weapons is unthinkable, and would be irresponsible in the extreme.

North Korea has been taking the aggressive actions--we tried to help them with the 1994 agreements--they broke those agreements.

I suspect you may feel it would be a good thing if North Korea acquires the ability to mass-produce nuclear bombs. At least, you may feel it would provide a good counterweight of some sort to US hegemony or something. Well it might provide a counterweight, but that wouldn't be good.

I truly hope you're not that deluded.

The greater number of nations that acquire nukes, the greater the chances that a massive nuclear war will someday be ignited. The fewer nations have nukes, the better the chances for survival of the entire human race.

If you're most concerned about some abstract principle of "who has the right to have nukes when others don't", I won't argue in detail here why I believe that only elected governments with reasonable constitutions should have them. But that principle has little bearing anyway on the practical facets of the case.

If you sympathize with the suicide bomber outlook--and I know you do--you might just think that the end of the world or a major nuclear conflagration is better than an "unfair" world. But to anyone who thinks that way, I would say: grow up.

If North Korea is allowed to proliferate nukes, it is a certainty that major nuclear risks to the world will only increase.