A while ago I mentioned North Korea as a major international danger. W., I give him credit, placed this rogue state on his "axis of evil." Now we find out that 12 days ago, a North Korean refused to deny to U.S. diplomat that the country has been secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons, and U.S. intelligence has confirmed that it is on its way with a weapons-grade uranium program. South Korea also defiantly announced it was nullifying a nuclear-weapons development treaty with the U.S. And it hinted that it might have other weapons--weapons of mass destruction.

This DANGEROUS, out-of-control, country, which also recently admitted to abducting Japanese citizens, has starved, imprisoned and tortured its own people, repeatedly threatened and launched various forms of attacks against South Korea, and is led by a deranged psychopath who maintains a personality cult. Moreover, members of the U.S. administration say there is no guarantee that North Korea will admit inspectors or give up its program, which it began during the 1990s.

The sort of war that has been proposed against Iraq, if taken to North Korea, would certainly unleash a catastrophe upon populous South Korea, as well as draw China, Russia and possibly Japan into the conflict. North Korea is known to have missiles with an accuracy that would enable it to hit all of the major cities in South Korea, many in China, many in Eastern Russia, and much of northern Japan.

It appears W. and Co. will use diplomacy. Inspections and diplomacy won't work for Iraq, of course, but they'll have to do for North Korea. For now.

NY Times site (subscr. required)
MSNBC Story on North Korea

Seen at http://www.strongsignals.net/access/boards...ortwave&num=342 :

>>
With all else going on, I was still surprised today at the increase in activity on USAF HF nets - and the audible tension in operators voices. Then I heard on the news that North Korea admits to a continuing nuclear wapons program. I wonder, who did they give the nukes to - and where are the bombs now? And what is going on that the news is NOT reporting?
Staying tuned...
<<

"HF" is high frequency. You can hear these transmissions on some shortwave radios.

I suppose if we fail to get Saddam like we failed to get Bin Landen ("dead or alive") we can then go after North Korea - wait, never mind, they dont have oil.

When the N Koreans just came out and said "We're not bound by the treaty" I don't think we should be shocked. After all, we just did that not so long ago with Russia, where we said we weren't going to be bound by treaties with them over nukes.

We have a big problem with double standards--one for us, another for the rest down on the plantation.

If in fact they have been at this for years--where was our intelligence on that? We admit that nothing really has changed with Iraq--yet clearly things are changing in Korea, and we say nothing about it at all, other than placing them [early on] in the "axis of evil."

They have in fact fired test missiles off, and have an acknowledged nuclear program that is very far down the path--and yet all we can do is scream about Iraq. The list of tyrants and repressive regimes is long--and our patience in dealing with them is short, sporadic, hypocritical and confusing. That's why it's difficult to get allies to go along, and get much enthusiasm from the public when intuitively we know there are other bad guys out there, who are benefiting from the lack of a spotlight on them.

"We seek a peaceful resolution to this situation...This is an opportunity for peace-loving nations in the region to deal, effectively, with this challenge." Why wouldn't we say the same for Iraq? "there's been a decision made that the system can take only so much at one time." The System I take to mean more than the military--it's also the public's attention beig diverted away from the drumbeat thumping loudly for Iraq.

Hopefully we'll put our efforts--as well as money--where are mouths are, and not where our trigger [happy?] fingers are, itching for a "Let's roll!" opportunity.

Yes it is hypocritical the way the U.S. would insist that other countries abide by the terms of treaties while declaring that it will not be bound by the treaties it has signed. But in this case I am left to wonder why North Korea would suddenly admit publicly that they are in contravention of the 1994 treaty. What do they have to gain by doing this? It's especially interesting coming so soon after Kim Jong-il's admission regarding the abduction of Japanese citizens 24 years ago, and other recent diplomatic movements by the North Korean leadership. Is this perhaps the beginning of the end-game?

I read this thread only because I was curious how some of the usual suspects would find a way to blame George W. Bush for all of this. I was not disappointed.

So North Korea violates an agreement it entered into with President Clinton (!) in 1994. In fact, it looks like it never had an intention to abide by the agreement and has continually been developing nuclear weapons over the last eight years or so (probably going back earlier). Yet, somehow, this bit of nuclear proliferation is all because in 2001 George W. Bush voided a Cold War relic of a treaty with the now non-existent Soviet Union, all with the approval/acquiescence of the duly elected leader of Russia, the largest surviving contingent of the defunct Soviet Union.

Wow. It must take a PhD in "Blame America First" to do the contortions needed to blame Bush for this.

Not everything bad that happens in this world is the fault of the U.S.A. or George W. Bush. Really. And sometimes -- most times -- we're the force for good. Really.

I think the world would be much better off without the Shrub in the White House, but I can't see where I or any of the other posters have BLAMED him for this situation. Expressing doubts about his competence to handle this is not the same thing as laying blame.

[quote]Originally posted by Charlie in the Trees:
[QB]I read this thread only because I was curious how some of the usual suspects would find a way to blame George W. Bush for all of this. I was not disappointed.[QB]

---

Its good to see that the "usual suspects" are jumping to Dumbya's defense, really.

[quote]Originally posted by Billy:
I think the world would be much better off without the Shrub in the White House, but I can't see where I or any of the other posters have BLAMED him for this situation.

---

First:
[quote]When the N Koreans just came out and said "We're not bound by the treaty" I don't think we should be shocked. After all, we just did that not so long ago with Russia, where we said we weren't going to be bound by treaties with them over nukes.

---

Second:
[quote]Yes it is hypocritical the way the U.S. would insist that other countries abide by the terms of treaties while declaring that it will not be bound by the treaties it has signed.

---

Those are the two examples I had in mind. The implication of these arguments is that other countries break treaties because we break ours. Everything flows from Bush's decision to abrogate the ABM treaty.

I'm sure there will be more to come when the shrill, mindless, Bush-hating harpies show up in this thread. One already has. (And this is NOT a refence to either of the postings I've blocked-cut-and pasted quotes from.)

The guy in the trees:
I'm sure there will be more to come when the shrill, mindless, Bush-hating harpies show up in this thread. One already has. (And this is NOT a refence to either of the postings I've blocked-cut-and pasted quotes from.)


Hmmmmmmmmmmmm, wonder who he's talking about? If all else fails (intelligent dialog ect) start calling names.

Now, wheres my harp?

CITT, Good posts, both. The gymnastics on the left are a wonder to behold, but they can't hold Bush liable for this one. NKorea is a rogue state and shows exactly where Iraq will be in a few years (months?) if it's not stopped NOW!

[quote]I read this thread only because I was curious how some of the usual suspects would find a way to blame George W. Bush for all of this. I was not disappointed.

---

Pointing out hypocrisy isn't the same as placing blame.

[quote]NKorea is a rogue state and shows exactly where Iraq will be in a few years (months?) if it's not stopped NOW!

---

So if North Korea is ahead of Iraq, then why aren't we planning a war to stop North Korea FIRST? Isn't North Korea MORE dangerous?

Maybe they'll start a plan to bomb North Korea three or four months before the 2004 election.

The only nation to use nuclear weapons in war is the US.

The most likely nation to need to use them in the future is Israel.

The best way to stop other countries from using them is to work through the UN, not only to stem poliferation and seek disarmament, but to address grinding poverty and pestilence throughout the world.

IMO countries with more equitable wealth and health distribution, whether through a free market or a socialist one, have less desire for billigerence and greater desire for peace.

BTW, IMO if there is anything in life that is not free it's markets.

[quote]Originally posted by Joe in Philly:
So if North Korea is ahead of Iraq, then why aren't we planning a war to stop North Korea FIRST? Isn't North Korea MORE dangerous?

---

I would say it's because North Korea seems to be ahead of Iraq. That means, through their nuclear buildup, NK has some means of deterrence against invasion. Iraq, it seems, is not quite at that point, which is why we must stop Hussein before he gets there.

This is long, sorry, but here is The New York Times' editorial on the original Clinton-North Korea deal:

Diplomacy with North Korea has scored a resounding triumph. Monday's draft agreement freezing and then dismantling North Korea's nuclear program should bring to an end two years of international anxiety and put to rest widespread fears that an unpredictable nation might provoke nuclear disaster.

The U.S. negotiator Robert Gallucci and his North Korean interlocutors have drawn up a detailed road map of reciprocal steps that both sides accepted despite deep mutual suspicion. In so doing they have defied impatient hawks and other skeptics who accused the Clinton Administration of gullibility and urged swifter, stronger action. The North has agreed first to freeze its nuclear program in return for U.S. diplomatic recognition and oil from Japan and other countries to meet its energy needs. Pyongyang will then begin to roll back that program as an American-led consortium replaces the North's nuclear reactors with two new ones that are much less able to be used for bomb-making. At that time, the North will also allow special inspections of its nuclear waste sites, which could help determine how much plutonium it had extracted from spent fuel in the past.

A last-minute snag, North Korea's refusal to resume its suspended talks with neighboring South Korea, was resolved to Seoul's satisfaction. If Washington and Pyongyang approve the agreement, and if the North fulfills its commitments, this negotiation could become a textbook case on how to curb the spread of nuclear arms.

Hawks, arguing that the North was simply stalling while it built more bombs, had called for economic sanctions or attacks on the North's nuclear installations. The Administration muted the war talk and pursued determined diplomacy.

Reassuring the North paid off in the end. Given the residual mistrust between the two sides, the U.S. will now sensibly provide more tangible reassurance. It is moving toward diplomatic recognition, in the form of an exchange of liaison offices, and economic cooperation, in the form of heavy fuel oil from others in the U.S.-led consortium and the start of construction of new nuclear reactors.

In return, the North will put its nuclear program in a deep freeze by not refueling its nuclear reactor, arranging temporary safe storage of the spent fuel rods removed from that reactor and sealing its reprocessing facility to prevent the extraction of plutonium from those fuel rods. Implementing the freeze and allowing it to be verified are important tests of the North's good faith.

Then, in elaborately choreographed stages detailed in a confidential note, nuclear dismantling will proceed step-by-step with reactor replacement. That gives both sides leverage against reneging. At the end of stage one, with construction of the first reactor well under way but before key nuclear components have been supplied, the North will allow special inspections of its nuclear waste sites.

In stage two, as construction proceeds on the two reactors, the North will gradually ship its 8,000 spent fuel rods abroad for reprocessing. In stage three, as the second replacement reactor nears completion, the North will dismantle all its bomb-making facilities, including its old graphite reactors and reprocessing plant.

Critics say the U.S. is in effect bribing North Korea to comply with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Yet Washington has previously provided inducements to others, including South Korea, to refrain from bomb-making. It has gotten the North to do a lot more than the treaty requires, like dismantle its nuclear installations.

From the start, the hawks' alternative to diplomacy was full of danger. Their solution -- economic sanctions and bombing runs -- might have disarmed North Korea, but only at the risk of war. President Clinton, former President Carter and Mr. Gallucci deserve warm praise for charting a less costly and more successful course.

Way to go, William, Arch-Archivist of the OS Boards! Will the Gray Lady ever live down her shame? More apropos, will she ever even recognize the error of her ways?

In response to a previous post, I fail to see how mild criticism of the Bush administration's foreign policy constitutes "blaming" Bush or the U.S.A. for this situation. That's quite a stretch, unless one considers any criticism of American foreign policy to be "blaming America first". I was not attempting to blame anyone for the current situation; merely I was speculating on the motives of the North Koreans & asking "why now". Additionally, I think it is fair to speculate on the motives of the Bush administration for not revealing this publicly until 12 days after the North Koreans made their admission.

With regard to the balance of power in the Korean peninsula, the reality is that nuclear weapons, in the stratetic sense, are an equalizer. I mean, North Korea is a starving, wretched country that obviously cannot go on forever as it now is. But because of its weaponry, the end game, whenever it comes, could likely be quite messy. A wild card is that China might consider it to be in its interest to prop up the regime indefinitely, as a counterbalance to the 37,000 U.S. troops in the DMZ. We can't just make threats, issue ultimatums, drop bombs, etc. because they have the power to fight back and create massive destruction. Even considering the North Koreans' track record, diplomacy, in my opinion, is still preferable to an immensely destructive war.

Looks like today's ally, Pakistan, supplied NK with the technology they needed to build their nuclear program.

Makes one kinda pine for the good ole day stability of the Cold War ...

I had to restart this thread given the recent actions by North Korea. Their contravention their treaties with the U.S. and international covenants, their stated intention to resume their nuclear weapons program, and their history of bellicosity towards South Korea and Japan all point to a necessity by the U.S. to take stronger action. I'm not calling for a war, but I have to ask: what should we do?

My partner thinks the U.S. should launch a lightning strike to disable NK's nuclear facilities, neutralize its army and depose its deranged leadership, but I told him I think the U.S. military fears a real catastrophe if NK thinks it has nothing to lose, no matter how successful the U.S.'s attack ultimately turned out to be. NK is not Afghanistan. It has lethal missiles aimed at Japan and South Korea (and could hit targets in Russia and China), and might not hesitate to use them. Even one nuclear weapon or biological weapon aimed at a target in Korea or Japan could create a disaster of untold proportions.

What should the U.S. do? Diplomacy isn't working now, but it might work with added pressure from NK's neighbor China.

Who the hell are we to decide which scummy countries can have nuclear weapons? As Alexander Cockburn recently offered, no nation should have two nukes til everyone has one...

Part of the problem is the divergence of ideas as to how to deal with North Korea among other nations. China, Russia, and most of the EU want to negotiate with NK--keep it a part of the "global community" (I hate that term--makes me think of a coffee klatsch) while the US, under Bush, favors isolating NK. Until there can be some sort of consensus, progress will be difficult.

Bottom line, in my opinion, the US and NK will negotiate--but call it something else--and the US will supply cash/food/supplies in exchange for NK's cooperation, though we won't call it "blackmail" or "quid pro quo." Finding appropriate terms for these things is why diplomats get the big bucks.

~Adam

More strangeness from this rogue state:

Yahoo!: North Korea Quits Non-Proliferation Treaty

1-So the Clinton administration made a deal with NK.

2-NK cheated on the deal.

3-In response the Clinton administration cheated back.

Enter the Bush administration.

Who changed the status quo between NK and Clinton administrations stalemate inherited by the Bush administration?

4-It seems the Bush administration decided that the waffling of the Clinton adminstration was bad policy and blustered (declaring NK one third of an axis of evil and further by taking obvious actions toward an imminent attack on another third of the Axis of Evil which though not a direct threat to NK might reasonably be interpreted as an indirect one. Or did NK do something to provoke the Bush administration into blustering?)

In response NK blusters (openly admitting breaking treaties that it had secretly been breaking anyhow).

So now we're in an ever escalating state of blustering toward god only knows what.

Maybe what we need is some kind of effective bluster management.

This is just more of The Sink Emperor's (Clinton) legacy to the country.

Thank goodness he's gone.

"The Sink Emperor"??? What. ever.

At any rate, W. is approaching NK quite gingerly now, since they appear to want to be babied and catered to. They even claimed--I'm not making this up--that they didn't get any response from the Bush administration when they made overtures. But Governor Richardson--as if he doesn't have enough to do--sang them some lullabies and now they're ready, at least till the diplomatic Ritalin wears off, to negotiate. Or something.

And with the mess in Venezuela and the steady troop building in the Persian Gulf and all the coddling the nation is going to have to do with our "allies" over there, we can't afford to have a wacked out, weapons-of-mass-destruction-possessing rogue state trying out some of its many missiles on its neighbors (Russia, China, South Korea, Japan....).

Uh oh...Seymour Hersh, no fan of Clinton, JFK, or many liberals, has written up quite a piece on what the Bush administration knew (quite a bit) and sat on concerning North Korea.

It turns out that our dear friend PAKISTAN has been assisting North Korea in its nuclear quest by providing centrifuges, enrichment technology transfer, test data, and so much more....

Seymour Hersh's New Yorker article

From the article:

"The Administration's fitful North Korea policy, with its mixture of anger and seeming complacency, is in many ways a consequence of its unrelenting focus on Iraq. Late last year, the White House released a national-security-strategy paper authorizing the military "to detect and destroy an adversary's WMD assets"—weapons of mass destruction—"before these weapons are used." The document argued that the armed forces "must have the capability to defend against WMD-armed adversaries . . . because deterrence may not succeed." Logically, the new strategy should have applied first to North Korea, whose nuclear-weapons program remains far more advanced than Iraq's. The Administration's goal, however, was to mobilize public opinion for an invasion of Iraq."

Though s©hrub called the North Korea crisis--CRISIS--"regional," it's actually much more serious, far graver, than he makes out.

Within the last two weeks, North Korea sent a fighter to breach South Korean airspace, and fired a test missile into the Sea of Japan on the day South Korea's president was inaugurated. Its top general has said he's ready for war. W. mentioned Japan, China and Russia as mediators, but the latter two are now opposed to the war in Iraq and increasingly alienated by our hostile, brutish form of diplomacy.

Peter Beinart in TNR sees this is a VERY, VERY serious situation: supposedly North Korea could build a nuclear bomb a month between now and June, to supplement the two or so it is thought to have, and it has spoken repeatedly about its missiles having the capacity to reach the coast of Alaska or the Pacific states....


Beinart: Horrors in NK

Nothing to see here, this is a "regional" problem, move along, move along.

Well, the "regional" problem is more serious still. It turns out that the North Korean fighter jets that intercepted that unarmed U.S. spy plane aimed TO TAKE HOSTAGES! The Korean pilots actually wanted to lure the Americans to North Korea where they could capture them!

The Pentagon admits that it wasn't prepared for the attempted hostage situation, and didn't scramble fighters for 22 minutes (shades of 9/11, when it took the Air Force HOURS to get planes in the air, which allowed the hijackers to wreak their deadly crimes). What's up with our Air Force? Why are we not on the highest alert with North Korea? What kind of game is W. trying to play, and why isn't he taking this all more seriously?

Furthermore, today North Korea declared another three-day exclusion zone in the Sea of Japan so that they could again FIRE an anti-ship missile, as they did on February 25. Does Kim Jong-Il and his military really want a war with the U.S. that badly? Are they that offended by the Bush administration's inept diplomacy? Are they so needy that they don't want to force W. to divert his attention from Iraq? Are they willing to risk nuclear obliteration just to get the U.S. to the negotiating table?

I don't get it, I really don't. Can someone please explain what these folks are up to?

[ March 07, 2003, 11:28 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]