North Korea Discussion Thread.

KnightWriter, it's Japan's/SK's/senators' problem, not fault. I'm not saying Japan, SK, or the senators were necessarily at fault. I'm saying that those things were their problem.

For example, if my car is stolen, it's my problem (not yours or anyone else's), but not my fault.

Ok your car is stolen. Yes it is my problem because my car could be next and so on. NK takes over SK. Well it is my problem because after they take over SK they will want to take over more countrys that are not theres and so. We live in a world community. We live a world were if something happens in one country others will feel it. We live in a small world and to do nothing about it and say it's no one else problem is truning a blind eye to the problem. All ask this why did Saddam walk in to Kuwait what did they do wrong? Why was Saddam killing those people in Kuwait 12 years ago? What gave Hitler the right to take over other countrys?

People like hitler and Saddam had no right. And ho's going to stop them form watn to take over the world and or just kill who ever they want when ever they want. People liek that are a problem they want to control ever one.

Which by they way to them if you are not on there side they will kill you and your family.

 

I think this is a moot point because no-one's car is going to be stolen, and furthermore NK isn't going to steal any cars anyway

 

I live in Colorado, and I have no fear of any national government save the one in Washington D.C.

 

Let's shed some more light on Korea:

1. In May 1980, after the the proclamation of martial law in South Korea, there was a massive uprising in the South Korean city of Kwangju involving tens of thousands. By official estimate, about 200 civilian pro-democracy protestors were killed by military forces; Kwangju residents claim about 2000. The Carter administration gave prior approval to South Korean contingency plans to use military units against the protesters.

2. Both Roh Tae-woo (president of SK from 1987-1993) and Chun Doo-hwan (president of SK from 1980-1987) were convicted of the crimes of corruption, participation in the 1979 coup, and involvement in the Kwangju Massacre.

3. Early in his presidency, Jimmy Carter announced plans to withdraw all U.S. troops from South Korea. After meeting Park Chung-hee in Seoul in June 1979, Carter announced that U.S. troops would remain, and that the U.S. would expand its security relationship with South Korea.

4. After meeting with Chun Doo-hwan in 1985, President Ronald Reagan praised Chun for his government's "considerable progress" in "promot[ing] freedom and democracy".

 

"Guns pointed at them does NOT dictate foreign policy"

That level of irony shouldn't be allowed on these boards. Guns pointing at you has EVERYTHING to do with Foreign Policy. The US is allowed to do things to protect its National Security - why isn't N. Korea?

"Don't go on about poor NK, because there IS no poor NK."

There is a poor NK, though in a different sense of the word. I'm not picturing them as victims anyway, I'm trying to explain their motives by exploring their perspective. And that's very important if you want a real grasp on what's happened, and is happening in North Korea.

"The US has done nothing except be there in SK in case of invasion."

lol, I can't believe you don't have perspective on this subject, even though you're anti-war on Iraq - it's baffling because you use the same arguments pro-war people use in that issue here...


Some people here need to know that Nuclear Weapons are a political tool, they are not there to be dropped on enemies, they exist as DETERRENTS: to stop countries from going to war in the first place. Nations attempt to acquire these weapons so that they feel safe when confronted with the nations that do - that's the dynamic.

Nuclear Weapons are NOT for nations wishing to invade others... you can't get the spoils of victory from a mound of dust and bodies. It doesn't work. They are a last resort weapon by nature - the kind used when some General says to his president 'the enemy has reached the gates'.

North Korea is NOT an aggressive nation. They do not harbour any desire to invade any other nation on Earth, and no evidence has been provided to the contrary. Nuclear test missiles have landed in Alaska, but that's a political statement to the US. And that statement is:

'Call us your enemy and make any effort to invade us, and we will not hesitate to do everything in our power to defend ourselves, and that could mean a pre-emptive strike - which you're allowed to do with flimsy evidence and thus so are we.'

North Korea's not a threat to the US, it's a threat to a US ally, South Korea - that only now has been getting out from underneath the shadow of being a satellite nation of the US. N. Korea doesn't want to attack the US, it wants the US to pay attention, and get the hell out of its country. And only with nuclear weapons in its arsenal will the US listen, because the diplomacy that Americans understand is power, and the projection of force.

 

But, contrary to what almost all people think, Kim Jong-Il is NOT stupid, and he's NOT crazy. He's only a desparate guy who's taking advantage of the situation. And that doesn't include suicide by attacking the US.

If you look at the way he runs his country, its crazy enough. The things NK is supposed to believe. And they more or less largely believe it. In Iraq you just have the government pointing guns at people and they essentially don't care what you think, just as long as you do what they say. In NK it doesn't matter if you do what the government says or not, if you're not in the army they might kill you anyway.

But hey, let's say he's not crazy. Does that mean he'll NEVER attack the US. No. Because what if the US gets involved in anything major in the future. What if a big war erupts in the Middle East? My, what a precise time for NK to come knocking. And what's more, if he wants the US distracted, it is in fsct in his interest to sell nuclear arms to radical Muslims. We all talk about Iran selling WMD to terrorists, but this is of course a joke -- Iran supports Hezbollah but they're not going to give them top secret access with Iranian fingerprints all over it, assuming they wanted to give this stuff to Hezbollah at all. But NK WOULD want that. What's more, they need th emoney more desperately than Iran.



What can he possibly gain from attacking the US? What can he possibly gain from attacking South Korea? Even more so, considering that if he bitches and moans, he can get almost anything($$) he needs.
(If the US doesn't, eventually South Korea will give NK anything they need)


And he sits as living proof, first of all, of a reward for gaining a nuclear program. And then second of all, he can get even MORE money if he starts selling nukes for some serious cash until every family has them in their own backyard. If they're desperate for cash they're going to attempt to find other sources of income besides the US.


The nuclear crisis is just another round of bitching, all the more sensible considering that the US is busy with Iraq, and they have the further advantage of suggesting their nuclear capability, which is a political statement on it's own.

And again, what happens when the US gets busy with another country? What about next time?

Reunification on their own terms is nothing more than propagana. All the more so because NK doesn't have the CAPABILITY to reunify Korea, and they know it.

Bidding their time? maybe. But I doubt North Korea will EVER reach the position to fire nuclear missles at the US and think they can live it through.

They can already fire them as far as Alaska. I don't think the capacity is as far off as you would think from there. They have thier own scientists now, thier own equipment. The US has already put a time length of less than 20 years before they can hit the US mainland. This is wishful thinking at its worst. I don't doubt they'll be able to do it in the slightest.


In fact, no country is crazy enought to make a nuclear first-strike against the US in a situation where they cannot deny responsibility (like firing them from their own territory). The smart thing to do would be selling missiles and payloads to organizations that would and deny the purchase.

They'll be crazy enough to do it if their country begins to collapse. And no matter how much money they're given, the place is so unpredictable we can never rule that out.


Therefore, the threat the US should be (and IS) worried about is NK selling those ballistic missiles and nuclear arsenals to the highest bidder. If Nodong-Daepodong missiles can reach the west coast from NK, think of what would happen if Cuba or some terrorist oragnaisation in Central America bought some. (In that sense, repeated test firing is.... advertisment)

I doubt any other government on Earth would ever do anything with a nuke, unless it were some of those really desperately poor countries in indo-china or africa. But terrorist orgs... that's another story.


An

 

Given the way the US throws its weight around, I find it hard to blame itty-bitty little countries from doing everything in their power to aquire nukes that can hit the US.

I definately blame them when the US has done NOTHING to them. In Iran they're perfectly within they're rights to say, "screw you for the shah, we have our own uranium, we're making our own weapons". That's fine. They'll get over it eventually. Especially since they have no antagonistic neighbors anymore and they are in effect a democracy.

But NK has nothing to whine about in regard to the US. At all. The US's actions in the Middle East have nothing to do with North Korea. You can't declare the US guilty by association.



Gonk, do you really believe that NK is going to nuke the US when it can? If we in the US should feel threatened by NK's handful of nukes, how should NK feel when the US has an immense nuclear arsenal consisting of thousands of missiles?

You don't think NK will build more missiles? How many Nukes will it take? how much is a handful? They're likely gunning for about 20 to reach the US. And you leave out one important point: if NK is on the brink of collapse, maybe they won't CARE about 1000 missiles pointed at them by the US. Do you have any idea how far gone this country is? Read the reports, they're frickin' crazy! What the heck does shooting pregnant women do to keep Jong-Il secure in power? At least Saddam would do it because they were a Kurd and he thought they as a people were trying to seperate. In NK it happens for no reason at all! In Iraq the government says all this crud but nobody really believes it, especially not the government. But in NK they really DO believe it. I have two roommates, one from Libya, one from China. The guy from China is pretty convinced NK is bad news and they're pretty loopy and out of touch. I am inclined to agree.

Put it this way: What if the US and the UK were itty little countries, and North Korea was the world's superpower and gave an "axis of evil" speech that said the US, UK, and Israel were the axis of evil. Then suppose that NK invaded ("liberated") Israel, deposing its government. Finally, suppose NK kept-up its anti-US and UK speeches. Wouldn't you be quite afraid?

No, because they never would have given that speech. There would be no axis of evil. Because we'd all be long dead.

But more to the point, I'd start thinking about what I might have done to be called an axis of evil in the first place. let me illustrate this point:

Iraq (Saddam): Yeah, well they backstabbed me over Kuwait. But look, I'm complying, no need to come after me, they'll leave me alone.

So Iraq is somewhat, though poorly justified in being afraid. They've done stuff, but that was in the past and it seems odd to bring it up all of a sudden.

Iran (Khatmi): Those *astards finance the Shah in OUR country, criticize us for financing Hezbollah against ISRAELI incursions and now label US evil? Sure we conspire against Americans and Israelis-- they were killing us first! Damn they've got some gall!

So Iran is DEFNIATELY justified in being afraid seeing as how its inclusion is in complete and utter denial of the US's responsibility vis a vis its past. The US owes Iran a debt, not the other way around.

North Korea: Why those... those... well, there was those assassins we sent to the US. And yeah, there was that time we invaded SK. And yeah, there was all those kidnappings. And yeah, there was the time we sent planes and boats into SK territory knowing they thought it was their territory and a bunch of people died. And yeah there was that time we arranged that bombing in... what was it, Thailand? Hm. Guess we are kinda evil...


Funny to note NK was actually the only nation that didn't bother to object when it was put on the Axis.

 

"But NK has nothing to whine about in regard to the US"

I can hear the wind whistling - it's beautiful.

 

-Conducted numerous kidnappings in Japan

That's Japan's problem.

And its so nice to know you can be counted on as an ally to be had. Did you know they've kidnapped people from SK as well and alledgedly attempted the kidnap of American pilots? Oh wait right, that's the pilot's problem...


-Conducted missile tests

So has the US.

Gee, and did the US shoot them around the territory of OTHER nations without thier consent when they were doing it?


-Conducted lethal naval engagements killing sailors

Whose sailors? Where did this happen?

I'll have to dig it up, but there have been numerous engagements over the years between SK and NK vessels. NK tends to lose more sailors, but I believe it's usually on the books as NK firing first anyway (as opposed to SK saying 'well they didn't stop and didn't respond to wanring shots so we openened fire). More like NK loses more people due to inefficient equipment.


-Sent agents to the US in the '70s to assassinate its senators

That's the senators' problem.

Wait... so I would guess it's only your problem when NK sends someone to assassinate YOU? How altruistic.


-Violated SK airspace

That's SK's problem.

These statements are enough to turn Neville Chamberlain several shades of white.

 

More facts regarding Korea

I still doesn't see how any of these facts say anything to change the situation. Just because NK lost more people in the Korean war does not make me have ANY sympathy for them if it was a war they began unprovoked. Especially when the US was the only nation anywhere to do anything proactive in preventing a war there.

 

I think this is a moot point because no-one's car is going to be stolen, and furthermore NK isn't going to steal any cars anyway

Sure they will. Are you so certain a future US administration will want to protect SK if NK threatens to Nuke someplace if they don't get some place of formerly recognized SK territory? Are you certain NK will not precipitate another crisis like they have done two times now? And then a 'guns of august' situation may develop.

 

Gonk - Can you just write one post instead of posting multiple short ones?

Thanks.

 

That level of irony shouldn't be allowed on these boards. Guns pointing at you has EVERYTHING to do with Foreign Policy. The US is allowed to do things to protect its National Security - why isn't N. Korea?

Yes, but being 'scared' enough to make full policy decisions over time does not. The US has had guns pointed at NK for years and done nothing. Why does NK suddenly believe its so vulnerable right now? Oh, maybe it was because they were a previously warlike nation and are making nuclear weapons? Oh, those poor dears.


There is a poor NK, though in a different sense of the word. I'm not picturing them as victims anyway, I'm trying to explain their motives by exploring their perspective. And that's very important if you want a real grasp on what's happened, and is happening in North Korea.

No, there isn't. Not in terms of the government. The US hasn't done anything to them except live better then they have as they have lived not well. But then is the US to be held at fault for that when the Koreans are pointing guns at the US? Especially when the US is providing them with aid? If you want a real grasp on what's happened you have to look at the Korean war and the fact that one side invaded the other unprovoked. Don't give me this crud about the Japanese occupation blah, blah, blah, blah... that's no excuse for launching a new war that wasn't against the Japanese anyway. That's no excuse for agreeing to lay down a rail line with SK in an agreement of economic exchange and then not even bothering to do any work on it. America did none of these things. Even the demonstrations put down in SK in the late '70's... the only thing the US can be charged with is being friends with the administration at the time. Just because America has done some lousy things in the past, again, does not somehow make them the villians in this scenario. That's far too easy.


lol, I can't believe you don't have perspective on this subject, even though you're anti-war on Iraq - it's baffling because you use the same arguments pro-war people use in that issue here...

Then you tell me the incredible money-gaining, status-improving motive the US is grabbing out of the NK situation. What? You think they want that little toolshed nation?


Some people here need to know that Nuclear Weapons are a political tool, they are not there to be dropped on enemies, they exist as DETERRENTS: to stop countries from going to war in the first place. Nations attempt to acquire these weapons so that they feel safe when confronted with the nations that do - that's the dynamic.

There is NO accepted global dynamic for this. This was a situation which was intended to exist with two countries only: the US and the Soviet Union. It was NEVER meant as an addition for global regional politics and to do so is madness. Eventually someone somewhere is going to use it. We can't assume everyone who will come to power in every country is going to be a completely sane man.


Nuclear Weapons are NOT for nations wishing to invade others... you can't get the spoils of victory from a mound of dust and bodies. It doesn't work. They are a last resort weapon by nature - the kind used when some General says to his president 'the enemy has reached the gates'.

Who says countries like NK want to invade all the countries they threaten? There are levels of hate on the topmost levels in many of these smaller nations, who will use Nukes out of spite and yes, if desperate enough, suicide. We cannot simply assume everyone everywhere will come to the same realizations the US and Russia came to -- which they only came to AFTER the cuban missile crisis. Geez man, get the head on straight, there. Nuclear proliferation is just completely nuts! It's like the NRA gone global!


North Korea is NOT an aggressive nation. They do not harbour any desire to invade any other nation on Earth, and no evidence has been provided to the contrary. Nuclear test missiles have landed in Alaska, but that's a political statement to the US. And that statem

 

"But NK has nothing to whine about in regard to the US"

I can hear the wind whistling - it's beautiful.

Then speak to me of the many peacetime atrocities and international violations the US has committed against NK. I can only think of the paltry US force there that would be overwhelmed by NK conventional warfare.

Oh, and as for making multiple posts, I'm individually responding to other seperate posts, so this is why they're coming out sperately. Post per post. Except this one where I'm referring to both your posts.

 

Yes, but being 'scared' enough to make full policy decisions over time does not. The US has had guns pointed at NK for years and done nothing. Why does NK suddenly believe its so vulnerable right now? Oh, maybe it was because they were a previously warlike nation and are making nuclear weapons? Oh, those poor dears.

And before anybody mentions the Axis of Evil speach by Bush, know this, North Korea has been at this since 1994, during the Clinton days. It almost escalated into full scale war-fare but Clinton in an act of faith gave the North Korea a benefit of a doubt and was giving North Korea what it wanted. North Korea lied about ending its Nuclear ambitions, and when it decided it wanted more, instead of acting like a sane nation and simply asking and trying to improve dialoge (sp?) it threatened to nuke the west coast.

 

Yeah, I don't think NK really even blinked at the axis of evil speech. I don't think they've ever even brought it up. I don't think the speech was a good idea, but this whole thing, almost to the letter, has happened before: the speech has nothing to do with it.

 

Simply amazing. You showed some astuteness with regards to the Iraq war, but you're throwing in the towel for North Korea. It's astounding.

"Just because America has done some lousy things in the past, again, does not somehow make them the villians in this scenario."

The world isn't black and white. There's no evil in this scenario. It's not a western.

"Why does NK suddenly believe its so vulnerable right now?"

Because the US is gunning for it. Surely you see that? No, you don't, because you lack the foresight to try and see things from N. Korea's perspective.

"Then you tell me the incredible money-gaining, status-improving motive the US is grabbing out of the NK situation."

There is none, this is part of a big picture about how the US sees the rest of the world.

"Eventually someone somewhere is going to use it. We can't assume everyone who will come to power in every country is going to be a completely sane man."

So it's up to YOU to decide who is sane and who is not?

"There are levels of hate on the topmost levels in many of these smaller nations, who will use Nukes out of spite and yes, if desperate enough, suicide."

You're generalising. You've lumped a whole host of nations into a collective 'they're rogue', they're nuts' group. The world doesn't work like that.

"Nuclear proliferation is just completely nuts! It's like the NRA gone global!"

Well duh! But who the hell started the whole mess? It's like a kid in the schoolyard who starts throwing rocks at people he doesn't like, but then complains when other smaller kids reach down to grab them as well. Perspective.

"They ARE and agressive nation! How can you say otherwise? They have threatened war NUMEROUS TIMES. They first of all declared waar in 1950."

This is ludicrous, your argument is that they're aggressive because of the Korean War? That was 50 years ago, are Japan and Germany still hounded by the US? No. And then compare the amount of wars fought by the US and N. Korea since 1950. Hmmm... the difference is that N. Korea THREATENS war, the US GOES to war. Or are you saying that VIetnam, Panama and Grenada were not aggressive actions on the part of the US?

"The US says it's now going to not hold up its end of the bargain? Fair, right?"

The US wasn't holding up its side of the bargain anyway.

"And let's not even bother to discuss the many, many number of times NK threatened war over almost anything the US did. And you say they're not warlike?"

Lol, PPOR.


"They're a threat to everyone."

Now, do you really believe that? The only nation N. Korea is a threat to is South Korea, and considering it's the same nation, I hardly think that's unfair. The only reason N. Korea exists is because two superpowers decided that that was going to be how it was.

North Korea isn't the victim, Korea is.

 

Redxavier, I am awed by your perceptiveness. Your astuteness is a breath of fresh air in the Senate. Great post!

A few more enlightening facts:

1. Like many nations, NK has sought in the past to acquire nuclear weapons. It may have produced two as of 1992, during the first Bush administration. The Clinton administration negotiated a deal in 1994 whereby Pyongyang suspended its nuclear program in exchange for oil and the foreign-sponsored construction of two cool-water reactors. Construction of the reactors did not take place; the Bush administration rejected the Clinton policy and South Korean president Kim Dae-jung's "sunshine policy" towards the North; and at some point North Korea resumed its nuclear weapons program.

2. In 1997 Kim Dae-jung was elected South Korean president and initiated the "sunshine policy" of rapprochement with North Korea. This led to his meeting in Pyongyang in June 2000 with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, in which both leaders agreed to seek reunification without foreign interference. When Kim met with President Bush the following year in Washington, Bush declined to support the "sunshine policy" and demanded that North Korea provide more verification of the suspension of its missile program, and withdraw conventional artillery and armor from the border with South Korea

3. South Korea has been counted among the "Four Tigers" because of its strong economic growth since the 1970s. But in 1997 the won lost half its value and the economy collapsed. Unemployment rose from 2 to 7 percent. Thereafter, the economy has rebounded because of an IMF agreement raising the percentage of a Korean company's stock that could be owned by foreigners from 26 to 50 percent, insuring greater foreign control over the economy

4. 60% of South Koreans polled after Bush's "axis of evil" speech disagreed with his characterization of North Korea.

 

Thanks Binary. Some shocking facts you just posted.

South Korea's been making some fantastic films recently (interestingly the only country in which local films have beaten American-made ones) and some have touched upon the oftentimes testy relationship between the North and the South.

Some notable mentions are Shiri (more of an action movie) and Joint Security Area (a compelling drama about two friends on opposite sides of the border).

 

Because the US is gunning for it. Surely you see that? No, you don't, because you lack the foresight to try and see things from N. Korea's perspective

So anybody who doesnt agee with yon on North Korea's perspective lacks foresight?

*looks over shoulder and sees KW modding* [image=http://www.geocities.com/hazenworld/cartman2.gif]
I guess Ill have to let that one go

So it's up to YOU to decide who is sane and who is not?

There are definatley saner ways to deal with the worlds only super power other than threatening to nuke its cities on the west coast. Wouldnt you agree?

You're generalising. You've lumped a whole host of nations into a collective 'they're rogue', they're nuts' group. The world doesn't work like that.

Id prefer to keep rogues at arms lenghth's instead of letting them in close. I dont particuarly trust NK.

Well duh! But who the hell started the whole mess? It's like a kid in the schoolyard who starts throwing rocks at people he doesn't like, but then complains when other smaller kids reach down to grab them as well. Perspective.

NK did! Thats who started things, of course you will blame it on the US, after all the US is the cause of all the worlds problems isnt it?

This is ludicrous, your argument is that they're aggressive because of the Korean War? That was 50 years ago, are Japan and Germany still hounded by the US? No. And then compare the amount of wars fought by the US and N. Korea since 1950.

Do you not see a difference between NK, and Germany and Japan? Lets put it simply, the US doesnt have a formal surrendor or anything of the such out of NK, like they did with Germany and Japan, all they have is a 50 yearold cease fire.

Lol, PPOR

Whereve you been the past 10 years? Do you have access to Google or Yahoo? Do the research your own self, you might learn something.

The only nation N. Korea is a threat to is South Korea, and considering it's the same nation, I hardly think that's unfair.

Considering they can reach the west coast with missiles I say NK is a threat to the US, Canada, and Japan, perhaps even Australia and New Zealand if they wanted to be.

 

"NK did! Thats who started things, of course you will blame it on the US, after all the US is the cause of all the worlds problems isnt it?"

The danger of jumping into the middle of a conversation is that you might miss the context of certain things. NK did not start this mess. The USSR started it and the US perpetuated it.

"all they have is a 50 yearold cease fire.

Which apparently stands for jack all now huh? lol...

"Considering they can reach the west coast with missiles I say NK is a threat to the US, Canada, and Japan, perhaps even Australia and New Zealand if they wanted to be."

Thanks for demonstrating exactly what I've been trying to combat on these threads. First - read up on your history.
Second - See things from the other guy's perspective.

Now you'll actually understand why certain people do certain things.

Here's something about perspective. An American complaining that N. Korea (a nation that's been at peace with the world for 50 years) is developing the capability to target the US, Canada etc when US missiles have the capability of targetting ANY PLACE ON EARTH.

Doesn't that strike you as midly ironic?

EDIT -

"So anybody who doesnt agee with yon on North Korea's perspective lacks foresight?"

I disagree with him because he doesn't have a perspective from N. Korea. There's a difference.

 

"Just because America has done some lousy things in the past, again, does not somehow make them the villians in this scenario."

The world isn't black and white. There's no evil in this scenario. It's not a western.

Yes, which is what I am saying.

"Why does NK suddenly believe its so vulnerable right now?"

Because the US is gunning for it. Surely you see that? No, you don't, because you lack the foresight to try and see things from N. Korea's perspective.

Again, what IS the NK perspective? Should the be surprised that the US is pointing guns? What does NK seriously expect? Does it think if it stopped their arms programs the US will invade? WHY? Here, I'll lay down why they shouldn't in response to your next point:

There is none, this is part of a big picture about how the US sees the rest of the world.

No, it's not. And I'm not talking the general US, I'm saying yes, even in the reactionary corners of Donald Rumsfeld's mind. Not only does it serve no purpose for the US to occupy NK, or even Korea in general, there are many reasons against it. In Iraq you can make the case the US wants troops in the Middle East to secure stable world oil production. "The Spice must flow" mentality which isn't a very noble and in fact rather greedy mostive even if American companies aren't directly profiting. And I could certainly buy that to an extent. But the American extremest view has NEVER been outright colonization. It has never been about being places they simply don't need to be. That costs money, and if there's ever been anything that's characterized the 'American Empire' from any other, its been money over nationalism. American extremists would rather run the world's business than bother in any way with NK, which has no business to be had.


So it's up to YOU to decide who is sane and who is not?

This is a general argument. Surely you're not going to argue that if every nation has nukes so that we can live in a happy little world where Mutually Assured Destruction has erased all war through fear of nuclear annhilation, that one or two of these leaders, eventually, are going to be crazy enough to use it anyway? The odds are extremely against that likelihood never occurring.


You're generalising. You've lumped a whole host of nations into a collective 'they're rogue', they're nuts' group. The world doesn't work like that.

Sometimes no. But sometimes yes. How do you explain Rwanda? Heck, how do explain the former Yugoslavia? How many slavs died at Muslim hands in the lifetimes of the men who conducted that war? And yet they STILL decided to go out and conduct ethnic cleansing? Doesn't that sound a little nuts, or at least a little rogue, for a people who had generally never seen Muslim aggression in thier lifetime?


Well duh! But who the hell started the whole mess? It's like a kid in the schoolyard who starts throwing rocks at people he doesn't like, but then complains when other smaller kids reach down to grab them as well. Perspective.

But it doesn't matter who started it. We can go on about Russia and the US starting this whole thing, but it doesn't matter. We are where we are and giving these weapons to other nations is only going to make it worse. And stopping action against nations that are getting them through illicit means because they weren't the ones who started the affair is just silly.


This is ludicrous, your argument is that they're aggressive because of the Korean War? That was 50 years ago, are Japan and Germany still hounded by the US? No.

Germany is no longer run by the Nazis. Japan is no longer run by its military rulers. Likewise the Soviet Union is no longer run by the Soviets, and yes, even Mao loyalists no longer totally run China.

But NK is practically the same place it has always been. Faces have changed, policies have not.

And then compare the amount of wars fought by the US and N. Korea since 1950. Hmmm... the difference is that N. Korea THREATENS war, the US GOES to war. Or are you saying that

 

First some clarifications to Gonk..

1. "But I doubt North Korea will EVER reach the position to fire nuclear missles at the US and think they can live it through"

--> Sorry for the confusion, I meant "political" position..

2. the naval clashes between in the Yellow Sea

--> I've posted about that on page 12 or something. Basicly, all those incidents are almost South Korea's fault. Both sides have had roughly equal amounts of first shots
(I'm not sure what the rules of engagement are nowadays)

3. Axis of Evil speech

--> the North HAVE brought it up, numerous times.. I don't understand how you didn't know that, considering how well informed you are about North Korea

4. My point

I'm saying that the present course of action by engaging in diplomacy is the best course. I'm saying that the probability of North Korea committing suicide doesn't justify military action

It will never be in NK's BEST INTEREST to make a military confrontation as long as they deem the US as an enemy. I think everyone agrees on that.

As for unpredictability, I dont deny that North Korea is unpredictable, but it has been so for over 50 years now and I think that trying to contain an unpredictable situation by difficult diplomacy is better than war followed by certain destruction

And the pattern remains, the North TALKS loud but DOES nothing. Of course, thats because EVERYBODY OBLIGES TO NORTH KOREA AT SOME POINT. And that's what's happening right now(I mean the obliging part). It's the best defense against North Korea, and it worked for 50 years.

What if they break the pattern? What if we're relaxing in complatency? That's possible. And it would be better if North Korea didn't have nukes in the first place. I don't think anyone would disagree that much.

But the more dangerous the situation is the more carefuly one must approach it.

In the short term, defusing the situation is paramount to everything. Some might say war is an option, but would you really risk CERTAIN destruction for a POSSIBILITY in the future? Giving the North what it want's seems to be like the only way. I think that the North would veiw it as a 2 way objective = coercing some form of economical aid & security from the outside world OR aquiring nuclear capability and using it to secure economic stability and security for themselves.

What we would want to offer is obvious

The long term will be more difficult

It's a mistake to take isolated and outdated events together and picture North Korea by them. They do have a wierd tendency to take everything to the extreme, but they're not stupid nor outright crazy.

They think the whole world is against them and are consequently PARANOID. They're always trying to find security somewhere. In the past it was the USSR. It collapsed. Next was China. They didn't seem to care about NK. The next obvious choice is the US but the US is NK's sworn enemy for 50 years. They can't suddenly change attitiudes. So this time they're trying to find it in their own nuclear capability and hopefully coerce the US into doing what they want as they did with South Korea for over 50 years

As always, the problem with the paranoid is they don't trust anybody, that's why they backstab you first. If you can't ignore them and have to deal with them the only thing anyone can do in the long term is try to earn the paraniod's trust, which is difficult but possible.

The best possible result would be the US assuring that they will take care of North Korea just like they did the South, and Norht Korea ACTUALLY BELIEVING IT. But the issue would be settled for no more than a secure non-aggression agreement in exchange for the abandonment of their nuclear program

Paranoia gets in the way..

But this is the most difficult problem in current international affairs and no one said it would be easy

 

I don't think we will go to war with North Korea, so I don't really have anything to add or argue, because it'd be pointless.

But the biggest thing I would have to point out is that 1) N. Korea must be given at least the same amount of time for diplomacy as the US gave Iraq and other nations. A generous amount of time. 2) N. Korea seems to want to use these weapons for politican gain, not war gain. I'd like to see Korea's military power kept down as much as possible, but I don't think theyr'e going to attack anyone. However, aggression against South Korea proves otherwise. But then again, their willingness to negotiate proves that otherwise, as well.

It's a confusing situation, to be sure.

 

--> Sorry for the confusion, I meant "political" position..

Ok, moving on...

--> I've posted about that on page 12 or something. Basicly, all those incidents are almost South Korea's fault. Both sides have had roughly equal amounts of first shots
(I'm not sure what the rules of engagement are nowadays)

I'm not sure how they're SK's fault. Some border had to be set. And NK undoubtedly knew of the border -- SK would have been negligent not to tell them. So NK would have known SK was going to do something if they crossed into those waters. Sure, there was no agreement, but if NK was talking to begin with, they could have at least formalized something. Is the NLL somehow an unfair boundry on the map? If it is NK has apparenlt never negotiated for a fairer one.


--> the North HAVE brought it up, numerous times.. As I said, it was a bad idea.

Have they? In what context? To prove that the US will invade or like Iran that they were overall insulted to be put in with Iraq and NK, and to be decribed as evil in the first place. At any rate it doesn't matter: Reagan called the USSR an 'evil empire', no doubt an even more serious allegation, and the Russians were sane enough not to let that even come within an inch of reconsidering their policies. It's just rhetoric. When the US starts moving in its troops abnormally against you, THEN you start to act.


I'm saying that the present course of action by engaging in diplomacy is the best course. I'm saying that the probability of North Korea committing suicide doesn't justify military action

I think that combined with all the other probabilities that could happen upon NK becoming a Nuclear state does. The sales to terrorists and whatnot. There is no nation on earth that should have nukes less than NK. No other nation even comes close.

To use the little witty Canadian expression again: off... thier... nut.


As for unpredictability, I dont deny that North Korea is unpredictable, but it has been so for over 50 years now and I think that trying to contain an unpredictable situation by difficult diplomacy is better than war followed by certain destruction

But two things:

1) The certain destruction of such a war has first decreased dramatically with warming relations to China, which I support, and the grown exponentially again these past decades, and will grow more

2) War is the only solution I see which can conceivably even bring this issue to an end within the next 20 years. However due to the situation I am prone to believe this will in fact last close to indefinately. It's a time bomb that even if you're right and gets no more likely to explode, it's still pretty gosh-darn likely, and its size IS getting bigger. It was never in the interests of the US and the USSR to go to war, yet they almost did on at least two seperate occasions (Cuba and Berlin) and it's by no means improbable either time could have gone the other way. Given now we're looking at NK, which is even more centralized than the USSR ever was after Stalin gave up the ghost, war seems likely to happen purely through again, a 'guns of august' misunderstanding scenario. How many times are we going to have to go through this before eventually one side goes too far? In this light it doesn't even matter who's right or wrong, but the numbers would indicate war now for the US -- and everyone else in the region from China all the way to even SK -- is in thier best interests rather than later. And war later seems very, very possible.


And the pattern remains, the North TALKS loud but DOES nothing. Of course, thats because EVERYBODY OBLIGES TO NORTH KOREA AT SOME POINT. And that's what's happening right now(I mean the obliging part). It's the best defence against North Korea, and it worked for 50 years.

And that's great. That's fantastic. And it's worked with many dictators, too. But none of these dictators ever had Nukes before. None ever had ones that could reach the US or anywhere else before. This is what the Cuban missile crisis was all