This just in: North Korea to End armistice!

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by DanS
then he would have nothing to lose and the missiles would fly

This is frustrating. You have yet to make a case in any of these threads on what he would gain by doing so.

Absolutely nothing.

In fact, the only conceivable situation where he would use them is when his regime is on the verge of blowing up in his face.

And yet, you're proposing that we take a strategy that slowly bleeds him out and gives him ample opportunity to realize what is happening?

These are the first steps of NK venturing out into the world.

We've been through this before. It's almost as if everybody in the region wants NK to continue to be a huge problem, because it isn't going to be solved for many decades at this rate. China has never been this fvcked up.

China was this fvcked up 25 years ago. Probably even worse.

South Korea's GDP per capita was on par with the poorer half of Africa 40 years ago.

What everyone needed was international pressure and incentive to reform. And time.

[Arrian]

Apparently the controversy over the alleged bribe of NK ($500million) in exchange for the summit is still brewing.

What's the deal there? I don't quite understand... it seems the Millenium Party wants to "slow down" the investigation (a strategy which is apparently talked about openly as perfectly fine & viable, whereas here it would be clandestine and decried as obstruction of justice). Or am I not getting it?

-Arrian

[Q Classic]

there, the party in the assembly is also the party in the presidency, so they're much better able to squelch it for their gain.

unlike here in the us, where often the party in congress is not the same party as the one in the presidency...

[Q Classic]

panag, bombers of this type are often sent in only after total air superiorty has been acheived.

meaning, a b52 could be taken down by an nkorean fighter, if the amis were stupid enough to send them in without decimating the nkorean air force.

the amis are not, thus, the b52s will be unopposed should the bomb nkorea.

even so, i find the prospect of any bombing of nkorea highly disturbing. it's virtually tantamount to my suggesting that one could solve the entire middle east/israel problem by turning it into glass, whether the people there want it or not.

[Urban Ranger]

The US won't be bombing DPRK. Japan and RoK won't have any of that.

[Q Classic]

of course not. i'm referring to this curious desire that panag seems to have.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
panag, bombers of this type are often sent in only after total air superiorty has been acheived.

meaning, a b52 could be taken down by an nkorean fighter, if the amis were stupid enough to send them in without decimating the nkorean air force.

the amis are not, thus, the b52s will be unopposed should the bomb nkorea.

even so, i find the prospect of any bombing of nkorea highly disturbing. it's virtually tantamount to my suggesting that one could solve the entire middle east/israel problem by turning it into glass, whether the people there want it or not.

hi ,


huh , want to share something that the us joint chiefs of staff dont know , ....?

B-52's have been doing bombing raids in vietnam , the firts gulf war and afganistan from day one without figther protection , .... the same goes for B1B's , ....

one of the tricks of these bombers is to bomb first strike places , in other words , places that could launch lets say fighters , ....

with what they have nowadays they can take almost anything they want with them , from anti shipping to nuke's , mines , depthbombs , guided rockets and bombs , dumb boms , fual air explosives , tomahawk's , drones , etc , .... anything thats in the inventory can be taken aboard , ......

one other thing about modern day bombings , ....

you dont need to be near the target to bomb it , ....

meaning , the fly at X and the bomb fall on Y 20 miles further away , .....

since north korea is completely known the can bomb what they want when they want if needed (!)

no-one likes war , not a single soldier who has ever seen war likes it , but if it has to be done , ............

have a nice day

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
there, the party in the assembly is also the party in the presidency, so they're much better able to squelch it for their gain.

unlike here in the us, where often the party in congress is not the same party as the one in the presidency...

What I mean is there doesn't seem to be much public outrage... if the allegations are true, doesn't that call the whole Sunshine Policy into question... if SK had to bribe NK into it in the first place... and since NK doesn't seem to be giving much in return?

-Arrian

[Ned]

The SK bribe may help explain why NK has escalated the belligerence.

Appeasement is like gasoline to a fire.

[Arrian]

My take on it is somewhat different.

NK had a sweet deal going. They got half a billion out of SK, plus aid, IIRC. They were getting a bunch of free oil and food from us. I think Japan was chipping in with food as well. Plus, though we were slow about it, we were helping them with 2 lightwater reactors for power generation.

Then the Bushies win the election and make noises about not approving of the Sunshine Policy and Clinton's approach to NK (aka appeasement). NK thinks its sweet deal is threatened and decides to go offensive, hoping to force Bush & Co. to cave and go the Clinton route of paying NK off. This seems to be working.

So in a way, the people accusing Bush of screwing this up are right. It's just that, IMO, the screwup was caving in the first place (under Clinton and then AGAIN recently by offering to restart food aid), not tossing cold water on that strategy.

So what we have here is the fruits of an inconsistent approach to foreign policy. Regardless of the fact that I think the decision to pay of NK to be nice was wrongheaded, it has been screwed up a lot more by the current administration trying to back out of that policy, and now caving back into it. *sigh*

-Arrian

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian
My take on it is somewhat different.

NK had a sweet deal going. They got half a billion out of SK, plus aid, IIRC. They were getting a bunch of free oil and food from us. I think Japan was chipping in with food as well. Plus, though we were slow about it, we were helping them with 2 lightwater reactors for power generation.

Then the Bushies win the election and make noises about not approving of the Sunshine Policy and Clinton's approach to NK (aka appeasement). NK thinks its sweet deal is threatened and decides to go offensive, hoping to force Bush & Co. to cave and go the Clinton route of paying NK off. This seems to be working.

So in a way, the people accusing Bush of screwing this up are right. It's just that, IMO, the screwup was caving in the first place (under Clinton and then AGAIN recently by offering to restart food aid), not tossing cold water on that strategy.

So what we have here is the fruits of an inconsistent approach to foreign policy. Regardless of the fact that I think the decision to pay of NK to be nice was wrongheaded, it has been screwed up a lot more by the current administration trying to back out of that policy, and now caving back into it. *sigh*

-Arrian

Arrian, nothing happened after the Axis of Evil speech. Things began to get out of hand when we discovered the NK's had a nuclear program they had agreed not to have in 1994.

Bush then cut off oil. Then the **** hit the fan.

So, the screw-up is, if there was one, was cutting off the oil. However, I do not agree that that was a screw-up. What we did is the only way we can ever hope to get NK to give up its nukes peacefully. They get the oil again if they give up the nukes.

[Arrian]

Ned,

Cutting off the oil. Exactly. The sweet deal they had going was falling apart. Response? Do what got them the deal in the first place: threaten! From their twisted PoV, that's the logical choice. It worked before, so it will work again. They know that we won't invade/bomb them because they actually HAVE nukes.

I find it difficult to imagine NK actually giving up its nuclear weapons program while ruled by the current (or similar) regime. Without it, what do they have (keep in mind, I'm talking about the *******s who run the country)? So I think the 1994 was dumb - what in the WORLD made Clinton, et al. believe NK would honor the deal? And even if they did, why did they think paying NK off was a good approach?

Contain, wait for collapse. Just like with the USSR.

-Arrian

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian
Ned,

Cutting off the oil. Exactly. The sweet deal they had going was falling apart. Response? Do what got them the deal in the first place: threaten! From their twisted PoV, that's the logical choice. It worked before, so it will work again. They know that we won't invade/bomb them because they actually HAVE nukes.

I find it difficult to imagine NK actually giving up its nuclear weapons program while ruled by the current (or similar) regime. Without it, what do they have (keep in mind, I'm talking about the *******s who run the country)? So I think the 1994 was dumb - what in the WORLD made Clinton, et al. believe NK would honor the deal? And even if they did, why did they think paying NK off was a good approach?

Contain, wait for collapse. Just like with the USSR.

-Arrian

Don't blame Clinton for this one. Blame Carter. Carter went to NK univited and negotiated the deal. Clinton had a much harder line he was pursuing.

[Seeker]

LOL, this morning's Joong-Ang Il Bo carried a feature article about the SK and US govmn'ts denying (rather unconvincingly)a leaked statement made by an official at an 'off the record' dinner/party whatever....

....to the effect that the US is coming around to the view of just accepting NK as a nuclear country, and instead concentrating on preventing them from exporting the weapons.

Thus, no need to pay them tribute, if keeping them nuke free is no longer a priority.

Off course, this all being stridently denied because it hurts the bargaining position, and makes all the Non-Nuclear Penininsula rhetoric look a lot like BS.

From my situation, I'm ambivalent:

-on the one hand, the Bush maniac won't make the Kim maniac kill me

-On the other hand, the Kim maniac might just be so irrational that he thinks he's now invincible and just keeps escalating his military provocations.....and the 'mood' in the South is rapidly losing patience for that.

-and, what we all hope for, everything just blows over and status quo prevails....


Like the great line in Lawrence of Arabia from the Diplomat and General:

"Surely we can't just do nothing?!"
"Why not, it's usually best."

[Arrian]

....to the effect that the US is coming around to the view of just accepting NK as a nuclear country, and instead concentrating on preventing them from exporting the weapons. Thus, no need to pay them tribute, if keeping them nuke free is no longer a priority.

-Arrian