It's official: Dear Leader has nukes

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by The diplomat
This just proves that if we were going to take preemptive action, we should have done back in the Clinton Admin when NK did not have nukes yet.

You forget the 40,000 artillery peices pointed at Seoul.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


You forget the 40,000 artillery peices pointed at Seoul.

I'm always forgetting them, especially at Christmas time.

I'll put them on my shopping list, and tie a knot in my handkerchief too.

[dannubis]

wow

he has a nuke!!!

hm...

he can't do anything with it or he ends up being glass himself.
but he has ensured his survival this way. so no more bullying by the USA.

oh and cybershy, you do have to explain me sometime on which trees sadam could have grown his WoMD.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Hold judgement until they provide verifiable proof, preferably not in the form of a mushroom cloud...

all they gotta do is test one, and the evidence will be all over every seismograph in the world.

[Robert]

Originally posted by dannubis
oh and cybershy, you do have to explain me sometime on which trees sadam could have grown his WoMD.

The same trees he had grown the WMD that hitted Iran and the kurts with on pherhaps?

They agreed to stop plutonium processing and researching plutonium bombs, which they did, until Bush's announcement in 2001 that they weren't going to continue working with the DPRK and then the 2002 SoU speech.

Nope, after that speech Kim decided to let the world know that he stopped stopping while he actually had already stopped at that very moment.
The Bush speech came at the very right moment to make it public, since the world would blame Bush.

Apparantly you're a good Kim Jon Il puppy

[GePap]

I think until they test one, their claims should not be taken at face value. That said, this was to be expected- this admin. was utterly unwilling to use carrots, and simply could not countenance using the military option (neighbors were not interested, and they would bear the full brunt of a heavy retaliation).

The question is, what we do now. NK had left the NPT so for all intents and prusposes, they are like India, Israel and Pakistan now. and asking for UN sanctions has no legal basis, nor again are the Chinese going to agree anyways. I wonder how Kim thinks this helps him as a barganing tool?

The lesson from this, I think, is that the US should get off its ass and start talking directly to Tehran-maybe even restart diplomatic relations. The military stick vs Iran will most likely fail, and even if we "succeeded", asll we would do is slow Tehran, not stop them, just like Israels attack vs Iraq slowed them down, but never stopped Iraq. Strict sanctions are unlikely given the worlds need for Oil (you can just see China again saying no- they can;t afford oil being more expensive and its not like Iranian nukes mean a damn to them). So what do we have left, specially since Iran has the power to make our two local experiments go sour.

This country would gain a alot more from talking with Tehran than just sitting calling them names-its counterproductive and won't lead anywhere. Trying to wait out the clock for a new Revolution in Iran is not particulalry the wisests course, even if one sooner or later is likely.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Nope, after that speech Kim decided to let the world know that he stopped stopping while he actually had already stopped at that very moment.
The Bush speech came at the very right moment to make it public, since the world would blame Bush.

Typical conservative, takes a bit of information, and invents a whole new reality to fit his preconceptions. Yes, I know you conservatives think the DPRK snowed the U.S., but they didn't. They followed the agreements to the letter, meaning that they pursued the technology that was still open to them.

Let me put this in a simple expression, to see if you can understand it.

US + DPRK agreement = no plutonium processing & no plutonium bombs

US + DPRK agreement != no uranium processing and no uranium bombs

So, DPRK stops processing plutonium and plutonium bombs.

The DPRK continues to process uranium and researching uranium bombs.

This means the DPRK was adhering to the agreement.

Conservatives, however, did their typical bait-and-switch, i.e., OMFG, the DPRK are teh suxors, they are buidling teh nuclear bombs, which they said they wouldn't do!

But you are wrong, they only agree not to pursue a type of nuke tech.

After the Bush statements of 2001-2, the DPRK resumed its plutonium research and completed its bombs . . . with help from our ally Pakistan.

[GePap]

Actually Che, NK did break its 1994 agreement, in so far as in 1994 it agreed to honor its 1992 aggrement with South Korea not to seek any nuclear technology, including the enrichment of Uranium.

Currently it seems both SK and NK broke that agreement to diferent degreees, but NK was still in violation of the 1992 agreement with SK, which it had reaffirmed in 1994.

That said, the Uranium program was years away from achieveing anything- was it the best of all solutions to bargain with the NK to make them give it up? NO, but the admin. refused all neogtiations, thought it defeat of Iraq and its rhetoric would scare NK into complying, but all it did was scare NK into moving forward, and we went from them being in the NPT and years away from a bomb as long as its plutonium stocks remained under active IAEA inspections to them leaving the NPT, kicking out the IAEA, taking it plutonium out for reprocessing, which would give them bomb materials for several bombs in a few months, not years, AND they retained their Uranium program.

So can anyone explain to me what actually we gained by refusing to negotiate with NK, when attacking them militarilly was always the least plausible and probable action??

[Robert]

It's amazing how some people are able to reason in such a way that Kim Jon Il apparantly was made to start his nuclear programm by evil Bush, and how Kim would have never done anything like that without Bush his speach, and after that coming up with phrases like: "Let me put this in a simple expression, to see if you can understand it."

I'm sorry, but you apparantly are living in some theoretical world in which everything works according to your ideas. So, tell me, Iraq was a nice place to live before Bush invaded it, right? And the Dear Leader actually IS a dear leader? Right?

It's because of people like you that NK has nuclear weapons right now.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
So can anyone explain to me what actually we gained by refusing to negotiate with NK, when attacking them militarilly was always the least plausible and probable action??

How could the DPRK pull out of talks if we weren't talking with them?

That will (Hopefully) be a major blow to the Sunshine Policy

Why on earth would you think that? It isn't as if this is the first, second, or even the third time the DPRK has spit on them. They always keep coming back.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
**** has hit the fan!!!!!!

No, I don't think so. They periodically do this because they want to throw temper-tantrums to get more aid. The problem is we give aid then they reneg on agreements. The logical solution is to stop playing ball with them and give them nothing. We get nothing for our aid anyway and the balance of forces insures they won't launch a war and will instead just keep ranting and raving.

[lord of the mark]

1. We have agreed to negotiate with them, but insisted on doing so multilaterally rather than unilaterally as they insisted - so that it wouldnt be a "What bribes can the US give them to get them to stop" but a "this is a regional problem and all these guys want you to stop". Giving bribes to nuclear seeking states that you wouldnt give to other states sets a bad precedent, and incentivizes borderline countries to seek nukes. If such bribes must be given, its preferable that they come from locals, not the US, to avoid setting global precedents.

2. They announced this in private earlier. This is only the first time theyve said it in public. They seem to think making announcements like this will get concessions.

3. Sanctions against Iran will certainly not be focused on oil exports - oil is fungible and difficult to sanction, short of a blockade that I think is MOST unlikely. More likely would be sanctions on investments in Iran, which Iran needs to combat its unemployment problem - a problem that threatens the regime. If they are really rational, as some have said, the choice there should be fairly clear. OTOH it may be difficult to get such sanctions passed - even if the EU3 support it, Russia and China might veto.

4. A meaningful US-Iran deal would have to go beyond nukes - if we're going offer them diplo relations, trade, etc theyre going to have to drop support for terror groups that are attempting to derail the Israeli-Pal peace process. I have a hard time seeing the Iranians doing that for anything we'd offer them. I presume we'd have to drop any insistence on human rights reforms inside Iran - which I would find troubling - and from a realpolitik perspective, could harm our relations with the regime that succeeds the Mullahs. Havent we been down that road before?

5. WRT to Nkor - at some point China has to decided whether whatever it gets by supporting NKor is worth a nuclear armed Japan. IF China decides to take on Nkor that regime would go down very fast. So far China, like SKor, has preferred Kim to chaos. Time for China to relook. (Time also for Rice to go to China, and to look at a grand bargain of some kind there - much more valuable than a grand bargain with Iran)

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Now if only America could get a missile defense shield that actually worked.

There is zero need for one for the same reasons there was no need for one against the USSR. The NK has 1-5 nukes and we know their return address so we'd strike back with thousands of nukes. They are silly but not stupid.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
How could the DPRK pull out of talks if we weren't talking with them?

Eventually the administration agreed to inderect discussions with NK, after it had pulled out of the NPT and kicked out thye IAEA. That is a bit too late.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
1. We have agreed to negotiate with them, but insisted on doing so multilaterally rather than unilaterally as they insisted - so that it wouldnt be a "What bribes can the US give them to get them to stop" but a "this is a regional problem and all these guys want you to stop". Giving bribes to nuclear seeking states that you wouldnt give to other states sets a bad precedent, and incentivizes borderline countries to seek nukes. If such bribes must be given, its preferable that they come from locals, not the US, to avoid setting global precedents.

Global precendent? As oposed to the current global precedent, that if you are scary enough, you get to have nukes anyways? Our bribes to them in 1994 do not seem to have pushed anyone towards getting nukes, which remains a singulalrly expensive and diffciult task- only countries that are rich enough or advanced enough even have a chance, and the fact is, once you are in a position to get nukes anyways, by buying or making them locally, you are already more than just some tin pot dictatorship. As for it being preferable for it to come from "locals" (powers like Japan, China, and SK hardly seem just "locals") have their own interests, None of them called NK evil and said them getting nuclear weapons was an utter no-no they would never allow it. It was the US that said that. Essentially you are saying we can speak our ass off and demands others pony up for OUR actions? Not a very wise mode of international relations.

2. They announced this in private earlier. This is only the first time theyve said it in public. They seem to think making announcements like this will get concessions.

Private and public are different things. Private secret, public scandal.

3. Sanctions against Iran will certainly not be focused on oil exports - oil is fungible and difficult to sanction, short of a blockade that I think is MOST unlikely. More likely would be sanctions on investments in Iran, which Iran needs to combat its unemployment problem - a problem that threatens the regime. If they are really rational, as some have said, the choice there should be fairly clear. OTOH it may be difficult to get such sanctions passed - even if the EU3 support it, Russia and China might veto.

China and Russia both have reason to invest in Iran. More importantly, sanctions are likely to fail, in the sense that if they are placed, it just gives the regime a bigger reaosn to speed up its program. Hoping for a counterrevolution in Iran is a poor strategy at best. Its also counterproductive to our aims in the region- I doubt greater Iranian poverty is a boon in any way to Iraq or Afghanistan.

4. A meaningful US-Iran deal would have to go beyond nukes - if we're going offer them diplo relations, trade, etc theyre going to have to drop support for terror groups that are attempting to derail the Israeli-Pal peace process. I have a hard time seeing the Iranians doing that for anything we'd offer them. I presume we'd have to drop any insistence on human rights reforms inside Iran - which I would find troubling - and from a realpolitik perspective, could harm our relations with the regime that succeeds the Mullahs. Havent we been down that road before?

Why drop the HR speak? We have relations with China and we criticize them all the time for humans rights abuses. Our talking about Chinas attorcious HR record has done nothing to make it impossible to work with them. As for what the Iranians are willing to do, you know what? You learn only from asking in the first place. And on your final point- as I said, I find no reason to drop our ciritcisms of their regime or their laws, and there is a huge difference between being the arms dealers and main international backers of a regime (as we are with KSA and Egypt and were with Iran under the Shah) as having an embassy and trade. Do you honeslty think the people of Iran will be anti UK or Anti-German because they trade with the Mullahs as they did with the Shah?

5. WRT to Nkor - at some point China has to decided whether whatever it gets by supporting NKor is worth a nuclear armed Japan. IF China decides to take on Nkor that regime would go down very fast. So far China, like SKor, has preferred Kim to chaos. Time for China to relook. (Time also for Rice to go to China, and to look at a grand bargain of some kind there - much more valuable than a grand bargain with Iran)

Why would China ever chose chaos? Freedom and democracy in NK mean nothing to them- as for a remilitarized and nuclear Japan, well, NK makes a handy trobulemaker and scapegoat, plus, that is great news for the Chinese in the sense that it reoppens the Japanese menace, against which the brave Chinese people must rally around the Party and not rock the boat and endanger national security when it comes to the Japanese. Besides, on that end SK is also opposed to a nuclear Japan, so a remilitarized Japan if anything might help to break the togetherness of the US northwest Asian allies, and make it easier in a sense for China.

And what can we offer China that is more valuable than keeping Korea quiet? Drop support for Taiwan perhaps, or sell them arms?