US and Korea "Slipping Into War"

[Q Classic]

Would it have been democratic? It's only become so in the last ten years.

yes. but only in the last ten years.

Anyways, the use of nukes by the US on China would very likely have resulted in the use of nukes in Europe by the Soviets.

I certainly would not have wanted to see WWIII over Korea. It's just not important enough to destroy the world over.

thinkingamer pretty much has my viewpoint down.

[Evil Knevil]

If the US exhausted all diplomatic channels and/or already attempted to destroy N.Koreas nuclear production facilities and had UN backing, then a war would be legitimate.

Of course, nobody wants a war, especially with NK. NK is a real example of a dangerous state, with the power to cause tremendous damage to the region and the world. There is also strong evidence that N Korea is developing nukes --unlike Iraq-- and has the will to use them. This is what makes N Korea a legitimate target for efforts at disarmament.

Although to be fair, America hasn't really set a good precident. -"Lets wait, lets try and get some negotiation going...."
"No, **** you. Lassie and I are going to invade Iraq anyway".

[TCO]

And maybe the Un didn't set a good precedent by not enforcing their cease-fire agreement. Everybody knows that Kofi and the internationalists are a bunch of latte-drinking beaurocrats.

[GePap]

In a few months North Korea will no longer be part of the NPT: once it is outside of that framework, the US has no legal justification for anything, anymore than we can talk to India, Pakistan and Israel for their nukes, since they never agreed to sign the NPT.

As for attacking the nuclear facilities; as time goes, the effectiveness of this declines markedly: once the North has the fisionable material for several bombs, they can assmeble anywhere else. We would slow thier ability to make more materials, but only temporarily, unless we plan to bomb suspected sites every few weeks.

And as for "pther carrying thier weight": the interests as they see them of China, South Korea and Japan are not 100% like those of the US: The US has to do what it can to meet its interests, because it can not count on the interests of hese three states to be ours.

[Drake Tungsten]

the US has no legal justification for anything

Who cares?

[GePap]

Not you: but it does affect the outcome, so you should care. US power is far from absolute, as the current situation shows, and only those with absolute power can ignore the rules with impunity.

[Drake Tungsten]

Do you really think anyone cares about legalities at this point? The threat of nuclear war tends to focus the mind on the important issues, not legal technicalities. North Korea pulling out of the NPT will have little to no effect on the policy choices of the United States.

[GePap]

It has influence on how we can proceed in action, so it does have influences. For example, at a certain point, if NK is out of the NPT, then from what agency would people selected to inspect NK's facilities (this is allowign for the notion that a deal was reached) be?

Is it he defining issue? No, but it is an issue.

[Ned]

The problem we are facing, of course, is that as soon as North Korea has a sufficient number of nuclear weapons to pose a serious threat against the large Japanese cities, they made may be able to successfully invade South Korea while holding the US military at bay with the threat of a nuclear attack on Japan. In a short number of years, the North Koreans may also be able to threaten US cities when they develop missiles that will reliably hit American cities on the West Coast. In other words, a North Korea armed with nuclear weapons is tremendously destabilizing.

Facing the realities of such a situation, the Japanese and South Koreans may want to develop nuclear weapons themselves in order to provide some measure of deterrence. Since this alternative is probably politically unacceptable in Japan, the Japanese and perhaps a South Koreans may be forced to take unilateral action well before North Korea becomes an unacceptable threat. If they do not, they will have to continue to rely on United States to provide a nuclear deterrent.

But just how reliable an ally are we? Given that our armed forces are temporarily overextended due to Iraq, we probably will do nothing militarily to correct the situation until it is too late to act. Realizing this, we seem to be deploying our forces away from the DMZ and perhaps even out of South Korea in order that the North may attack the South without us necessarily being obligated to intervene. Increasingly, it looks like the South Koreans have a very dim future. Ditto, Japan.

[Q Classic]

Since this alternative is probably politically unacceptable in Japan,

althought it's tremendously unpopular, i do believe that the people will go along with it if only to deter the nkoreans.
unfortunately, that would have the added effect of increasing china's number of missiles, and forcing skorea and taiwan to join the race. even worse, japan, skorea, and taiwan could all develop such weapons on a very short time scale, since all have high levels of technology, are capable of machining all the parts required, and have plenty of nuclear plants.

Realizing this, we seem to be deploying our forces away from the DMZ and perhaps even out of South Korea

as far as i see it, deploying americans away from the dmz means that they'll have a fighting chance in the first few hours of any coming war. the troops along the dmz are called speed bumps for a reason.
nobody expects them to survive. they expect them to die, and delay the enemy as long as possible.
it doesn't look like we'll be leaving the area any time soon. to do so would not be in american interests, as it would leave china as the sole great power in the region, and leave it in quite a good position to become another regional hegemon, thereby undermining the us's security.

in order that the North may attack the South without us necessarily being obligated to intervene.

do you think the us would renege on its treaty of alliance with the republic of korea?

Increasingly, it looks like the South Koreans have a very dim future. Ditto, Japan.

i'll have to disagree. the future is much cloudier, yes, but i think things will turn out all right if a) the skorean youth get their heads out of their asses, realize that although reunification is good and they are all family, nkorea will treat them exactly as they would an american in the even of a war; b) japan remilitarizes in a limited sense, with limited power-projection capabilities: enough to help dominate airspace, and ensure shipping lanes are safe; c) skorea and japan bury the hatchet, as they have been, in fits and starts; d) the japanese economy recovers, either by government military spending or through government and economic reform revitalizes the deeply ill japanese economy; e) skorea maintains its growth rate, ensures that its spy agency isn't still demoralized and completely defanged, and continues its progress.

lots of conditions. c) i don't hold out exceptional hope for, nor do i see d) coming unless they face the brink of disaster. a) will be the trickiest to acheive. since most of the youth don't remember the korean war have have expirienced nothing much outside of affluence, they haven't truly tasted fear. this crisis isn't doing it quite yet, but i'm sure it will soon as its effects on the economy are felt and more belligerent statements come over the border.
i honestly don't quite understand this lack of fear, however, especially since every korean male is to serve in the military for over two years...

[Dinner]

It looks like the US and North Korea are drifting closer and closer towards war and the scary thing is there is little the US can do about it. We've tried appeasement and it didn't work. We've tried diplomacy but as long as China continues to support that killer Kim then there won't be any diplomatic break throughs.

What does that leave other then violence? Of course the US won't invade NK but they might just try a raid on the nuclear facilities and then it's likely NK will respond by invading the south.

[Arrian]

World - AP Asia

U.S. May Make N. Korea Nonagression Vow
Tue Jul 22, 9:17 PM ET


WASHINGTON - The Bush administration might be willing to give North Korea (news - web sites) a written guarantee that the United States has no intention of attacking without provocation, the State Department said Tuesday.


AP Photo



At the same time, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the administration is working for a diplomatic solution to the impasse over the North Koreans' nuclear arms program but said it would not give inducements to achieve it.


Spokesman Richard Boucher was asked about a statement early this year by Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage that the United States was willing to put in writing an assurance against unprovoked attack. "That still stands," Boucher said.


The issue "is not whether the United States provides a piece of paper; the issue is whether North Korea stops developing nuclear weapons, and that's where the focus has to be," Boucher said.


In January, Armitage said: "We have no hostile intentions toward North Korea, and we're not going to invade North Korea. We believe that there is a way to document this, whether it's an exchange of letters or official statements or something like that."


Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) spent 2 1/2 hours last Friday in talks with a senior Chinese Foreign Ministry (news - web sites) official, but Boucher said Tuesday they did not discuss how a pledge not to invade North Korea could be put in writing.


China, which hosted U.S.-North Korean talks in April, has been pushing the Bush administration to hold a new session next month in Beijing aimed at getting Pyongyang to stop its nuclear weapons program. The United States wants five-party talks that would also include Japan and South Korea (news - web sites).


"We were sitting down with the Chinese and others to talk about how we can get these talks started so we can get rid of this nuclear weapons program," Boucher said.


"We think it's time for others to join these talks," he said. "We think it's time to have larger groups present at the talks."


The Washington Post reported Tuesday that the Bush administration is considering granting North Korea a formal guarantee not to attack as part of a verifiable end to its nuclear weapons program. At the White House, McClellan said the administration was not considering that.


"Our position remains the same: We continue to seek a diplomatic solution, working with the countries in the neighborhood," he said. "We've made it very clear that we will not give in to blackmail, we will not grant inducements for the North to live up to its obligations."


He said North Korea needs to end its nuclear weapons program irreversibly.


On Monday, a high-ranking South Korean official predicted a possible breakthrough in the nuclear standoff, saying the United States, China and North Korea will hold talks in Beijing soon.


The nations are "in the final stage of arranging a new meeting," said Ra Jong-il, President Roh Moo-hyun's national security adviser.


McClellan was noncommittal on when talks will resume.


"We remain in close consultation with China, Japan, South Korea on the next round and how we proceed on talks, so that North Korea will verifiably, irreversibly and completely eliminate its nuclear weapons program," McClellan said.


He raised the possibility that first there would be three-party talks involving China the United States and North Korea and before Japan and South Korea joined.

[Q Classic]

if we do give that assurance, we're going to give exactly what the nkoreans wanted.

which means bush's policy on nkorea was remarkably successful in neither deviating from the path that clinton set, nor in setting up an alternative path that was very much in the opposite direction.

[Arrian]

Frankly, I'm fine with giving them a non-aggression pact of some kind.

What I'm against is giving them any more stuff (money, food, oil, whatever) that's just gonna get used to help prop up that regime.

Let's promise them we won't take 'em down from the outside, but let's also tell them that they better look elsewhere for donors, because we know any agreement between us that requires reciprocity isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Arrian
Frankly, I'm fine with giving them a non-aggression pact of some kind.

So long as it is predicated on them scrapping their nuke program FOR REAL THIS TIME, I wouldn't have anything against it either. I'm against giving them even the food aid we're sending them now until they provide us with something concrete and verifiable. We'd be no better than the RoK if we did otherwise.