North Korea

[djpark121]

Every day, the North Koreans produce more and more WMDs. What does the Bush Administration need to do before the crisis gets out of hand?

[FastNed]

Exactly what is it you think they should be doing, that they are not?

First of all, there should be no question but that everyone involved in this understands that the second we believe that a nuclear weapon has been sold outside of North Korea, the hammer comes down. Full scale nuclear war. South Korea may well become an island nation with a large radioactive hole to its north. China and Russia now comprehend that continued support for Krazy Kim means nuclear war on their border and that any miscalculation, any error could bring them into it placing their country at risk. It has taken a while but the message has finally gotten through.

[djpark121]

It is good that the Bush administration is urging the Southeast Asian nations to carry more of the burden. Problem is, the lunatics in Pyongyang keep demanding one-on-one talks with the United States. The Bush administration should NOT give in to those talks as it would be giving in to blackmail. You keep feeding the baby, it's going to cry for more. Nobody knows what North Korea will ask for next. They've already broken the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. What the Bush administration needs to do is to keep up what it's doing: avoid talks but at the same time, make sure the crisis doesn't elevate.

[FastNed]

There is little we can do to prevent elevation of this crisis - that card is held by Krazy Kim.

Without Chinese support, he's all done immediately and he knows it. In addition to the potential of a nuclear war at their side door, the Chinese face the possibility of a nuclear armed Japan. Visions of an aggressive Japan cause nightmares all through-out Asia. If NK is not prevented from producing nuclear weapons and disarmed, Japan will have no choice but to arm. We certainly will not continue to guarantee Japanese security if they do not.

It's hard ball time. We know that if nukes leave NK, they will be used here in America and, to put it mildly, we find that unacceptable.

The World should learn to fear the American Street because if a nuke is used against us, large areas of the World are going to become radioactive slag. I have said this before, for the first time in our history 80 % of Americans are willing to use nuclear weapons against an enemy. And our government will do so or we will replace it with one which will.

If WMD are used against us, the World will then live under a Pax Americana or die. Those are the choices. Those we do not attack will surrender all nuclear weapons or the survivors in those countries will live in the radioactive remains.

I have absolutely no access to government plans but I do know Americans - if WMD are used on us, all restraint will be gone and the World will suffer our rage unrestrained.

If you don't like that scenario then you had best get your butt in gear and assist us in putting down these terrorists and those who support them before we are forced to that point. We will not go quietly into the night.

[Neal.F.]

Hear hear! That's what I love about the United States. One of the few countries kleft where men's characters have not been cauterized by the nanny state socialist wimp culture.

The USA is fully justified in taking whatever steps it deems neccessary to neutralize ANY threat to them, let alone an overt act of war.

Any country that is unwilling to do what it takes to defend its citizens lives and livelihoods does not deserve to exist.

Canada, if it has not already reached that level, is damned close.

[Craig Read]

I agree. The Chinese have to stop feeding NK and supporting it covertly. I doubt this will happen. The Chinese are a xenophobic lot, the Middle Kingdom shall dominate etc. The US will need to cordon off NK with Russian, Japanese and Janus faced Chinese support - economically, militarily and politically. The cordon does not solve the main problem though, which is the threat posed by NK's ICBMs.

Only 2 things can happen to eliminate the threat - regime implosion such as what happened in Soviet Russia, or a military action along the lines of Kosovo [not a good model in actual fact but the theory was okay], or Gulf War II.

Since the Muslim world is the main focus the only sensible option is the cordon sanitaire around NK, keep the nauseatingly ineffective UNO and EU out of the picture, and plan for military strikes when and if NK decides to become militarily active. To do this will require active vigilance from Japan and Russia.

Canada of course can write anti-american op eds about bad American policy. As with most left liberal nations the Canadians are hypocrites. They don't believe that redrawing the map of the middle east is necessary. If one was to invade NK they would forward that this too is wrong unless sanctioned by the UN.

I would have thought that the blast at the UN HQ in Baghdad would have shattered such illusions, or a quick look at the starving NKoreans who give up butter so Kim and his mad lot can buy guns. Plus ca change plus ca reste le meme.

[djpark121]

There is little we can do to prevent elevation of this crisis - that card is held by Krazy Kim.

I agree with you. However, I don't feel it is in the U.S. best interests to leave the situation totally alone. First of all, the United States cannot and should not trust other nations to completely handle this crisis adequately. Not to mention that no other nation in world history has done what the U.S. has accomplished so far. I'm not saying the U.S. should take total control over this situation. It should take all possible and necessary measures to promote peace. Why wait for the nukes to come when it can be precluded in the first place?

[FastNed]

If I somehow indicated that the U.S. was leaving this matter to others, that was not my intent and it is not factual. I suspect an account of our efforts would be characterized as "hyperactive", to say the least.

We have played the "Japan" card - to Asia, that brings back nightmares of the Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere of WW II. To Russia, visions of the "Northern Resource Area" as the natural resources of Far Eastern/Siberian Russia so invitingly close to Japan, are sometimes called.

We have played the "Free Trade" Card - to China, now addicted to American Dollars and Western Trade. Termination of trade with America would cause just a few problems in China, very explosive ones.

In South Korea, the message is beginning to be understood - when the current President played his "Schroder Tune" to gain election, he removed all restraints on America. We can and would pull American Forces out of South Korea in a minute excepting only the tactical advantage of having boots on the ground to hold a bridgehead should we wish a land invasion of North Korea. The younger generation of South Korea have been living in a fantasy world where Americans have some obligation to defend them - against their wishes!

Their new President has been given a reality check. One, just one anti-american occurrence which catches the attention of the American Public and we will depart under such circumstances as to make it plain that we could care less if North Korea invades. Candidly, from a real-politik perspective, that could be our best option! We can live with a unified "Korea" as we live with Vietnam - so long as his nuclear weapons and seed stock were picked up by the Chinese. All of South Korea vs. a nuke in America? No Contest! I regret that there is tepid support for this option in Washington.

Trust, please! In God we trust, plus those few who put their lives on the line and stood shoulder to shoulder with us as we fought. No others need apply.

[theloniusfleabag]

The US hasn't invaded N. Korea because they are generally full of BS. Iraq and WMD's? They went in there with only accusations, while N Korea offers proof and threats. It seems the only thing missing from the North Korea scenario is oil reserves.

[FastNed]

Reality Check! The sole reason North Korea is not road kill at this point is that our nominal ally, South Korea, would suffer several million casualties in the first 48 hours of any conflict.

I say "nominal" because a younger generation of South Koreans has been raised and educated with marxist and postmodern garbage and a sub-theme of their annoying racial superiority delusion is that America, while "occupying" them, somehow has an obligation to defend them. As all good marxists and transnationals know, America's true reason for being there is to corner the World market in Kimchi! It's all about the Kimchi, stupid!

From a "RealPolitik" point of view, a very intelligent option would be to pull our forces out of South Korea and sit back and watch poetic justice at work. Krazy Kim would be invading as our last ship left the pier. The Chinese would love to see America depart and the pillage and rape of South Korea would simply be a "cultural" adjustment.

The problem with this solution is that President Bush is a man of moral convictions and, unlike Clinton, he will not kick the can down the road by paying Dane-geld as he is well aware that a dozen years or so down the road, a New Korea would be the Far Eastern version of Iran.

Quite candidly, if the Chinese do not force a solution upon North Korea I prefer the "RealPolitik" option. With an occupied and "unified" Korea, Krazy Kim and his gang will finally have something to loose (South Korean wealth) and a modus vivendi can be achieved. Such action would be completely consistent with Trans-National philosophy and America would not be interfering with the rights of the indigenous people of Korea. Are you disturbed by the real world result of the application of the Trans-National philosophy?

[Craig Read]

Terrorism - muslim terrorism that is - is the main priority. That is the prime and key focus. That war HAS to be won.

NK will be silenced over time. The Chinese, Russians, Japanese and SKoreans all have vested interests at stake. They will support US action against NK when the time is right.

The timing is simply not appropriate with the US military stretched across 130 countries.

Canada and other whining ninnies can help out by actually building militaries with projection capability.

But hell that would actually mean doing something.

Far easier just to yap and bark like a little dog.

[djpark121]

Though the United States has absolute right to leave South Korea, it would present dangerous repercussions to do so. If Krazy Kim takes over the South, he not only has more military power, but also economic. He would use the South's economic resources to build even more nukes. A communist led Korean peninsula? Definitely krazy. Who can truly know his intentions? It would lead to a crisis in Southeast Asia that is just more trouble for the U.S. We already have enough to deal with in rebuilding Iraq. Point is, the United States should forget the uneducated and callow youth of the South, and just focus on eliminating North Korea, for its own benefit. Bring the UN into this. If the UN whines again, North Korea better prepare to be invaded by US action alone.

[KrustyKidd]

Hi Dipark, just conducting a Labor Day Poll. Would you say that you are left, extreme left or leaning somewhat towards the right?

[djpark121]

Somewhat towards the right.

[SirRiff]

First of all, there should be no question but that everyone involved in this understands that the second we believe that a nuclear weapon has been sold outside of North Korea, the hammer comes down

Fastned what exactly do you think the repurcussions of this would be to those of us in Canada and the US.

I think everyone in the world would suffer huge ecnomic and other unknown setbacks if a truely full scale war occured with NK. talk about stock market crases and low tourism.

so my question is, if the best course of action when presented with a a potential WMD threat is full scale attack, what will we suffer even if the good guys "win"?

[KrustyKidd]

if the best course of action when presented with a a potential WMD threat is full scale attack, what will we suffer even if the good guys "win"?

In a worst case scenario a lot better than if the good guys do nothing.

[FastNed]

SirRiff, the problem revolves around the "Krazy" types who believe that a nuke or three is some sort of magic wand. Or something like a mosquito repellant which will make the US keep away! Or that possession makes one all powerful and a member of the First World. I suspect that it is going to require that we smash someone flat to dissuade a number of nut-cases of this folly.

I have not looked into the production of fusion weapons but my memory is that it is a much higher magnitude of difficulty than a rather simple atomic fission device. (And this is quite definitely not the time to be doing internet or library searches for info on fusion devices!) Even several dozen atomic weapons could only hurt us, the redundancy built into our civilian and military command and control could withstand this easily. Not painlessly and not without an horrible cost but we designed to survive a fusion strike from the Soviets' so all anyone of these fools would accomplish would be to hurt us and remove any and all civilized restraint from us.

Anyone who would buy one of these from Krazy Kim would plan to use it on us and we intend to prevent that. So how do we deal? Short of war, China is our best option.

There are no good options, only less worse ones.

[Mr Farrius]

I think every nation should be allowed to have nuclear weapons, or no nations at all. Why is the U.S. is trying to monopolize WMDs all over the world, claiming that other nation's having them is a "threat". Of course, if the U.S. had gotten rid of all of its nuclear weapons and said something like that, I'd have no complaint.

[Hugo]

Not all nations are created equal. You can trust a democratically elected government not to start lobbing nukes without severe provocation. The same can't be said of totalitarian regimes.

For instance, it's well known that the Soviet Union considered nuclear exchange to be a logical progression of war and spent billions in civil defence. They planned to fight and win a nuclear war.

Your point is akin to saying, let's give everyone a gun, or nobody at all, i.e. stupid. If you give everyone a gun, guaranteed some people are going to start killing others. On the other hand, if policemen and soldiers can't have guns, they aren't much use, are they?

This is just more leftist clap-trap - all nations are equal, all people are equal, etc. Sorry, but it just isn't so. Some people are stupid, some are smart, some governments are responsible, some are not. Wake up and smell the coffee.

[Mr Farrius]

Who the hell said America has to be "policeman"?? Let everyone sweep his own and the whole world will be clean. Besides, just because the United States does not have nukes, doesn't mean they dont' exercise at least some bit of superiority in the military.

[KrustyKidd]

Farris, the ideal world is what we are stiving for. One in which nobody has nuclear weapons. If you argue that a nuc in the solitary hands of OBL or Saddam is just as safe as the ones in silos in Montana with codes changing every twelve hours and counter checks upon counter checks then you are very wrong. Your point is valid if all nations were equal with equal responsible control applied. Unfortunately it is hardly realistic when applied to a theology that is suicidal by design or seeks total domination of the planet if unchecked.

As for whoever made the US policemen I would think that the whole planet did. Nobody does anything substancial to help other nations except the US. Most of the world is made up of feudal and pre feudal nations whose only theology is retaliation, war, rape, pilage, enslave, hate. The US at least tries to help when it goes in to make a buck and make life better. That beats systematic genocide ala Milosevik, Palistininians, Saddam, OBL, and all other dictators back to Stalin. The UN stops nothing so glad we have the US. At least they try.

[Black Dog]

Most of the world is made up of feudal and pre feudal nations whose only theology is retaliation, war, rape, pilage, enslave, hate. The US at least tries to help when it goes in to make a buck and make life better. That beats systematic genocide ala Milosevik, Palistininians, Saddam, OBL, and all other dictators back to Stalin. The UN stops nothing so glad we have the US. At least they try.

Yes, the U.S. only acts out of a sense of alturisism, never because it stands to gain anything from its little adventures around the world. Puh-leeze.

The "make a buck" part of the above is telling, perhaps a rare glimpse of honsety peeking through the facade of a kind and gentle America. U.S. foreign intervention has always been, and continues to be, a matter of ensuring U.S. (particularily corporate) interests are protected. As U.S. Marine Corps officer Major General Smedley Butler

said all the way back in 1933:

"The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag."

Times haven't changed from Butler's days as a "gangster for capitalism". And yet Americans still pat themselves on the back, secure in the mythology that America does right by foreign peoples by bombing the crap out of 'em.

The odd time purely humanitarian interventions are undertaken, the U.S. usually needs to be dragged in kicking and screaming. In the meantime, the poor UN, hobbled by the old imperial masters on the Security Council, takes the heat.

For instance, it's well known that the Soviet Union considered nuclear exchange to be a logical progression of war and spent billions in civil defence. They planned to fight and win a nuclear war.

Simply another wrongheaded attempt to cast the U.S. as the historical victim in global geopolitics.

The U.S. long maintained a "first-strike" policy against the Soviets. Many in the top ranks of the U.S. government (including the likes of S.A.C. commander Curtis LeMay in the 1950s) advocated a policy of premption based on the idea that the U.S. could survive a limited nuclear exchange with the USSR. Such a policy thrived for many years in the halls of both the Kremiln and the Pentagon. To this day, the builk of both nations' nuclear arsenal are aimed at one another, ready to launch at a moments notice.

With the U.S. seeking to to kickstart a global arms race through aggressive development of new "improved" tac nukes and the "missle sheild" as well as a foreign policy centred upon "preepmtive" aggressive, you'll excuse me if protestations of American purity ring hollow.

[KrustyKidd]

How long do you think the US would survive if it did nothing in it's own interests? How long would you survive if you did nothing but volunteer work? To combine the two is the key and the US does it better than anybody else. Besides, where is it written that they should do anything for anybody anywhere? It's not so stop expecting them to, for a country that is the target of every fanatic on the planet I'd say they act with more restraint and compassion for others than any sane person can expect them to. How many items made, origionated in, transported in part through, patented to, invented in, financed or developed by the Great Satan did you use today? Did you use them to help humanity or just to type the anti US post you just wrote? Did you drive an Arab car to the Hate The Infidel Rally? How about the medicine that helped your kid beat the flu? They were all made and developed by greedy capitalists. Only in it for money. LOL, like you were thinking they were trying to impress you?

Documents found when West Germany reunited with East Germany and took over former Soviet bases showed how the nuclear war was to be waged. They detailed laying waste to portions of Europe to facilitate Soviet troop movements to key positions. It was never a last resort but rather a prelude to war. It surprised everybody. Top officials in NATO included. Funny part was that Switzerland was left intact, it was presumed for the gold bullion.

[Nuclear]

Nk is a sticky situation...in Iraq we stopped them from getting the weapons to threat level but with NK, if we try the same way, they may use them on us....even though we could sink them and their little peninsula into the China Sea, we still can't risk an attack on the US or our allies of Canada and Japan....

I think the current course is good but we do need to figuratively bring our hand to hover over our pistol(think western movies)

[nova_satori]

An assault upon North Korea would be a picture of hell on Earth.

North Korea has THOUSANDS, i mean THOUSANDS of artillery able to hit Seoul. Seoul's current population is around 17 million. It takes less than 5 minutes for a rocket to travel 37 miles. Now times that by 10,000 rockets in salvo. Seoul will CEASE to exist, along with thousands of troops along the DMZ.

Ignorant Americans who think America is omniponent, believe that American air power can destroy that many artillery pieces. They simply ignore the huge anti-air net that covers most of North Korea. The US does not have the number of Stealth Squadrons necessary for this tactic to work. The US has less than 2 fully operation B-2 Spirit Bomber squadrons in service. The number of operational F-117 Stealth Fighter, AKA "Wobbly Goblin," squadrons cannot fill the gap. The fighters themselves do not carry enough ordance to do signifigently damage. To do this tactic, Kadena's wing would be required, every carrier in 5,000 miles would be needed, airwings across the nation would be needed...we simply cannot do that: Or afford the loss of manpower from hundreds of planes being destroyed.

The US has 37,000 troops literally on the DMZ. They are nothing but "speed bumps," as the first troops into Saudi Arabia during Desert Shield liked to call themselves.

The ROK is one of the most advance military forces, but its active forces are signifigently less than the 1.1 million man North korean Army. Much of that 1.1 million army is spitting distance from the border. that army includes 100,000 north korean versions of the Army Ranger. The damage that many special forces flooding South Korea and Japan could cause is unimaginable.

Armor is not a signifigent factor. The terrain of North Korea is heavily mountinous. This isn't rolling deserts. There is a huge contrast from wooded, hilly terrain and endless desert. This war will be infantry based. NOT FUN.

This ALL without nukes. Should North Korea release one....everything's on a new playing field.

Let's hope it doesn't come down to that.