north korea

We covered this already in another post. Taking down NK via one big JDAM party isn’t the hard part. The hard part is do you want to cripple the economy of South Korea via a response of NK artillery? Also our Intel would have to be PERFECT. Meaning you would have to know for certain that you know where ALL the nuclear platforms ( missiles and jets ) and take them out 100% in one blow. AND China should get busy and do some strong arm diplomacy… Unless they want to push Japan and SK into deciding that they need nukes for parity.

NK won’t be appeased. No sense in paying them funds and goods so some of those funds can end up in the El Supremo of NK’s personal bank account.

One of the side benefits of the war in Iraq is that no one is paying attention the the idiots in North Korea. Let the locals deal with them.

Regards

Sauron

The Korean Pennisula is the traditional invasion route into and out of the Asian mainland. North Korea serves as a buffer to prevent the larger powers (US, PRC, Japan, Russia) from using the Korean Pennisula from that traditional invasion route.

The latest round of “trouble” with NK started because Bush (in his infinite wisdom) cut off the flow of charity oil being sent to NK (FDR cut off Japan’s oil supplies in the late 1930’s, forcing them to attack). Like a child ignored, NK needed to launch a few missles to get some attention. While NK may be exporting some missle technology it is generally second rate, low throw weight stuff.

NK serves a purpose, just the way it is. Only a moron would upset the stauts quo. I guess that means Bush will target NK next.

Scott

I think the North Koreans are more dangerous than Iraq is/was , they have openly admitted to restarting their Nuclear program , they export arms to any buyer , Scud’s to Syria for example , their economy is shot and they are in need of hard currency ie , the dollar , it’s virtuallly a closed country where brainwashing and human rights breaches are part of life . Is Kim Jong Il so desperate for dollars he may be willing to sell Nuke’s to the highest bidder or is he just posturing until the US starts sending them Fuel Oil again , maybe access to information technology would tell the population that the rest of the world is not evil and that Kim Jong Il and his father are not demi-gods , the problem could be solved by the people themselves ( a revolt ) without any form of military action ??

North Korea

I have doubts if North Korea will be the next target, unlike Iraq and Afghanistan the topography of the country is very different no large open spaces to deploy armour in as far as I am aware.

I would think the US would be very cautious of getting involved in another Vietnam type conflict in the far east, isolationalism will probably the order of the day, unless the NK’s launch some sort of desperate attack on the South.

I would also think Iran is off the agenda for the time being as well, though the US forces are in a good position to attack from two sides Afghanistan & Iraq, the fact that it would be another Muslim country could cause it to escalate into a much more wide spread dispute enveloping the whole of the middle east and Asia.

But you never know what G W B is going to do next.

“NK is not next. We are not planning on invading or bombing NK any time soon. If you had any sense of geography you’d know where we would likely be heading after Iraq.”

I realise Iran is geographically close, but the same big powerful US/UK forces who like to take on enemies that are not well would suggest NK first, while a new bout of trade sanctions on Iran over its nuclear programs to weaken it for a while would make more sense. After all the NK are probably closer to a nuclear weapon than Iran is…

“What, may I ask, is the basis for all of your strict anti-US and anti-war sentiments?”

I have a very strong interest in weapons and war. Through that interest I have learned a little of how much fun wars are. It disturbs me that the most advanced/civilised nations in the world… the last superpower thinks war is a good way to regulate foreign relations, keep the price of oil just right and keep louts in line.

“Perhaps they should have adhered to the agreement they signed.”

War is war… you are not bound by agreements made to your enemies during war time…

“Otherwise, with only a cease-fire, it would be stupid to sign a non-aggression treaty with your enemy in the middle of a shooting war, wouldn’t it?”

About as stupid as abiding by a treaty signed during wartime to your enemy promising not to build the one weapon your enemy fears… and has plenty of itself.

“So signing a nonaggression pact wouldn’t be a problem then?”

Yes it would. There would have to be a peace agreement on the peninsula signed first. Otherwise, with only a cease-fire, it would be stupid to sign a non-aggression treaty with your enemy in the middle of a shooting war, wouldn’t it?

“And the US does not do anything to enhance its chances of getting its way in things… amusing that the US claims to be able to fight two wars simulataneously but can’t handle two simultaneous diplomatic issues.
…no wonder they prefer to bomb than to talk.”

We can handle the issue diplomatically. But why bother? We tried with Clinton, and the NKs blatantly violated that diplomatic agreement. Now Bush says that the other people in the region, Japan and China, who would be affected by the NK issue need to be involved in the peace talks. How is that either a bad thing or hard to understand?

“Ohhh they must be evil… they want more than what they have been given. How unique.”

That is not even worthy or a response.

“Considering their claims of safety they could have done them in Paris.”

Please, by all means.

“Perhaps if it in your interests to stop them selling nuclear technology then it is also in your interests to either give them something they can sell or make it worth their while not to sell nuclear weapons…”

Perhaps they should have adhered to the agreement they signed.

“There is certainly no need for US troops in South Korea.”

False. We are still at war. And we have a defense treaty with South Korea. There’s two reasons.

“Plain stupid because it means they no longer have a reason to build nuclear weapons… and that any nuclear weapons they do build can therefore be assumed to be for export… yes I understand your logic… forgive me if I don’t agree.

Or is it plain stupid because when the US is finished in Iraq NK is next?”

NK is not next. We are not planning on invading or bombing NK any time soon. If you had any sense of geography you’d know where we would likely be heading after Iraq.

“Or see the other similarity, the NK obviously didn’t trust their national security to the US’s aid deal… much the same as the US and UK don’t trust saddam and want to topple him now, NK want something to defend themselves when it is there turn… which might come soon.
It seems the NK need for nuclear weapons is greater now than ever… just as well they didn’t trust the US… if they only started their nuclear program now they wouldn’t have a weapon for quite some time… now we shall see who is ready first. “

We can solve this problem for them anytime we wish. And it will only take 30 minutes, or less. We have no desire for war w/NK, but we will have a bilateral peace talk with the other nations in the area who are also affected by this issue. Japan certainly has an interest if NK has nuclear weapons.

What, may I ask, is the basis for all of your strict anti-US and anti-war sentiments?

“I can agree with that, but people, we are not planning any sort of invasion. “

So signing a nonaggression pact wouldn’t be a problem then?

“You’re right, it couldn’t possibly be that they are trying to extort the US at a time when they consider us too occupied with other problems around the world to effectively deal with them.”

And the US does not do anything to enhance its chances of getting its way in things… amusing that the US claims to be able to fight two wars simulataneously but can’t handle two simultaneous diplomatic issues.
…no wonder they prefer to bomb than to talk.

“Because they want to get something out of it. Namely more economic aid.”

Ohhh they must be evil… they want more than what they have been given. How unique.

“It does figure that they’d test theirs in Tahiti.”

Considering their claims of safety they could have done them in Paris.

“Our main problem is that the NKs proliferate missile technology, what assurance do we have that they won’t proliferate nuclear weapons as well?”

Perhaps if it in your interests to stop them selling nuclear technology then it is also in your interests to either give them something they can sell or make it worth their while not to sell nuclear weapons…

There is certainly no need for US troops in South Korea.

“A non-aggression statement from the U.S would be.. well.. just plain stupid.”

Plain stupid because it means they no longer have a reason to build nuclear weapons… and that any nuclear weapons they do build can therefore be assumed to be for export… yes I understand your logic… forgive me if I don’t agree.

Or is it plain stupid because when the US is finished in Iraq NK is next?

“See a similarity to Germany’s ruling party’s stance on Iraq. “

Or see the other similarity, the NK obviously didn’t trust their national security to the US’s aid deal… much the same as the US and UK don’t trust saddam and want to topple him now, NK want something to defend themselves when it is there turn… which might come soon.
It seems the NK need for nuclear weapons is greater now than ever… just as well they didn’t trust the US… if they only started their nuclear program now they wouldn’t have a weapon for quite some time… now we shall see who is ready first.

Garry you are truly ignorant…

What? The US learned of the NK nuke program when they said so? What? The cause is the US’s role in afghanistan and the axis of evil? Garry, you are truly date challenged. The Clinton administration has been suspecious of NK ever since ~98 when intellegence satellites detected suspecious activities. Then in 2000 i believe or early 2001 a NK defector escaped to South Korea and told the military intellegence. The South Koreans than told the CIA about the secret NK nuke plans albeit not immediately because they thought it’s probably a lie to get more support for the defector, which according to Pentagon sources, it fully matched with LOCATION and DATES of suspecious activities back to 98 or even 97. So, what are you saying? Somehow NK agents can go back to the past in a time machine from late 2001 and 2002 and start the nuclear program in 97/98. In fact the NK didn’t just come up to the US and brag about the nuke plans, no, they were confronted with evidences and had no choice but to admit because the evidences are concrete, because if you don’t take American words, it arises from South Korea, which if you understand about anything there, the general political view is NOT to confront the North. But this violation is so serious they had to finally share it with the US because they themselves can’t handle it and can mean the end to the ruling party with it’s so called “Sunshine Policy”. See a similarity to Germany’s ruling party’s stance on Iraq. The appeasement is heavily linked to party power base, which in face of true danger they can’t act because it’ll end their power.

Yup. That agreement in 94′ didn’t stop them from having a nuke weapons program so I don’t see as another agreement will do.
A non-aggression statement from the U.S would be.. well.. just plain stupid.

“All I said was that the US has troops in South Korea and that the US is a much greater threat to NK than vice versa.”

I can agree with that, but people, we are not planning any sort of invasion.

“Perhaps it was Bush’s regime changing forays into afghanistan and now Iraq and his axis of evil speechs that reactivated the NK nuclear program.”

You’re right, it couldn’t possibly be that they are trying to extort the US at a time when they consider us too occupied with other problems around the world to effectively deal with them.

“No, the North Koreans told us. Why would they do that?”

Because they want to get something out of it. Namely more economic aid.

“France (though I’d prefer they’d tested them somewhere else)”

It does figure that they’d test theirs in Tahiti.

“It is my understanding that all NK wants from the US is its signature on a piece of paper to say it will not invade NK, like it is planning to do to Iraq and has done in Afghanistan. I really don’t think that is unreasonable, and I am sure that if it got that signature then it wouldn’t need a nuclear program other than for electricity. “

Like I said, we’re not planning an invasion. Sure, people have probably looked at contingency options, but there is no invasion actually being prepared for as we speak. This will most likely be settled diplomatically. Our main problem is that the NKs proliferate missile technology, what assurance do we have that they won’t proliferate nuclear weapons as well?

ELP

“Ah yes of course Gary. The evil U.S.”

Where did I say that?

All I said was that the US has troops in South Korea and that the US is a much greater threat to NK than vice versa.

Unlike the US I don’t make assumptions of intent by assuming the worst possible intent on behalf of my opponents.

“Seeing as the ’94 deal didn’t stop their nuclear program. “

Perhaps it was Bush’s regime changing forays into afghanistan and now Iraq and his axis of evil speechs that reactivated the NK nuclear program.

But no… that couldn’t possibly be true… after all they are evil and never intended to stop their nuclear program. Of course if you had actaully thought about it… how did we find out about their nuclear program in the first place?

Was it satellite imagery? A SEAL team broke into their leaders office and stole documents from his top drawer? James Bond told us?

No, the North Koreans told us.

Why would they do that?

Perhaps it was a warning to bush not to keep doing what he was doing and realise that tough talk and invading little countries is great for reelection prospects but it is very bad diplomacy… a subject we all know is not bush’s strong suit.

But no, NK are just evil.

“Japan: Very defensive, believes war is bad. The people know this. “

Yes, experiencing war means you know first hand how much damage and pain a war can cause… shame bush and blair don’t.

“I guess you are for nukes for everybody…yet…how come NZ don’t allow nukes around their neighborhood. Ah…yes, a liberal who tells others what to do, but when the stakes is on himself then the whole situation is different.”

If a country believes it needs a weapon for defence who am I or you or the US to say no. NZ has not threats, and no need for nuclear weapons, and many countries are in a similar position to us and might not ever want them. Does that mean noone can have them? It doesn’t bother me that India has them, and if India has them then Pakistan must also have them if there is to be balance. It doesn’t bother me that China has them, or the US has them or France (though I’d prefer they’d tested them somewhere else) or that Britain or Russia have them.

“What’s really funny is that certain countries in the region have no problem with asking us to solve the NK issue, but they consider the Iraq issue hands-off…”

It is my understanding that all NK wants from the US is its signature on a piece of paper to say it will not invade NK, like it is planning to do to Iraq and has done in Afghanistan. I really don’t think that is unreasonable, and I am sure that if it got that signature then it wouldn’t need a nuclear program other than for electricity.

I didn’t mention Russia because it just doesn’t have any political muscle to suggest anything be done between Japan, the Koreas and China. Certainly their opinion on the issue is important.

Keltic

You are correct, it is a hard issue. Just maybe a solution could be found if South Korea, Japan, China and Russia would get off their collective ass and contribute to finding one. That is unlikey as long as the US has a military presence in the area. That simply gives them the pretext to sit back. I would love to see that pretext removed ASAP.

As far as McDonald’s in Pyongyang goes, that will be problem at first because of it’s policy of attempting to cater to local diet and tastes and cats and dogs are probably very scarce there.

ELP

Good post. I like China as the “father figure” and with a new ” bigman’ in charge there (as of yesterday), maybe we will see some policy changes.

By all means, let the locals sort it out for themselves. Your point about the unknown implications of having everyone in the area armed with nukes is very interesting as there is little love lost betweem all of them inspite of the show they occasionaly put on for the rest of the world. Add India and Pakistan to the mix and you have added possibilities for trouble.

You don’t mention Russia. I believe it’s potentally the big looser in the region and I imagine Putin craps his pants every time he thinks about Russia’s competitive chances in Asia nevermind the nuke issue. One can only imagine what he realy thinks about Kim Ding Dong! I would bet he hopes the US maintains a significant military force in the region for some time.

Given the current heavy lift resources available to the US military, how long would it take the US to vacate the South? It would be an interesting logistics task to see how fast it could be done.

Regards

Sauron

Originally posted by SOC
McDonald’s in Pyongyang. .

Puajjj, no please, don´t deserve them such a cruel prunishment.:D
it´s a really hard issue. The point here, is that they are upset because not body cares of them. The real problem is at what extend balckmail pays. If they are given food and petrol to dismantle their nuclear capabilities, what would be next?. The real issue, is that an attack or sactions by the UN ,could led to a devastated Seoul. They also refuse multilateral talks, and only want discussions with the big guy (the US) and the US doesn´t allow blackmailing……so I don´t know what to tell.

What’s really funny is that certain countries in the region have no problem with asking us to solve the NK issue, but they consider the Iraq issue hands-off…

…so Garry

I guess you are for nukes for everybody…yet…how come NZ don’t allow nukes around their neighborhood. Ah…yes, a liberal who tells others what to do, but when the stakes is on himself then the whole situation is different.

Ah yes of course Gary. The evil U.S.

Here are a few things to consider if anyone thinks that this has anything to do with how we deal with Iraq.

I don’t think we are going to appease them at any cost. A few people have advised the U.S. to make a deal at any cost. Pay them off. Several million $$ of one of the last pay offs ended up in the NK president’s personal bank account. I would say they can either allow the inspectors from Vienna to get in there and sign off on some kind of normal nuclear program or: eat grass. I don’t think paying them off is going to do any good. Seeing as the ’94 deal didn’t stop their nuclear program.
Something to consider for anyone crazy enough to think a punitive raid against NK reactors makes any sense at all. This would mean a lot of shops, businesses and homes in northern S. Korea could get damaged in response. Civilian loss of life; unknown.
As the preperation of any military action against NK; they would certainly know we mean business if the towns in the northern part of South Korea started evacuating. ( Expect a move like this to cripple the dynamic South Korean economy). The new South Korean President is a lawyer. I have no clue how hard he is. If he believes in appeasement, this could be bad. Expect mass demonstrations in SK by all the appeasement community.
So: My opinion, that leaves China. Let them be the father figure on this one. Do what it takes; including diplomatic groveling to China to have them apply pressure. NK gets a lot of goods and services from China. If things really get bad we need China to sign off on any military action as we certainly don’t need to upset any of their geo-political plans, or perceived national security issues. I would be real curious to see how they feel about military action by the U.S. that close to their border. ( especially by the same platform ( B-2 ) that took out their embassy in Belgrade 😉 To be a fly on the wall to hear those conversations….

Japan: Very defensive, believes war is bad. The people know this. Now that I have said that, they are like the boy scouts: Be prepared. I would be curious how much of a push it would take them to re-focus their military into one that has military ballistic rockets with a nuke payload. Not hard for them to do. Get them motivated and it could happen. One of their strategic council could certainly make a case that MAD worked in the cold war. On the issue of China putting pressure on NK to put their nuke program on a world inspection schedule and standards: I would caution China to remember Japan when asking them to pick up the ball and run with it. Reguardless of today’s situation. I don’t think China wants to sea Japan with nukes.

Certainly a lot harder then going in and removing SH out of Iraq. One solution; Iraq is tangible. NK isn’t that easy. It has to be done within the comfort level of China, Japan and of course SK. Three countries that have a lot of military firepower.

The US has troops in South Korea. The US is 1,000,000 times the threat to NK than the NK is to the US.

Vort… so what if Japan gets nukes, so what if South Korea gets nukes… I’m more worried about US plans to make mini nukes that they actually plan to use in a conventional war than any weapons for self defence that Japan or South Korea or even North Korea might get.

Read some of the attached website if you think that the North Korean situation is of no interest to the UN , I for one think that the North Korean situation is much more dangerous than Iraq is at this moment

http://ncafe.com/northkorea/index.htmlt.