North Korea Returns To The Table

EmperorKagato writes, "North Korea has agreed to rejoin the Six Party Talks on its nuclear weapons program. The sanctions placed against North Korea on October 9, 2006 will remain in place; however, financial sanctions will be addressed by the group of the six nations: North Korea, China, Japan, United States, Russia, and South Korea."

Comments

What else is new?

[boxturtleme]

It's all happened before. Nothing new under the sun...

Re:What else is new?

[jmccay]

This time Bush didn't give North Korea nuclear technology like Clinton did in the 1990s. Bush got help from China to cut off North Korea's money--completely.

Re:What else is new?

[KenStech]

Yah I agree.

The NK and their Chinese patrons love to jerk our chain. China loves to use NK as a proxy in what they see as their conflict with the West, and they will continue to do so as long as it serves their purposes. Ken

Re:What else is new?

[Shakrai]

This time Bush didn't give North Korea nuclear technology like Clinton did in the 1990s. Bush got help from China to cut off North Korea's money--completely.

Clinton gave them nuclear technology that could not be used to make weapons. It's worth noting that they honored their end of the agreement until Bush went and included them in the "Axis of Evil" state of the union speech. That's when they started working on weapons again. Given that under Bush, we seem to invade countries that don't have nukes (Iraq), while engaging in a dialog with those that do (North Korea) or those that are close (Iran), I can't really say that I blame them.

If you want to throw out a cheap shot at Clinton at least have the decency to tell the whole story.

Re:What else is new?

[soft_guy]

They didn't actually get any nuclear power. Bush got into office and canceled the deal before they got anything.

Re:What else is new?

[gtall]

They started working on the weapons again in 1999.

China's Trump Card

[Phoenixhunter]

I really don't understand the intricacies of international diplomacy, but from what I gather (as well as what has been presented) China has almost complete control over North Korea's wellbeing in every respect. Are these six-way talks really just another way of saying China + North Korea versus Japan, USA, South Korea, and Russia?

Re:China's Trump Card

[stoolpigeon]

i don't think so. i think that china is more motivated to play nice with the rest of the world. they wont just follow the lead of the other nations, but i think having them involved certainly raises the chances of success in these talks.

Re:China's Trump Card

[pkcs11]

China is actually siding with the US on these issues.
  Whereas the odd men out are North & South Korea.
  China & the US want deeper sanctions, South Korea and Japan are very tentative...both nations have seen the direct ravages of wars in recent memory and aren't going to be quick to adjucate against North Korea.

Re:China's Trump Card

[radarjd]

As I understand it, China doesn't take the hardest line on North Korea because 1) China gets a good deal of trade from NK and more importantly 2) China is concerned about thousands or millions of refugees pouring over their border. Check out a recent Time article at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1 549298,00.html

Re:China's Trump Card

[Archangel Michael]

Actually, Koreans and Japanese do not get along very well.

China and Russia kinda do, kinda don't, leaning towards do.

Japan and USA have decent relations.

Japan and Russia are mixed as well, tending towards not more than do.

China and USA have mixed relations, tending towards not, except for trade.

USA and Russia have mixed relations, tending towards strained.

North Korea is an island. China has the most control, but is reluctant to deal with NK mainly to keep the hordes of refugees from crossing into China. Whatever China does, it is designed to keep NK stable enough to keep NK people in NK.

So, the six party talks are kinda interesting as each of the six parties has a different priority and concern with respect to NK. Also, Six party talks are much harder to claim "misunderstanding" in negotiated treaties.

The biggest problem is that nobody trusts the US, not necissarily because of GWB, but because of the US' status as SuperPower.

Re:China's Trump Card

[eln]

That's not what I've been hearing at all. The US wants deep sanctions, and Japan has already implemented deep sanctions. The Chinese want sanctions, but also want North Korea to remain stable. Sanctions that cut too deep could cause instability within the North Korean government, and China would rather have a stable dictatorship with nuclear weapons on its border than an unstable failed state with nuclear weapons there. Obviously, the South Koreans are trying to balance the need to look strong with the need to avoid poking the hornet's nest right next to them.

Open war with North Korea is impossible, and they know it. Even without nukes, North Korea has the ability to basically flatten Seoul before we could do anything about it with conventional weapons, and trying to hit them with nukes would be just as bad or worse for the South Koreans. It is a very sticky situation, and North Korea is bargaining from a much stronger position than anyone likes to admit.

Re:China's Trump Card

[Kelson]

Yep. China's got business reasons to interact with other nations. North Korea is pretty much isolated (mostly by choice). As long as Tony Soprano^W^WKim Jong Il can bring in enough through the black market to keep himself and his lieutenants happy, they have nothing to lose by pissing off the rest of the world.

Re:China's Trump Card

[diersing]

Simply put, without China there is little chance of success.

They HAVE to be involved, they are the only ones who seem to have the ear of Kim Jong-il. China provides significant assistance to North Korea and without it their economic slide (read famine) would be much worse then it already is (although, at this time China is keen to keep North Koreans in North Korea rather then pouring over the boarder into China). Kim is till the crux of the issue and when he only gives China 20 minutes notice of a nuclear test, he's straining their relationship.

Re:China's Trump Card

[jason210]

AS I understand it whats really happening is that N. Korea only wants to talk to the U.S. because in the past when they have pulled stuff we have given them money to stop. We are not willign to do that this time and so have only agreed to meet with them when All countries directly impacted by the situation are present for the talks.

Re:China's Trump Card

[Anonymous Coward]

The biggest problem is that nobody trusts the US, not necissarily because of GWB, but because of the US' status as SuperPower.

Thank you for not putting the "it's all Bush's fault in there"

Your statement is VERY true. But, remember, we are NOT the sole super power. Russia has nukes as well. NK is NOT a super power.

The Super Powers really need to look in the mirror and basically tell this rogue states to get in line with the 21st century! This psycho should not have nukes, period!

Re:China's Trump Card

[antifoidulus]

But what are China's long term plans for North Korea? They cannot keep this regime teetering on the brink forever. It seems like they have tried to prod Kim Jong Il into some Deng Xiaoping-esque reforms with special economic zones and whatnot, but then without warning the North Koreans will either scrap the program altogether or severely reduce it. How can China bring about a gradual change to a more sustainable North Korea? Is it even possible?

Nobody wants an overnight reunification like happened in Germany because although the East German economy was dilapidated, it wasn't nearly as bad as the North Korean economy. Though one big thing preventing such a reunion is the DMZ. Germans just had a wall, there are tons and tons of land mines between the Koreas. So how can you convince a person who resists change with every bone in his body to adopt gradual reform? The other option is for Kim to meet an unfortunate "accident" but that would just expedite the collapse, not to mention run a significant chance of war(conventional or nuclear).

Kim Jong Il is aware that the only person who can win in this situation is Kim Jong Il, and he is playing his hand well(well meaning good for him, obviously not good for his people or the world community)

Re:China's Trump Card

[SnowZero]

They can easily lie to us in direct talks (so can we, for that matter), but they can't really lie while in front of China. China wields far too much power over NK. That's why they hate the idea of the six-party talks; When all the neighbors are included, there won't be a way to weasel out. Russia and China are content to move quite slowly however, as NK's annoyance of the US and Japan isn't seen as a negative. As an analogy, how much do you care if your neighbor's uncontrollable dog is threatening someone you don't like?

Re:China's Trump Card

[Citizen of Earth]

but i think having them involved certainly raises the chances of success in these talks.

I'd say they make the chances of success about five times as likely. Of course, five times zero is still zero.

Re:China's Trump Card

[LifesABeach]

It amazes me to see China dumping so much money into North Korea so that proxy militants can build bombs in Iran. The end result will speed the planet to the Hydrogen Dollar, Robotic Farms, Robotic Factories, and Cheaper Internet Connections. China should not fear nationalistic aggreassors, but the Cell Phone, a pair of Levis, and the MG Model F.

Re:China's Trump Card

[Citizen of Earth]

China would rather have a stable dictatorship with nuclear weapons on its border than an unstable failed state with nuclear weapons there.

I think you mean "China would rather have an unstable failed state with nuclear weapons on its border than a collapsed failed state with nuclear weapons there."

Re:China's Trump Card

[jfengel]

That's a hell of a question. Kim is only 65, and he's got years left in him. So as far as I can tell, the Chinese are content to leave him there until he dies and not try to come up with a strategy for an event ten years or more off. In all likelihood he's got an equally egomaniacal successor in the wings.

Presumably they have an emergency plan should he die sooner (or perhaps if they find he should need to die sooner), but they're content with the status quo. Kim pisses off the US but costs China very little. They have no interest in reforming him.

A nuclear North Korea shifts the balance in a way that the Chinese probably won't like (since it makes an already twitchy US more likely to invade, forcibly reuinfiying Korea and giving the US a firmer base on China's doorstep). So China wants to get the North Koreans back to the six-party talks, which is exactly where things have been for a decade.

Re:China's Trump Card

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

China is the closest thing to a friend North Korea has but they don't seem to have a lot of practical influence. China doesn't want to shut off power, food, or whatnot because then they'd have a failed state and a refugee problem on their border.

North Korea's usual demand has been bilateral talks, just NK and the US. If there's a rational reason, something you should never take for granted with those people, the reason would be that they'd feel more pressure if all the neighbors were on one side of the table.

Re:China's Trump Card

[Anonymous Coward]

trying to hit them with nukes would be just as bad or worse for the South Koreans

Maybe. A couple of tactical nukes to take out the artillery aimed at Seoul would probably not be very devastating to SK for fallout as long as they are all under the ~10Kt range. But it is a risky gamble. Even with the artillery defeated there is a possibility that NK could fly a plane and nuke Seoul or Tokyo, though it is unlikely. And their missiles could also cause significant damage (though fortunately it doesn't look like they can miniaturize the nukes to put them on the missiles). But perhaps the greatest threat from NK isn't nukes--it is their chemical and biological weapons.

To put it bluntly, our options suck. The only way that we can have a reasonable assurance of no counterattack would be a massive conventional and nuclear first strike (>100 bombs and missiles) so that we know that we've destroyed their NBC WMDs. The fallout in this case would hit both SK and China hard.

Re:China's Trump Card

[Captain Splendid]

Jesus, it's a Friedman cultist. Look, the almighty dollar will not make verything better. I'll agree it smooths things over, but International free trade is not going to save the world.

Re:China's Trump Card

[stoolpigeon]

that's what i'm afraid of. i think they'll get this worked out the day after the peace process is succesful in the middle east -- which is highly rumored to coincide with the release of duke nukem forever.

Re:China's Trump Card

[lucabrasi999]

China would rather have a stable dictatorship with nuclear weapons on its border than an unstable failed state with nuclear weapons there.

From what I have heard, the worst-case scenario (from the Chinese point of view) is not a failed North Korea (although the idea of having millions of Koreans pouring into China isn't a fun one for the Chinese). In fact, the last thing the Chinese want is North Korea turning into a stable democracy, united with South Korea, while continuing host 50,000 US Troops. Sort of the same way Russia isn't too happy that the US, since September 11th, has troops based in the Central Asia 'Stan countries.

Re:China's Trump Card

[Thaelon]

Sanctions could work.

I won't be pretty, and it won't be nice, but it could work.

If you starve them to the point that even the soldiers begin feeling the effects, they'll eventually turn on their own government and topple it in order to get food. Especially if we bombard them with propaganda to counter the inevitable "those westerners are evil and they're the ones starving you!" propaganda.

Like I said, not pretty, and not nice, but it could work. I don't think anyone is willing to go that far though.

Re:China's Trump Card

[inviolet]

Look, the almighty dollar will not make verything better. I'll agree it smooths things over, but International free trade is not going to save the world.

It will in one sense:

People who are wealthy enough to live in safety and comfort will develop an aversion to violence, all else being equal. It's the guy who's got nothing to lose who is the most dangerous.

Re:China's Trump Card

[Moofie]

Could be worse. Could be an objectivist.

(I use the lowercase o because it annoys them.)

Re:China's Trump Card

[Mad Marlin]

Actually the problem is that we can't really offer or threaten anything, which is why they want to only negotiate with us. The only thing we can offer is aid that we probably wouldn't give anymore, and we can't really threaten anything less than total annihilation. China can make all sorts of economic modifications relative to North Korea though, and that could actually matter to them.

Re:China's Trump Card

[Anonymous Coward]

Open war is not impossible, and while casualties would be high, The South Korean war machine would turn the north into a fine paste.

They use our weapons sytems and our tactics. The ROKMC are bona-fide bad-asses who are aching to kill something.

Re:China's Trump Card

[Yvanhoe]

I really don't understand the intricacies of international diplomacy

Diplomats are useful when the weather is fine. When it rains, however, they tend to drown in every raindrop.
Charles de Gaulle

Re:China's Trump Card

[mfrank]

It'd take 20 years and a horrendous drain on the South Korean economy before they get to that state. It's been 15 years since Germany reunited, and they're still having problems, and NK is a hell of a lot more of a basket case than East Germany was. Do you think China would mind South Korea devoting its resources to fixing North Korea instead of to manufacturing exports? Hell, it'll take 'em a decade just to rebuild Seoul after North Korea collapses.

Re:China's Trump Card

[Archangel Michael]

"Thank you for not putting the "it's all Bush's fault in there""

Your welcome. I am not one of the typical (R) good (D) bad kinda people (or the other way around). The problems of the US view cannot be fully placed on GWB, although he is PART of the problem.

The problems go back WAY further, probably 100-150 years, which is far and above the average attention span of the American Populace (I think its down to slightly above that of a goldfish).

In this case the situation with NK can be traced back to AT LEAST the 1950s.

Re:China's Trump Card

[Bing Tsher E]

What's that? An Ayn-Rand-fiend who takes that stuff seriously?? I thought that had died out.

Re:China's Trump Card

[holdenholden]

Well, you are partly right.

China is playing very intelligently. On one hand they want to show that they don't condone North Korea's actions and that they still support the non-proliferation treaty. On the other hand, North Korea is in such a strategic place. It is the only barrier between the US troops in South Korea and China. Obviously China would like to prevent North and South Korea from uniting, and the current situation is a step in the direction that China approves of. On the other hand, while everybody is watching North Korea, China can quietly move its prior claims towards Taiwan.

The Chinese are smart and know that they can crush North Korea if they want to (economically speaking), so they let them loose just as long as they are playing the music that China wants to hear. The rest is just verbiage.

Re:China's Trump Card

[dbIII]

China has almost complete control over North Korea's wellbeing in every respect.

That's almost as ignorant as suggesting that the USA has total control over French policy. It's not even as if Chinese citizens no matter how well connected can wander about North Korea at will. As about the only country that communicates with the paranoid regime and the only country that sells them things like oil (at a serious mark up) they do have influence, but that is not the same as control. This childish "with us or in an organised conspiracy against us" attitude is far too common in a lot of areas. Someone is bound to try to link me to North Korea for pointing out the bleeding obvious because they think that pits me against them.

Re:China's Trump Card

[scatters]

>North Korea is an island

I hope you mean that metaphorically, because geographically speaking, how can I put this... it's not, its a peninsula.

It shares a 1416km border with China, and a 19km border with Russia.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos /kn.html

Re:China's Trump Card

[anaesthetica]

Are these six-way talks really just another way of saying China + North Korea versus Japan, USA, South Korea, and Russia?

More like: North Korea vs. China & South Korea & Russia vs. United States & Japan.

China, South Korea, and Russia are not supportive of North Korean nukes, but usually play the role of softening whatever proposals the U.S. and Japan have -- saying, let's wait on sanctions, let's wait on firm statements, let's wait on everything else, let's walk softly now, let's not rush to anything, let's get them back to the negotiation table.

China, South Korea, and Russia place prevention of a North Korean collapse ahead of prevention of a nuclear North Korea. Hence the results we have today.

Re:China's Trump Card

[Shakrai]

As an analogy, how much do you care if your neighbor's uncontrollable dog is threatening someone you don't like?

A lot if that someone I don't like is a huge part of my paycheck. How much of China's economy now depends on exports to the United States?

Re:China's Trump Card

[Shakrai]

People who are wealthy enough to live in safety and comfort will develop an aversion to violence, all else being equal.

Have you ever been to the United States? (And yeah, I'm an American, so I can make that joke!)

It's the guy who's got nothing to lose who is the most dangerous.

Yeah, your right. I had to be a wiseass though :)

Re:China's Trump Card

[Shakrai]

The problems go back WAY further, probably 100-150 years, which is far and above the average attention span of the American Populace (I think its down to slightly above that of a goldfish).

Explain to me what we did 100 to 150 years ago that pissed off the World? The emergence of the American superpower didn't happen until after WW2 as I recall history.

The only things I can think of would be the Mexican-American or Spanish-American wars. But if you look at the context of that time I think you'll find that the United States was hardly unique in imposing our will on weaker nations. Yet I don't hear anybody bashing the British/Germans/French/Spanish that much.

I suspect the reason that most people have for anti-American feelings is more related to what we did in the name of fighting communism, what we've done/are doing to secure our energy supplies and what we are doing in the name of fighting terrorism.

But by all means, please point out what the United States did a hundred years ago to piss you off so much.

Re:China's Trump Card

[Shakrai]

Maybe. A couple of tactical nukes to take out the artillery aimed at Seoul would probably not be very devastating to SK for fallout as long as they are all under the ~10Kt range. But it is a risky gamble.

The power of NK's artillery is vastly overstated. Most of the pieces that can hit Seoul are fixed (i.e: we know where they are) and between counter-battery fire and airstrikes would be silenced within the first hour or so of open warfare. Would Seoul be hit? Sure. Would it be flattened into a modern day version of Stalingrad or Sarajevo? Not likely. You don't even need tactical nukes. The US and SK have plans for this.

Even with the artillery defeated there is a possibility that NK could fly a plane and nuke Seoul or Tokyo, though it is unlikely

Not when their nuclear technology is more primitive then Little Boy or Fat Man. Do they even have a plane that could carry such a weapon? Moot point in any case -- the South and Japan both boast modern air defenses. The North's air force is largely obsolete.

And their missiles could also cause significant damage

Their missiles aren't very accurate and can't be used for anything other then a modern day version of the V-1/V-2 terror bombing campaigns. The military value would be nil.

To put it bluntly, our options suck. The only way that we can have a reasonable assurance of no counterattack would be a massive conventional and nuclear first strike (>100 bombs and missiles) so that we know that we've destroyed their NBC WMDs. The fallout in this case would hit both SK and China hard.

Our options completely suck. Yet the military situation isn't as bad as most people make it out to be. The North can't win a war -- all it can do is make the South lose one by inflicting unacceptable losses. It's not a sure bet that they can do this -- the South and the US have plans in place to deal with the biggest threats from the North. And for the fallout I'd worry less about China and the South and more about Japan -- that's where it would go. It's debatable whether or not modern nukes (in airburst mode) would generate an unacceptable amount of fallout. But it's all moot anyway. It's not going to happen.

Re:China's Trump Card

[24-bit Voxel]

Personally I think the reason for all the anti-Americanism is the wild capitalism we export. Making money is the only thing and that causes concern as the old cultural values and communities are slowly being whitewashed with nothing but consumerism. Being only a few hundred years old with no common heritage (being the melting pot) it is hard for us to understand a culture of thousands of years.

There used to be a line between culture and profits but that slowly disappeared during the 80's. Now some would argue that unrestrained profiteering is our culture, and that is precisely the problem. It need not be the case.

While our government is claiming to bring democracy to the Middle East, it is very evident that what they are really bringing is shopping malls, KFC, and Gap stores. I'm guessing that importing consumerism under the false pretense of democracy is the big issue here, and one that the world seems to be able to see right through with the exception of the American people.

That being said, I don't know what happened 150 years ago to harbor the resentment, but it is easy for powerful orgainizations to sway public opinion, as we all know.

Re:China's Trump Card

[RockDoctor]

i think they'll get this worked out the day after the peace process is succesful in the middle east -- which is highly rumored to coincide with the release of duke nukem forever.

Oh, I wouldn't be so pessimistic. I used to be quite pessimistic about getting the UK's internal war solved, particularly after it had been going on for 15 odd years, but for the last 20 years since then, that war has been dieing away as people have found something resembling hope. And as people on both sides of the civil war have found that they've something to lose by continuing the war, and something to gain by stopping the war. Another couple of decades and the UK may have grounds to claim that that internal war is effectively over. Say, 35 years after the first glimmerings of hope appeared.
On that basis, with the continuing downward spirals in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq ... we might hope for something resembling peace in the Middle East somewhere around 50 years from now. Unless someone does something silly like propping up the Saudi government when it's on the verge of crumbling into all-out civil war. Or invading another country in the region.
Surely Duke Nukem Forever will be released in less than 50 years?

Re:China's Trump Card

[somersault]

Ahhh, because then they'll all just be playing DukeMatch.. why has nobody else thought of this?

/me wonders again about trying to join 3D Realms as a developer just to see if it really is going to get a DNF.

Re:China's Trump Card

[somersault]

What on earth are you talking about? Northern Ireland? What other parts of the UK have this 'internal war', or are you talking about football?

Re:China's Trump Card

[Archangel Michael]

"Explain to me what we did 100 to 150 years ago that pissed off the World?"

Exactly my point. You don't know, and can't think of anything. I can think of at least TWO events that are part of the trend.

Teddy Roosevelt's "Speak softly, carry a big stick" (1901) which was his take on .... .... Monroe Doctrine (1820s).

And that is off the top of my head.

Re:China's Trump Card

[RockDoctor]

Northern Ireland? What other parts of the UK have this 'internal war',

Wasn't exactly hard to work it out, was it?
"Internal war" seemed more appropriate than "civil war" because the divisions were (are, still) between people on the basis of their family history and (to a lesser degree) religious opinions, rather than political affiliation, as in the case of the civil war of the 1600s. Unlike the 1600s, the conflict in Ireland in general, and Northern Ireland in particular, has had very little of the "brother against brother" conflicts. Most often it's been neighbour against neighbour, or one end of the street against the other end of the street. The relativly small number of cross-(social)-border friendships is still a marker of concern, but as differences between the communities are (slowly) eroding, there is some hope of the violence completely dieing away within a couple of generations more.
Unlike the Middle East. No sign of rapprochement between the various communities there, just more of the oh-so-successful "peace" walls.

Re:China's Trump Card

[Shakrai]

Teddy Roosevelt's "Speak softly, carry a big stick" (1901) which was his take on .... .... Monroe Doctrine (1820s).

I don't think it's fair to cite the Monroe Doctrine or TRs reimplementation of it as a legitimate reason to hate Americans. Take it in the context of that time period. The first thing any history or anthropology student learns is that it's a mistake to judge the past by the standards of today.

You want to quote the Monroe Doctrine as a reason to hate Americans? Then why don't people hate the French? As recently as the 60s the French were busy trying to retain a colonial empire. As recently as the 50s the French and British attempted to steal a national asset belonging to a sovereign nation. Yet I don't hear people denouncing them as loudly as I hear them denouncing the United States.

Don't throw events from 100 years ago in my face. If you want to debate the merits of recent history then go right ahead.

Re:China's Trump Card

[fredrik70]

actually china is on the side with the rest of the guys here, even if they play mediator. they currently got a neighbour that is higly unstable and now got nukes, all they want is to disarm the situation nad make everything nice and quiet. should they think of military intervention? think again, North Korea got an conventional army of around 1.4 million soldiers. diplomatic solution would be better, since the leaders of the country might play the power mad game, but they ain't stupid.

Re:China's Trump Card

[somersault]

I guess I can't complain too much about Americans not knowing what's going on in the UK if I didn't realise there was still a major problem over in NI (though my flatmate and my sisters' flatmate were both from there, but we never really talked about the issues, maybe just talked about it still being not-the-safest place to live). More of a mini cold war than a 'civil war' possibly?

Re:China's Trump Card

[RockDoctor]

I guess I can't complain too much about Americans not knowing what's going on in the UK if I didn't realise there was still a major problem over in NI

Compared to fifteen years ago, or even 10 years ago, it's a lot quieter. there are still plenty of people around with guns and bad attitudes, but they've mostly lost their political posturing and are pretty exposed for the criminals they are. There's also a small proportion of psychopaths too. But it does seem to be calming down. The related religious bigotry over here in sunny <G> Scotland seems to be slowly declining too. There's even moves afoot to try to increase the amount of cross-(social &/or religious)-border schooling, which is recognised as a death-knell for professional bigotry on both sides. Grounds for optimism, but not grounds for complacency.

Re:China's Trump Card

[somersault]

Hmm I didn't even notice your sig, I'm in Aberdeen too :p I used to live near Glasgow, and pretty much learned to dislike pr0 football from all the bigotry and stuff going on there.

Re:China's Trump Card

[RockDoctor]

I'm in Aberdeen too :p I used to live near Glasgow

Does that mean that you'll be along to the AberLUG meeting on Sunday?
I'm almost certain to still be offshore. ... [reviews logging program]. Delete "almost".

Re:China's Trump Card

[RockDoctor]

Aww bugger, forgot the closing /blockquote tags.

Re:China's Trump Card

[pkcs11]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/FK24Dg03.html

Re:China's Trump Card

[Archangel Michael]

"I don't think it's fair to cite the Monroe Doctrine or TRs reimplementation of it as a legitimate reason to hate Americans."

Doesn't matter if it's fair or not, that is the fact. One can easily establish the idea of "American Imperialism" from these threaded events, and their continued expansion over the years.

"Then why don't people hate the French? "

Many people do, just Google "French Military Victories" (I'm feeling lucky). People don't "hate" the French as much as the US mainly because the French aren't a scary super power, capable of defeating just about any other army in the world.

More Reasons to Hate Us

[eldavojohn]

The sanctions placed against North Korea on October 9, 2006 will remain in place ...

That's just super. Because, Kim Jong Il's about to crack. That's what everyone's saying. And that's what they've been saying for the past fifteen years--any minute now. Who's really hurting in the meantime? The people.

Economic sanctions aren't going to hurt him, they're just going to make the poor poorer. Kim Jong Il keeps his Generals and powerful friends happy with presents and they, in turn, keep him in power despite the stupid things he's doing and preaching. Do you hope to restrict trade so far that he can't give the top dogs presents and they take him out with a coup? Good luck.

So what effect will our sanctions have?

Oh, they'll destabilize a nation that has nuclear weapons. Great idea.

It'll give people and nations an example of us starving another nation. Another great idea.

I'm not saying the sanctions are a bad idea, I'm just saying that there's gotta be a better way to pressure this guy--and I don't mean militarily. How about we increase worthless goods like blankets & food & water and only keep out things like cognac & caviar? How about we freely distribute unbiased publications of the history of Asia and the Korean peninsula? Come on, use your imagination here, you're a freaking government!

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[Anonymous Coward]

you don't think he'd take the food and blankets? it'd be like cigarettes in prision with the new currency being blankets and food.

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[ConceptJunkie]

But wait, if you are arguing that sanctions won't work against North Korea, you'd have to conclude they wouldn't have worked against places like Iraq or Cuba.

Oh, wait, they didn't...

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[ArcherB]

You are correct, sanctions do not work, they never do. As far as NKorea goes, diplomacy does not work either, the Clinton admin tried it and it didn't work. What does that leave us? I'm afraid that military may be the only option left in NK. Unfortunately, it seems as if they are begging for it.

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[rlp]

How about we freely distribute unbiased publications of the history of Asia and the Korean peninsula?

In a country where radios can only tune in Government run stations, I'm sure Kim will allow foreign publications to be freely distributed. Damn unlikely.

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[Kelson]

Sanctions only seem to work if the people in charge of the target country give a damn about the citizenry or economy. If all they care about is being in control, rather than being in charge of a nation that actually has some prestige, they'll just siphon off the country's own supplies to make up the difference.

And then there's the rhetorical win: "See, that country is trying to prevent you from having food and shelter! Aren't they evil!"

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[Tweekster]

Economic sanctions will do nothing, since his entire country is funded by heroin, and other illegal trafficking

Basically Butterball's country is the equivalent of a nation state run by the sopranos.

Why doesnt China simply kill him, and his top echelons of leadership.

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's what they've been saying for the past fifteen years--any minute now.

15? Cuba's been under sanctions for the past 40 years. People keep insisting that any day now the poor disheveled masses will overthrow their communist government, but I suspect that when mothers tell their children "sorry, there is no dinner tonight because the US will not trade with us", their government is not the one young men dream about.

Any day now, Castro will die, and the people who insist that sanctions will spread democracy and freedom will have completely failed. Even so, we will probably continue to sanction North Korea, will probably sanction Iran (hey, it worked real well for Iraq, didn't it), and whatever countries dare to cross whatever the line of the day is, all to the cry of "we must do something, this is something, therefore it must be done!".

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[Vancorps]

I think the ultimate goal with sanctions is to make the North Korean people suffer now so that they will take control of their government through revolution. If their leadership is clearly not taking care of them the North Korean people should get pissed off.

Although the approach makes logical sense it seems as though revolution isn't really possible these days especially in a place like NK. Sanctions end up only harming the people you are ultimately trying to push to help themselves. Of course sanctions also prevent countries from importing goods needed to create nuclear reactors and such but when they are poorly implemented which is the case with NK you have a complete failure scenario. So then what is the proper course of action? Go in and assassinate the generals and KJ himself? And then watch the power vacuum consume a nation for 30 years?

I'm not sure of the right solution, everything we've tried has failed. We tried fighting them a long time ago and that war never ended.

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[Vancorps]

We tried the military option before and failed.

Next

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[lixee]

Economic sanctions aren't going to hurt him, they're just going to make the poor poorer.

Exactly! Pretty much in the same way the sanctions didn't hurt Saddam Hussein.

The US must take this opportunity to show a bit of good will. Remember, the Iranians are watching...

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[ConceptJunkie]

I think the ultimate goal with sanctions is to make the North Korean people suffer now so that they will take control of their government through revolution

The NK people are already suffering more than just about any nation in the world.

If they haven't done this already, then I think it's fair to say they can't.

I don't have an answer either, but penalizing starving peasants is never the right thing.

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[Marxist Hacker 42]

If you had to worship a dwarf with a bad hairdo who uses human beings as pixels in his giant-screen TV set as a required state religion, you might be wishing for the ICBMs to deliver you from this hellhole too.

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[slashdotnickname]

All complaints, no solutions.

What options do you want the world to take?

War would be a mess, and not everyone wants it. Talks would be fruitless (or have you forgotten how useless all the talking in the 90s was?). Assassinations would incite patriotisms and go down the war path. So far, the only method that's politically doable is sanctions. It's a slow stranglehold on North Korea, and yes the poor will suffer most (they always do) but this is what happens when you have powerful yet self-absorbed leaders tyrannically ruling millions of people. Societies aren't pretty.

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[kfg]

Oh, they'll destabilize a nation that has nuclear weapons. Great idea.

Ah, but what if there's a major nuclear power with a policy of pre-emptive strikes just looking for an excuse to prove to world that it's a man by flexing its nuclear muscles? The leaders of such a nation might well consider it worth it to destablize a smaller nuclear power if it could deem its own civilian losses as "acceptable."

How about we freely distribute unbiased publications of the history of Asia and the Korean peninsula?

The Japanese will never agree to anything like that.

Come on, use your imagination here, you're a freaking government!

While North Korea is certainly an issue for governments of the world, controling it is innately a Chinese problem. When; and only when, the government of China is willing to openly bitch slap Kim Jong-il and support the North Korea civilian populace will the problem go away.

There are reasons why this is difficult for China (see the Korean War), but diplomatic pressure against North Korea needs to be funneled through China. There are also, unfortunately, reasons why this is difficult for America to do (see the annexation of parts of China; the Phillipines; Hawaii; parts of Japan and, of course, the Korean War, Vietnam, Cambodian and Laotian wars).

KFG

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[Vancorps]

I totally agree, as I said, revolution in NK is not possible. The problem is that you have to retaliate in some form otherwise NK will spin even further out of control. So far the only solution I think that is even remotely sustainable is for China to annex NK but that brings a whole host of problems too. I'm not sure how that would pressure South Korea either.

Something needs to be done. Targeted sanctions could work but are nearly impossible to enforce.

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[Martin Blank]

On the contrary, the military campaign was incredibly successful, with almost all of North Korea in the hands of UN forces a mere two months after it seemed that Pusan might become an Alamo. Then ChiCom troops began to pour over the border. The UN mandate for the war did not cover dealing with China, and Truman and Eisenhower had no desire to turn it into a pan-Asia war, possibly involving the Soviets more directly, and leading to World War III less than a decade after the last great war had been concluded. In the end, of course, everyone agreed to return to the status quo. Not a pure success in total, but certainly not a failure.

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[Anonymous Coward]

Your notion of what doesn't work is odd to me. During the entire Clinton presidency, while the Agreed Framework was in effect, we were able to directly observe the activities of the DPRK via inspection and camera monitoring. The fissionable materials already in the nation were under the watchful eye of the U.N. The DPRK attempted to subvert the Agreed Framework, but the subversion was so minor and slow as to be inconsequential.

There is no reason to believe that the North developed a single nuclear weapon during the entire time the Agreed Framework was in effect. It is likely that this is the case because while the Agreed Framework was in effect, the North was getting exactly what it wanted: someone else to feed it's people.

How, exactly, is this "not working"?

For comparison, the republicans shot the Agreed Framework to pieces after Bush took office. They hated it from the beginning because they viewed it as "appeasement" and were responsible for it having no force of law (because in the mid-90s they didn't have the clout to stop it completely, they simply neutered it so that it was a sort of honor system treaty).

It was in 2003 that the North Koreans - citing Bush's inflammatory rhetoric toward them and the war in Iraq - tore out the cameras and kicked out the inspectors, declaring that they were re-instituting their nuclear programs. It was also at this time that we no longer had any ability to account for the fissionable materials that the U.N. had been watching (which the U.N. was actually supposed to move out of the country in early 2001 and didn't).

Then, of course, it was late 2006 when North Korea for the first time actually tested a nuclear weapon. Earlier in the year they tested their first significant long range missiles (which some experts have suggested may have only failed at the most critical point in the test, a point highly prone to failure, which might suggest the rockets themselves work fine and merely need a minor calibration to correct the problem).

That, to me, is an example of "not working".

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[Anonymous Coward]

Sanctions didn't hurt Saddam because European countries and the U.N. were scamming the Food for Oil program...

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[Vancorps]

That is true, I was being a little unfair to the situation but the war never ended and the conflict was never resolved. The military solution has not worked thus far. The world has changed quite a bit in that time so it might be more successful now.

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[cybrzndane]

Come on, use your imagination here, you're a freaking government!

Hehe, you just used the phrase "use your imagination" and then word government in the same run-on sentence.

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[WilliamSChips]

Indeed. Which is why the sanctions against South Africa worked. Actually, they're the only time I can think of where they did work.

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[Panaflex]

China already is beginning to put the slap on N Korea - they've halted all oil shipments.

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[WilliamSChips]

No, sanctions against Saddam didn't work because Saddam didn't care about his populace. The only significant time sanctions worked, South Africa, was against a nation whose "priveleged" segment(the segment that the government "likes"--in the case of Iraq and NK it's the governmental party, in the case of South Africa it was the 10% minority of whites) was large enough that the sanctions affected them.

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[Qzukk]

European countries and the U.N. were scamming the Food for Oil program...

HAHAHAHAHA right. The countries' armies came out and seized all of the commercial oil companies and forced them at tankpoint to sell oil to Iraq for insane profits.

Nice try. BTW, American oil companies were in on it too.

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[kfg]

I did not mean to imply in any way that China does not understand its own best interest in controling North Korea, or that it does not desire to do so.

I simply pointed out that there are political difficulties in their doing so, as one might have some difficulties in controling a 16 year old, wayward step-son.

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[Doc Ruby]

It depends on the sanctions. A simple economic blockade is collective punishment. It's applied on the theory that the people, under pressure, will rebel against the rulers causing the sanctions, who will be weaker, because they won't be as rich, well-supplied, or motivated to keep their hold on a broken country.

It's a stupid theory, like all collective punishment, especially one that conflicts with patriotism, especially under totalitarian regimes which keep the people misinformed about why the economics are cut off. It's obvious it hasn't worked in Cuba, the poster child, or anywhere else. I'd like to hear about a model country where it has worked, because it just seems sadistic and propagnada.

Some targeted sanctions can have a constructive effect, where the ruling people have something to lose, and something to gain by conceding. Like sanctions against buying oil from Iran, which has produced change - Iran wants and needs the oil money to flow every day, more than the smaller tyrannies they've been willing to drop. Likewise against the old Soviet Union. But always more effect on style than substance, and always with mostly "collateral damage" to the people, for adjustments in the tyrants' "lifestyle". Targeted sanctions helped accelerate the collapse of the Apartheid regime in South Africa, but it was part of lots of factors for progress, not least the leadership of the heroic Nelson Mandela, whose personal charisma was able to forge a nation from behind decades of prison bars, more powerful a patriotism than that offered by the racists clinging to power by force.

What worked on N Korea, and usually has worked to keep countries from going nuclear, has been highly targeted requirements of IAEA nuke inspectors in exchange for money and materiel to produce nonweapon nuke power plants. But Bush waived the inspections requirements that were the main success of the Clinton agreements which kept N Korea from going nuclear. While feeding them half of the money they paid to Rumsfeld to get the plants to convert to weapons production.

In other words, Bush is doing everything wrong, if he wants to stop our enemy from threatening us. Everything right, if he wants to justify American military buildup while creating a much more dangerous enemy with a specific beef against the US. No wonder he doesn't want to get locked alone in a room with Kim Jong Il.

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[PopeRatzo]

Bless your heart for sharing some truth in a thoughtful manner.

The idea that our leaders can just give the Big Fungoo to any country that's not behaving the way we like is a demonstrably stupid one, which George Bush has turned into a specialty. But that's just how he sees the world: It's US and THEM. And if you're not US, well, then you exist only at our pleasure. It's a surefire recipe to turn us into the Cylons.

I pray that at the very least, a week from now he's have a little oversight for a change. If there was ever a President that needed someone watching him, ready to stand in the way whenever he has a bright idea, it's George W. Bush, the Shame of America.

eldavojohn, I wish I had some mod points left to give you, but I've used 'em up already today.

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[Moofie]

"but penalizing starving peasants is never the right thing."

Neither is subsidizing their dictator.

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[jcr]

There are very few items that are only available from the USA, and foodstuffs are not among them. Cuba can buy whatever it wants from just about every other country on earth.

The reason that they're an economic basket case is that now that the Russians aren't buying sugar from them at artificially high prices, the consequences of punishing private enterprise are making themselves felt.

-jcr

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[forgotten_my_nick]

Also the fact that Saddam for example came into power within his lifetime, while Kim is a second generation nutjob and most of the population are drinking the koolaid at this stage.

Sanctions in such a case probably wouldn't work against NK as many believe already that NK is the best country in the world and it is only the Evil third world country the USA run by an evil dictator that is stopping the rest of the world from giving NK food.

with that mindset it is doubtful they would back down because of sanctions. If anything a cornered rat is more dangerous.

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[metallic]

I'm not saying the sanctions are a bad idea, I'm just saying that there's gotta be a better way to pressure this guy--and I don't mean militarily. How about we increase worthless goods like blankets & food & water and only keep out things like cognac & caviar? How about we freely distribute unbiased publications of the history of Asia and the Korean peninsula? Come on, use your imagination here, you're a freaking government!

We've been giving North Korea humanitarian aid for years now. Unfortunantly he decides to feed his troops instead of his people with it.

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[kharchenko]

>Sanctions only seem to work if the people in charge of the target country give a damn about the citizenry or economy. If all they care about is being in control, rather than being in charge of a nation that actually has some prestige, they'll just siphon off the country's own supplies to make up the difference.

Common, we're talking about politicians here. With almost no exceptions they all care more about being in control rather than nations prestige. Sanctions work only if they threaten the internal power of the aforementioned politician - either by electorial or more extreme means.

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[timeOday]

I'm afraid that military may be the only option left in NK. Unfortunately, it seems as if they are begging for it.

What outcome worse than war would be prevented by starting one?

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[argStyopa]

Of course, the problem is that 'sanctions' as a concept, are a POLITICIAN'S response to a DIPLOMATIC issue.

If the government you're dealing with is vulnerable to sanctions, i.e. they give a shit about their populace like France, Germany, Japan, etc. they are PROBABLY already amenable to negotiation and diplomacy. Sanctions just become the 'biggest hammer in the toolbox' of diplomacy between what I'd call 'reasonable' nation/states.

But if you have rogue states, dictatorships, or thugocracies (as you state) that don't care about their people, 'sanctions' are a mealy-mouthed politician's way of saying "I don't really have the balls to call you on the carpet and demand you change your activity; you changing your ways isn't worth me actually risking blood and treasure. But I sure would like it to SEEM like it matters to me (to the voters, or the public, or other countries, etc.) so I'm going to call for sanctions. That will make me seem appropriately stern, without having to really risk anything."

It's a result of a democracy of milquetoast voters selecting milquetoast candidates. When the silver-spoon rich kid who evaded Vietnam service by serving in the Nat'l Guard is the 'hawk', it shouuld be abundantly clear that the testosterone levels in the American male have been plummetting for a while. And don't misunderstand me - I don't buy that 'chickenhawk' crap for one minute; Bush may have evaded the draft, Kerry (to choose another example) *tried* to 'serve without serving' by choosing a cushy Naval job, and got snookered into combat duty which he promptly tried to shirk at every opportunity while parlaying it into political fuel for his attempt to be the 'new JFK'. Bush IS clearly the hawk here, and even he wussied out short of truly LEVELLING Iraq...leaving us with another unwinnable 'twilight half-war'. Either fight to win, with every resource you can bear, or don't fight at ALL, George.

I do believe that there are no more Disraelis, Bismarcks, or Cavours. None of them would have had any hesitation to apply force where needed, call a spade a spade, or simply refuse to get sucked into other people's problems. None of them would have relied on sanctions to accomplish anything but a distraction while the real action was elsewhere.

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[Anonymous Coward]

>> That's just super. Because, Kim Jong Il's about to crack. That's what everyone's saying. And that's what they've been saying for the past fifteen years--any minute now. Who's really hurting in the meantime? The people.

The people are hurting anyway. The conditions and treatment of people in North Korea have been fucked up for a long time now. Doing nothing to restrain the actions of their crazy, bug-eyed leader doesn't make life any easier. Whatever way it happens, whether through war, a coup or gradual introduction of a free economy lik China, something has to give in North Korea.

>>Oh, they'll destabilize a nation that has nuclear weapons. Great idea.
There are big differences between a nuclear weapon and a nuclear test. North Korea isn't going to lob a huge nuclear test setup across the southern border.

>>It'll give people and nations an example of us starving another nation. Another great idea.
At least we can say we gave it a shot when we're all standing around gawking at the radioactive hole that used to be the Korean Peninsula.

>>I'm not saying the sanctions are a bad idea, I'm just saying that there's gotta be a better way to pressure this guy--and I don't mean militarily. How about we increase worthless goods like blankets & food & water and only keep out things like cognac & caviar? How about we freely distribute unbiased publications of the history of Asia and the Korean peninsula? Come on, use your imagination here, you're a freaking government!

We can't give blankets, water or food directly to the North Koreans. We'd have to give them to the North Korean government to distribute. And just like everywhere else in the world where greedy people rule over impoverished masses our aid would be stockpiled for a select group of people and sold to the rest.

It's not like international aid organizations haven't tried to give hand these things out in North Korea. Sometimes North Korea lets them in, sometimes not, but none of them get to stay very long because North Korea is so paranoid.

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[ArcherB]

A South Korea and Japan that glows in the dark that starts a war against a nuclear armed N.Korea.

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[mfrank]

You know a lot of the new sanctions are to stop money laundering and to keep the higher-ups from traveling, right?

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[mfrank]

It was illegal after the first gulf war for American companies to do business with Iraq. I'm sure some still did, but it was still a federal crime. And the UN Food for Oil program was *designed* for corruption. Iraq *had* to sell oil at less than market price. To "prevent corruption". Right. Guess how they decided who to sell to, Sherlock?

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[ConceptJunkie]

Not even if he really, really promises not to use the nuclear power plant to make weapons-grade fissionables?

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[Moofie]

He'll just have a house-slave cross his fingers, so it won't count.

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a result of a democracy of milquetoast voters selecting milquetoast candidates.

It's not how tough you act, it's how tough you are.

There is a fundamental reality that the USA is only 1/20th of the worlds population and that it is heavily reliant on other countries for resources. Even if the USA took a "kill them all" approach and used all its nuclear weapons, it could not win a war against the rest of the world. The most it could achieve would be the destruction of all modern civilization including itself.

The USA was able to invade Iraq because the rest of the world allowed it. The rest of the world allowed it because they assumed that the USA would try to set up a better government in Iraq. If the USA was to try to "win" in Iraq by killing everyone in Iraq, the USA would find itself alone against the rest of the world. At the very least, there would be trade embargoes and severe economic hardship in the USA. The situation might very well escalate into a war between the USA and the rest of the world that would result in the destruction of modern civilization.

The people in the USA who don't want the USA to act tough are the ones who recognize that the USA isn't tough in the grand scheme of things. They realize that the end result of a cycle of escalating belligerence would be the destruction of the USA and that the USA military is nowhere near strong enough to prevent it.

To the extent that people in the USA advocate cooperation it is not because they are "milquetoast". It is because they see clearly the limits of the US military.

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[ranton]

The world has changed quite a bit in that time so it might be more successful now.

China is actually trying to become a world power now, so a war with the U.S. is the last thing they need. I dont think anyone will side with North Korea in any war at this time. It makes war the best option for stoping North Korea, but then you come to the death toll. For anyone to actually stop North Korea from being stupid, people will have to die. We just havent hit a threshold where the world thinks it is worth that yet.

--

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[Aokubidaikon]

Sanctions only seem to work if the people in charge of the target country give a damn about the citizenry or economy. If all they care about is being in control, rather than being in charge of a nation that actually has some prestige, they'll just siphon off the country's own supplies to make up the difference.

Very true, but North Korea is a very special case. This time, in addition to holding back food aid, they've cut off Kim's supply of beaujolais and other luxury items.
No wonder he's running to the Chinese saying he's so sowwy!

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[drjzzz]

Sanctions worked in Iraq: they kept Hussein from acquiring WMD. If the US had tried to improve the UN management of the oil-for-food program (instead of just heckling from the sidelines), they probably would've worked better.

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[StikyPad]

Come on, use your imagination here, you're a freaking government!

Telling a government to use it's imagination is like telling a paralyzed man to run. Sure, it may be funny to watch them try, but people are going to think you're a prick.

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[khallow]

China doesn't participate in the sanctions. So they're pretty ineffective, much as the blockade of Cuba was ineffective during the Cold War.

Frankly, I don't think there's a better way to pressure this country especially with China not cooperating. Either isolate the country or kill off the leadership. I don't think anyone has a good way to do the latter technologically, so it's isolation.

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[KKlaus]

You're right about economic sanctions hurting the people, but not about them destabalizing the region. In fact, in a point that Ian Bremmer recently reiterated, isolating regimes tends to actually keep them pretty stable.

Keeping a country destitute through sanctions when it has a totalitarian goverment has a strong tendency to completely destroy the middle class. The middle class is where the change comes from because they aren't too fat and happy like the upper class nor too powerless and tied up with simply surviving to make change.

Iraq was actually a pretty good example of this. Saddam was a bad guy, but there was a reason we supported him for so long: Dictators that keep their generals happy and their people scared and in poverty run stable states.

So, ironically, dropping economic and political sanctions, if they were to create a middle class, would make the region less stable, rather than more. What that would mean in terms of their nukes, no one knows.

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[anaesthetica]

Kim Jong Il's about to crack... And that's what they've been saying for the past fifteen years

Which is even stranger, because he's only been in power for 12.

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[x_codingmonkey_x]

Hmm perhaps you should have actually read what the sanctions were. The sanctions implemented had to do with military technology and luxury goods. These sanctions should have little to no effect on the people in North Korea.

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[Anonymous Coward]

In the case of NK, the reason for the sanctions is prevention of fissile materials, bomb parts, etc. being smuggled INTO the country, and prevent manufactured nuclear weapons from being shipped OUT. The only way that this can be guaranteed beyond the shadow of a doubt is if

Remember that most ports only examine something like 1-5% of all containers that come in and out of the country. It's for protection, not to try to bring down the regime.

Re:More Reasons to Hate Us

[Anonymous Coward]

BTW, does USA feel threatened of Cuba? Or what is the purpose of the sanctions? I, as an European, see the sanctions to be very, very, silly.

Good Job George W Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, your predacessor managed to get extraordinary access to North Korea's nuclear facilities, even installing video cameras in some.

Sure on your watch, North Korea tested a nuclear bomb. Sure it was likely caused by your own incompetence, malice, and penchant for violence around the world.

But still, back at the table... Impressive.

Re:Good Job George W Bush

[ArcherB]

Sure, your predecessor managed to get extraordinary access to North Korea's nuclear facilities, even installing video cameras in some.

Uh, yeah, which they promptly shut down as soon as we upheld our part. Fact is, the former administration got screwed by NK who did not uphold any of our agreements. Now this is not the fault of the previous admin, they get an A for effort, but it would be a completely boneheaded move if our current admin were to trust NK again.

Screw me once, shame on you. Screw me twice... you get the idea.

Re:Good Job George W Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

Your statement is disingenuous. There have been recent documentaries and news shows on different networks--but not the FOX Network (some were Jimmy carter interviews), NK upheld agreements until Bush came into office and started bashing them--then they decided to screw with us. Go ahead and say what you like about Jimmy Carter (people like to bash him) but at least he was an honest President--the current president lied about Iraq, WMD's etc.

Re:Good Job George W Bush

[glesga_kiss]

Actually, the current administration has a lot to do with the recent escalation:

On Sept. 19, 2005, North Korea signed a widely heralded denuclearization agreement with the United States, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea. Pyongyang pledged to "abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs." In return, Washington agreed that the United States and North Korea would "respect each other's sovereignty, exist peacefully together and take steps to normalize their relations."

Four days later, the U.S. Treasury Department imposed sweeping financial sanctions against North Korea designed to cut off the country's access to the international banking system, branding it a "criminal state" guilty of counterfeiting, money laundering and trafficking in weapons of mass destruction.

Source: Newsweek

Re:Good Job George W Bush

[WillAdams]

Yes, after all, everyone knows it's the policeman's fault when he pulls over a person who's speeding, or arrests someone breaking the law.

North Korea has never bargained in good faith and it's way past time they were held accountable for this.

William

Re:Good Job George W Bush

[jcr]

Well, I'm going to go way out on a limb here, and suggest that the blame lies not with either the current or the previous US administrations, but with the Stalinist thugs who are starving their people to death while they spend billions on developing nukes.

-jcr

Re:Good Job George W Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

On Sept. 19, 2005, North Korea signed a widely heralded denuclearization agreement with the United States, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea. Pyongyang pledged to "abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs." In return, Washington agreed that the United States and North Korea would "respect each other's sovereignty, exist peacefully together and take steps to normalize their relations."

From the link you provided.

2006: 20 September: North Korea says it will not scrap its nuclear programme until it is given a civilian nuclear reactor, undermining the joint statement and throwing further talks into doubt.

From Wikipedia.

Uhh... I'm no politician but I'm pretty sure diplomacy doesn't involve changing the rules the day after you sign off on them.

Re:Good Job George W Bush

[krell]

Hmmmm..... isn't the primary blame with the country which brands itself by being guilty of counterfeiting, money laundering and trafficking in weapons of mass destruction? Rather than the parties that properly identify that country?

Re:Good Job George W Bush

[krell]

"Yes, after all, everyone knows it's the policeman's fault when he pulls over a person who's speeding, or arrests someone breaking the law."

You mean you don't think that the real criminal here is the cop, who did the reprehensible thing of identifying the reckless driver?

Re:Good Job George W Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

And just who the hell do you think you are to stand in the way of some good partisan bickering with a reasonable perspective?

Where is Doc_Ruby? He will get us back on track.

Re:Good Job George W Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you point out the part where KEDO upheld their part of completing the light-water reactors?

Re:Good Job George W Bush

[markmier]

Looks like a YEAR AND a day to me.

Not that that makes it better, of course.

Why ?

[seriesrover]

Are they building a Beowolf of negotiations?
Perhaps KJI is throwing chairs?
Has someone localized North Korean in some P2P app?

Will someone explain why am I reading this on /. ?

Re:Why ?

[LordEd]

Will someone explain why am I reading this on /. ?

Because in Soviet North Korea, Slashdot reads you!

Re:Why ?

[ConceptJunkie]

Will someone explain why am I reading this on /. ?

Because it's "Stuff that Matters"?

Because even nerds care about geopolitics?

Because /. has had a Politics section for over 2 years now?

Re:Why ?

[eln]

Because hot-button political issues drive page views like nothing else.

Every aspect of our lives has been politicized like crazy over the past 12 years, why should Slashdot be any different?

Re:Why ?

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

Perhaps the relevance is due to KJI's internet pr0n jones.

Re:Why ?

[Dr. Eggman]

Because 6-party talks are only for old Koreans

How in the world...

[sheepoo]

does this relate to IT?

Re:How in the world...

[Nasajin]

does this relate to IT?

Well, if the situation in North Korea is exacerbated to the point where they decide to send nuclear missiles...

Lets just say that the IT sector will be in need of some serious repair.

I'll also point out that the slogan for /. includes the phrase "stuff that matters".

Re:How in the world...

[wiz31337]

Yeah, it mentions nothing about eBay in the article!

Re:How in the world...

[ilovecheese]

It doesn't. Why is there a political section here to begin with?

Re:How in the world...

[wiz31337]

I'm guessing it's for things like the Patriot Act, or tiered internet that deal with technology related issues.

Re:How in the world...

[crabpeople]

Um this was posted politics.slashdot.org not it.slashdot.org. Maybe you should re check your address bar if you are getting confused.

Re:How in the world...

[Bing Tsher E]

I could spend a considerable amount of time pondering how Slashdot 'relates' to IT.

I mean, this is a fairly open site that has lots of information and discussions about cool techie stuff, and other side topics of interest to people who like cool techie stuff. Occasionally it has boring drub-drub stuff about IT. ('IT' in case you weren't aware, is the BORING part of computers- you know- beige cases being wheeled around on carts by drones)

Re:How in the world...

[Yogs]

slashdot.org is:
News for nerds. Stuff that matters.

Notice, these are two separate sentences.

Yeah, what else is new?

[Anonymous Coward]

A yawn (synonyms chasma, oscitation from the Latin verb oscitare, to open the mouth wide[1]) is a reflex of deep inhalation and exhalation associated with being tired, with a need to sleep, or from lack of stimulation.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Every time I turn on the news, it's Team America

[TranscendentalAnarch]

We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And the Film Actors Guild are pussies. And Kim Jong Il is an asshole. Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us fuck this asshole, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit!

Because...

[Kelson]

Isolated dictator who dislikes just about everyone, and now has nuclear weapons. I think that qualifies for the Stuff That Matters half of the tagline.

If you don't like that explanation, nuclear weapons are a technical issue.

Re:Because...

[seriesrover]

And I'll go over to the Beeb website when I read about Stuff That Matters thats not IT.

Re:Because...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, get the fuck out here then.

I guess that's what happens

[noewun]

when there is no earth shattering kaboom.

Ironic

[Original Replica]

North Korea returns to the table, we (Team America) make even more powerful nukes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/10/19/AR2006101901863.html Why do we need even more powerful weapons that we never want to use? How is doing this going to encourage any other country to disarm?

Re:Ironic

[dsanfte]

Disarmament solves nothing. It is impossible to put the genie of nuclear weapons back in the bottle, and even assuming we managed to officially "disarm" every nation of nukes, it is still impossible to be certain no "rogue state" is secretly working on one... and what a coup that would be! Iran with the only nuke program in the world!

There is no going back. There is only going forward. Nukes are not going away despite the elaborate fantasies of a few.

Re:Ironic

[rblum]

Which part about "smaller, more reliable arsenal" in the article you cite makes you think we're making even more powerful nukes? I know this is slashdot, but could you at least read the fine articles you quote yourself?

Re:Ironic

[eingram]

You obviously just made it into THE country (U.S.A.) recently (illegally, no doubt). By having more powerful nukes, we can effectively destroy any country (or planet) that decides to use, threatens to use, or test a significantly weaker nuke.

Thousands of dead people and five armed babies are the perfect reason to not have nukes.

Re:Ironic

[ClickOnThis]

North Korea returns to the table, we (Team America) make even more powerful nukes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/10/19/AR2006101901863.html Why do we need even more powerful weapons that we never want to use? How is doing this going to encourage any other country to disarm?

I'm no fan of nuclear weapons, but I saw nothing in the article you linked that said the administration was planning to build more powerful nukes. Rather, as I read it, they were planning eventually to replace existing stockpiles of about 6,000 weapons with a smaller inventory of about 2,200 that were more reliable.

Re:Ironic

[glesga_kiss]

what a coup that would be! Iran with the only nuke program in the world!

How's that a problem? Iran hasn't attacked another country in over one hundred years. Sounds like a defensive policy to me. Oh, that's right, they are a different religion from you and therefore are eeeeevil.

Re:Ironic

[dreamchaser]

There you go trying to confuse the disarmament crowd with actual facts! Shame on you!

Seriously though, anyone who thinks that EVERYONE would agree to disarm needs to send me some of what they are smoking. As another poster put it, the genie is out of the bottle and there is no going back.

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF? Have you even read about Iran's currently "peaceful" leader? It's people like you that MAKE IT a religion vs religion event.

Yes... let's give every state a nuke, THAT will bring about world peace. MORON.

Re:Ironic

[Abcd1234]

Well, first off, of the nations that currently possess nukes, most of them wouldn't attack the US for a variety of reasons, most of them economic (Russia, China, UK, France, India, probably Pakistan). The rest don't have the capability to deliver the payload directly to US soil (Pakistan (I think) and NK).

This leaves two options: concealed or otherwise disguised weapons (eg, the oft-cited cargo-container-bomb), or "rogue states". And tell me, how, exactly, does the US building more nukes protect it from either of these situations?

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

Religion has nothing to do with anything...aside from a large ignorant mass known as you + ignorant, brainwashed Muslims.

You are a true moron if you think a government which openly proclaims genocide should have anything nuclear.

Re:Ironic

[GooberToo]

What you don't realize is nuclear weapons, over time, loss their ability to sustain critical mass. That's why we have some many nuclear simulations (previously done with below ground testing) which verify specific categories of different ages can still do their thing. Their goal is to maintain viable weapons (repair or replace) and destroy the old weapons which will no longer be effective. In the long run, the US winds up with fewer, more reliable weapons.

The US has a long history of owning nukes and a short history of actually using them on an enemy; twice now, in the same war. The easy money is the US has no desire to use nukes, save only defensively. Any rogue state associated with a significant nuclear or biological attach will more than likely feel the sting of a nuclear attack, country-wide. In other words, for all but the most insane, partisans understand they will be countryless should they ever do the unthinkable. Which brings us full circle. Those that are not complete nut jobs but have bought into what the insane, ignorant are selling, do understand that if they aid such attacks, their entire country will be forever gone. Gone will be all they knew and loved. This in turn helps create internal pressures to keep things in check.

Re:Ironic

[timeOday]

That implies that Iran and N Korea would be stupid not to build a nuclear arsenal. Ok. Now what?

Re:Ironic

[funwithBSD]

It has invaded Iraq many times.

Here is one from April 25th of this year,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2006/05/01/wiran01.xml

While Iraq started the Iran-Iraq war with an invasion, Iran had invaded Kurdish Iraq several times.

It has also invaded US soil by taking the US embassy in 1979.

Re:Ironic

[meringuoid]

Thousands of dead people and five armed babies are the perfect reason to not have nukes.

I had a mental image here of five ninja babies with swords standing in the middle of a ruined town on top of a heap of thousands of corpses.

Re:Ironic

[MachineShedFred]

Never mind the fact that "more powerful" nukes are a complete waste of time and resources even to the most nuke-happy DoD shill, as highlighted in the following:

From Wikipedia:

The military purpose of a MIRV is fourfold:

Provides greater target damage for a given missile payload. Radiation (including radiated heat) from a nuclear warhead diminishes as the square of the distance (called the inverse-square law), and blast pressure diminishes as the cube of the distance. For example at a distance of 4 km from ground zero, the blast pressure is only 1/64th that of 1 km. Due to these effects several small warheads cause much more target damage area than a single large one. This in turn reduces the number of missiles and launch facilities required for a given destruction level.

Reduces the number of missiles required to attack a given number of separate targets. With single warhead missiles, one missile must be launched for each target. By contrast with a MIRV warhead, the post-boost (or bus) stage can dispense the warheads against multiple targets across a broad area.

Reduces the impact of SALT treaty limitations. The treaty initially limited number of missiles, not number of warheads. Adding multiple warheads per missile provided more target destruction for a given number of missiles.

Reduces the effectiveness of an anti-ballistic missile system that relies on intercepting individual warheads. While a MIRVed attacking missile can have multiple (3-12 on various US missiles) warheads, interceptors can only have one warhead per missile. Thus, in both a military and economic sense, MIRVs render ABM systems less effective, as the costs of maintaining a workable defense against MIRVs would greatly increase, requiring multiple defensive missiles for each offensive one.

The first point is the most important. Nukes explode in a sphere. Cities aren't built as spheres, so you want the most force you can going North, South, East, and West - and less going into the ground and up in the atmosphere. Big massive multi-megaton bombs like the "Tsar Bomba" (50 Mt) and the B41 (25 Mt) were phased out long ago, or never entered military service because they were useless in the world of ICBMs that couldn't carry the weight, were prohibitively expensive in comparison to several smaller warheads on a single missile, and they did less damage in the end.

Re:Ironic

[glesga_kiss]

You are a true moron if you think a government which openly proclaims genocide should have anything nuclear.

You are the moron if you believe that. The only thing that springs to mind to make you believe that is the story about the Iranian leader wanting to wipe Israel off the map. Shame it was a deliberate mistranslation (more info)

Now, I'm sure there are extremists in Iran who say what you think represents the whole nation. These people are not in charge however. They are no different from Jerry Falwell, Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones. There are extremists on all sides and if you filter your view to only these you get a completely jaded picture. And that is what is being deliberately done by your government, in the exact same way that the Iraq propaganda was done. They want you to fear the Iranians in the same way that duck and cover made you fear the soviets. For some of us this repetition is getting a bit boring.

Re:Ironic

[glesga_kiss]

From the article you linked:

The incursion, which occurred on April 21, came after Iranian claims that a number of attacks had been conducted against Iranian army and Revolutionary Guard posts in recent weeks.

That is, 100% to the letter, the rationale that Israel uses on a monthly basis.

While Iraq started the Iran-Iraq war with an invasion, Iran had invaded Kurdish Iraq several times.

When?

It has also invaded US soil by taking the US embassy in 1979.

Well, if that's your interpretation of "invaded", I'd love to see a list of the places where America has "invaded" i.e. anywhere there were combatants on "enemy soil". This would be a long list.

Again, why should you have nukes and not them? Are you some sort of master race? (/godwin'd)

Re:Ironic

[anaesthetica]

they were planning eventually to replace existing stockpiles of about 6,000 weapons with a smaller inventory of about 2,200 that were more reliable.

This process has been going on for several decades throughout the arms control/limitation process. During SALT negotiations both sides placed caps on ICBM launchers, but then upgraded intermediate range missiles. During START both sides placed caps on numbers of missiles but then developed MIRVs so each missile could have multiple warheads. After ABM was abrogated by the U.S., Russia developed high-speed maneuverable missiles to avoid ABMs. Now that SORT is going to come into effect, and both sides can only have ~2000 warheads instead of ~10,000, they are developed new, super-awesome missiles/warheads to make the fewer nukes more effective. Same old same old.

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

North Korea returns to the table, we (Team America) make even more powerful nukes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/10/19/AR2006101901863.html Why do we need even more powerful weapons that we never want to use? How is doing this going to encourage any other country to disarm?

Yeah, right...

Saying that North Korea should have nuclear weapons to make things even is like saying that rapists ought be allowed to carry pepper spray.

Re:Ironic

[funwithBSD]

Well, considering you would rather invoke godwin than discuss the issues, I will write you off as a loss.

Re:Ironic

[Original Replica]

The US has a long history of owning nukes and a short history of actually using them on an enemy; twice now, in the same war
To flip the coin: The US is the only country to ever nuke another country. 100% of all nukes used in war were used by the USA. We also have the largest stock pile of chemical weapons in the world, and the biggest biological arsenel in the world. Oh, and in the last 20 years our military has fired shots on more foreign soil than any other military . How exactly are we the ones that everyone is supposed to trust blindly?

Re:Ironic

[GooberToo]

Troll. You mean like you blindly ignored the previous post? I guess it sucks which reality gets in the way of an irrational rant.

In the far of chance you're not trolling, click on my name and read my posts on this very subject. Nuff said.

As if we have the right.

[Deagol]

The US is the only nation to have ever used a nuke on another. Who the hell can actually have any trust in us when it comes to nuclear weapons?

This whole (queue scare quotes...) "WMD" thing is just silly. Sovereign nations should be able to do whatever the hell they want in their own borders w/o the meddling of other nations. Sure, it may be an eventual problem for other nations, but any nation should realize that the retaliation they would incur should they use those weapons in this modern time would be swift and harsh, to say the least.

Nations that cause financial hardships for the citizens of countries like NK should be ashamed. It rarely seems to have any affect on those in power (see Cuba and the 10 years between Gulf Wars I and II), and it just causes more suffering of the lower classes than they had before the sanctions.

That said, leaders who fold under international pressure against nukes (like, Kadafi, for example) are lame. Look where the US stands with India and China (both pursuing nuke tech). Very hypocritical, especially regarding China. But hey.... Wal Mart gets to import cheap shit from Asia, so we'll turn the other cheek.

Re:As if we have the right.

[rblum]

Oh my, where to begin...

The problem with NK is that they sell their tech to anybody who's willing to pay. That would include terrorists. And it's kind of hard to retaliate against them, as we're finding out. So it seems a wise idea to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to more countries. I believe if you looked for "non-proliferation treaty" you might find that pretty much everybody is trying to do exactly that.

Next up - China. They're not exactly "pursuing" nuke tech - they have it for quite some time. They just have less than we do. I'm sure you meant India & *Pakistan*. We're not happy about either, but neither is run by somebody who's completely insane. As a result, their economy is healthy enough that we simply can't pressure them. Hence, less efforts. (Plus, we need Pakistan for the War On Terror - of course we're making deals when it's in our best interests. Or at least, when we think so)

Let's go to the "who would trust us with nukes" bs. The rest of the world pretty much does, because we've so far shown a remarkable constraint when using them. Yes, we used them at the end of WW2 - to spare a couple of hundred thousand lives a traditional invasion would've cost. Was it a nice thing to do? No, but war is never nice. We haven't done so since then, and up until a few years ago we had fairly sane leaders. That, I think, makes the US a bit more trustworthy than NK. If this was really a US problem only, why do you think China and Russia are in the negotiations?

Re:As if we have the right.

[Kelson]

Sovereign nations should be able to do whatever the hell they want in their own borders w/o the meddling of other nations.

Like Sudan?

Re:As if we have the right.

[Zeek40]

Sovereign nations should be able to do whatever the hell they want in their own borders w/o the meddling of other nations. Sure, it may be an eventual problem for other nations, but any nation should realize that the retaliation they would incur should they use those weapons in this modern time would be swift and harsh, to say the least.

While I agree with you for the most part, ( Mutually Assured Destruction does a good job of maintaining peace IMO) a problem arises when one of these less than stable soverign nations turns over (whether intentionally or not) a nuke / other WMD to a group with no return address. That makes overwhelming retaliation a difficult task unless you don't mind indiscriminately throwing nukes around.

Re:As if we have the right.

[east coast]

The US is the only nation to have ever used a nuke on another. Who the hell can actually have any trust in us when it comes to nuclear weapons?

Yeah, and white people owned slaves. We should be ashamed of ourselves (if we're white) for being slave owners even though no one who will read this has ever owned a slave (legally).

The argument of the US being the ones who used the bomb is old. The guys who had the power to make that decision have been worm food for longer than most posters here have been alive. Why do we have to keep hearing that "we" used nukes when, in fact, we have never used a nuke. This is akin to blaming 30-somethings in Germany for the holocaust.

Re:As if we have the right.

[Nasajin]

I agree with most of what you've said, but I'd have to disagree with the part:

nations should be able to do whatever the hell they want in their own borders w/o the meddling of other nations.

Even though you're speaking in terms of a country's military operations, I don't think that countries (or their leaders) should have complete impunity from the consequences of the actions that they may perform on citizens. I mean, should we ignore the fact that dictatorial countries murder, starve, and enslave their own citizens? Some of these people are trapped in societies where they have no education, no food, and no fair system of government. Only the privilege of countries of birth have allowed any of us on /. access to the internet, instead of being trapped in a diamond mine in central Africa, or a sweat shop in South-East Asia.

Re:As if we have the right.

[Deagol]

How many natives of this continent has the US government killed? How about imported slaves?

Do you think we would have looked kindly about other countries telling us how to handle internal issues such as those above?

I'm certainly not playing down the massive attrocities that people in *many* countries endure at present. But the US is no shining beacon of morality, be it now or 200 years ago.

I tend to think we (the international community) should proceed *very* carefully when meddling with another culture's natural development. A kind of non-interferrence directive, as it were.

Re:As if we have the right.

[Vancorps]

Ignore the BS of sparing a couple hundred thousand lives at the expense of a couple hundred thousand lives argument and stick with the reality that the world including the U.S. did not know the horror dropping such a weapon would cause and how long it's effects would linger. Yes, you can argue they knew a little about radiation but at the time radiation poisoning will still a new condition and they didn't know much about it. Now they know it will affect the children and their children's children.

I agree the U.S. is trustworthy with nuke tech; we made a mistake and we will not make it again unless our back is to the wall and we have no further options. We maintain an arsenal to ensure that anyone who attacks us with such horrific weaponry will be assured their own destruction. It works but we can't expect it to always work. NK is in dangerous territory and there appears to be no proper solution beyond china annexing the country.

The six party talks make sense as the U.S. is an ally with South Korea and technically still at war with NK. The rest of the countries all have specific concerns that need to be addressed.

Re:As if we have the right.

[stubear]

"Who the hell can actually have any trust in us when it comes to nuclear weapons?"

Perhaps because only two nuclear weapons have ever been used at a time of war and none have been used since then? Despite the Cold War and Russia threatening to park nuclear weapons off our souther coast, we managed to keep the finger off the trigger and wiping the Soviet Union off the face of the map. Imagine that. Perhaps the U.S.,of all countries, is in the best position to make that choice BECAUSE we have made the decision to use nuclear weapons in the past?

Re:As if we have the right.

[IflyRC]

nations should be able to do whatever the hell they want in their own borders w/o the meddling of other nations.

1 name, Hitler

Re:As if we have the right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Majority of Native American deaths have been attributed to disease and subsequently famine. As for importing of slaves, feel free to blame the British for that.

Cheap labor != Cheap goods != More sales.

Never mind the fact that you end up with no market to buy such goods no matter how cheap they become.

Re:As if we have the right.

[SnowZero]

That said, leaders who fold under international pressure against nukes (like, Kadafi, for example) are lame.

Why? Because they are uncool? Let's see which nation is the most successful in the next 50 years; Libya, North Korea, or Iran. I know who my money is on. Kadafi did the smart thing, dropping his program in return for every other nation dropping whatever international beef it had with Libya. It's good for the people, and its good for stability in the government. Having nukes or a nuke program simply puts you on the target list of every nation that has nukes. Because of that, once you have more than a fledgling program, you have to build it up further, and dismantling it no longer becomes a real option.

Re:As if we have the right.

[Anonymous Coward]

That said, leaders who fold under international pressure against nukes (like, Kadafi, for example) are lame. Look where the US stands with India and China (both pursuing nuke tech). Very hypocritical...

It has been rumored for a long time now that American eagerness to bail the Israelis out in 1973 was partly motivated by not-so-subtle hints by Israel that they would otherwise resort to a nuclear strike to stave off defeat. I take that rumor with a grain of salt but, nevertheless, to my mind the real hypocricy in the USA's nuclear weapons policy is is that while Iran, Pakistan, India, North Korea and generally everybody else who develops nucear weapons gets slapped with some kind of sanctions by the USA, Israel develops nuclear bombs and the USA does nothing. The Israeli hardliners may not be as completely certifiably insane as the governments of Iran and North Korea but they are just as ready to use their nukes as Pakistan and India.

Re:As if we have the right.

[thatguywhoiam]

I'm sure you meant India & *Pakistan*. We're not happy about either, but neither is run by somebody who's completely insane.

Musharraf is a warlord. He is an ally the way Saddam was an ally in the 70s. Saddam wasn't 'insane' either.

Re:As if we have the right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's go to the "who would trust us with nukes" bs. The rest of the world pretty much does,...

You can trust some people for some things some of the time.

It is unlikely the current US government would intentionally use nuclear weapons against a major population without some sort of provocation.

But that statement has a lot of qualifiers:

• It is possible that over the next few decades the US government will somehow change so that it would use nuclear weapons inappropriately.
• It is possible that the use would be unintentional - either through malfunction in technology and command procedures, because someone with high level access turned out not to be trustworthy or simply because security measures were somehow inadequate.
• It is possible that the current US government would use nuclear weapons against a target that was not a population center such as a deep bunker.
• It is possible that some event will occur that at the time seems to be adequate justification for the use of nuclear weapons but that in hindsight it will not be.

For most people in the world, the chances of being killed by a US nuclear weapon are indistinguishable from the chances of being killed by a North Korean nuclear weapon.

If most people had their way, their own country would have nuclear weapons and no other country would have them. If they had to choose between every country having nuclear weapons or no country having nuclear weapon they would choose no nuclear weapons. The US is only 1/20th of the worlds population. Most people in the world (19/20ths) are at least dimly aware that they could be killed by a nuclear weapon from the USA and they don't want the USA to have nuclear weapons.

For most people in the world, though, just surviving from day to day without starving or dying of some disease is more important than the USA's nuclear weapons. Basically, they don't really trust the USA with nuclear weapons but it's way down the list of things they worry about.

Re:As if we have the right.

[rblum]

Yes, he is. Don't debate that he a warlord, or an "ally". I am referring to Kim Jong Il. (Who from here certainly *looks* like he's certifiable...)

Re:As if we have the right.

[Anonymous Coward]

The US is the only nation to have ever used a nuke on another. Who the hell can actually have any trust in us when it comes to nuclear weapons?

They are also the only nation that ever had a monopoly on nuclear weapons... for four years until the Soviets set one off... and didn't use them to conquer the world.

If we are going to trust any nation at all with nukes, the one that passed up that unique historical temptation gets my vote.

Re:As if we have the right.

[GooberToo]

The US is the only nation to have ever used a nuke on another. Who the hell can actually have any trust in us when it comes to nuclear weapons?

Anyone with a brain? The US has had nukes longer than anyone and ONLY used them at the end of WWII. Many people love to toss the factoid out that the US has previously used nukes but fail to think how many lives that has saved. What???? Seriously...think about it! Ignoring a million other tidbits, I'll just add the following. Just imagine nukes existing and had never even been used in anger. Russia has them. England and France have them. Now then, do you think people would understand the horror of these weapons, having never seen the effects it had on the Japenese? Do you think the masses would have the least bit understanding of what it is they plot to unleash? In my opinion, chances are, if the US had NOT used nukes at the end of WWII, you would have seen them used en mass during the Korean Conflict, or during the Cuban Missile Crisis, or just out of stupidity between the US and Russia during the cold war.

Having said all that...the US has had nukes longer and has NOT used them, even during some seriously hairy times. If anything, the US has proven they are, by far, the MOST trustworthy when it comes to nuclear deployment.

Re:As if we have the right.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no documented evidence of NK or NK scientists trying to sell nuclear technology unlike Pakistan.

Re:As if we have the right.

[GooberToo]

Yes, we used them at the end of WW2 - to spare a couple of hundred thousand lives a traditional invasion would've cost.

Just wanted to realy stress this bit. Great post BTW.

At that time, we had plans on the drawing board to invade Japan. The death toll for the allies was expected to be between 200,000-300,000; though more modern estimates push it as high as half million. So saying 300,000+ is probably the right starting number. The Japenese were almost all fanatics and were taught they would be protecting their god. As such, every man, women, and child, big enough to reload a weapon had already been indoctrinated to their country's defense. Some were issued weapons and bullets. Some were given just bullets. Some were told to use the family sword. Others still, were trained how to charge with pitch forks. If you thought stories of Germany's use of Bazooka Boys toward the end of the war were scary, you need to understand what we were in for going into Japan. It would have been expected to see children as young as 8 or 9 to actively been engaged in resisting the invasion. As such, using nukes served many puposes. One, was to demoralize Japan as much as possible to force them to the table for unconditional surrender. The other was to destroy some part of Japan's war industry. Another was to destroy as many posible combatants for the loom invasion which lay ahead.

People need to understand that the Japenese had been told the Allies were coming to rape every women and pillage every village. They were told all men would be executed. And most women would be horribly raped and tortured before being executed. The people had every intention of fighting to their last breath. Every last one of them.

So long story short, anyone that throws out ...blah...blah...I'm ignorant...the US used nukes before...blah...blah...only stress just how ignorant they are on the subject. So please, put things in context. People need to understand, at that point in time in history, there wasn't anything lower, nothing more sub-human that a "Jap". People need to remember that the Japenese had already proven to be fearless fighters, fighting to almost the last man standing...while starving...while being admitted cannibols. At that point in time, they had some come-uppens coming... We had a new weapon...and a just cause. You do the math.

Re:As if we have the right.

[GooberToo]

It is possible that over the next few decades the US government will somehow change so that it would use nuclear weapons inappropriately.

Not likely. Odds are certainly greater than zero...but not by much.

It is possible that the use would be unintentional - either through malfunction in technology and command procedures, because someone with high level access turned out not to be trustworthy or simply because security measures were somehow inadequate.

Odds are much closer to zero than the first remark.

It is possible that the current US government would use nuclear weapons against a target that was not a population center such as a deep bunker.

Odds are already zero. Weapon advances have removed the need for this.

It is possible that some event will occur that at the time seems to be adequate justification for the use of nuclear weapons but that in hindsight it will not be.

This is certainly a legitimate concern. IMO, this is the only one worth entertaining.

Re:As if we have the right.

[Shihar]

How many natives of this continent has the US government killed? How about imported slaves?

If you look back far enough into any nations history, I can almost promise you that one group of people was beating the piss out of another group of people. The point of looking into the past isn't to remove all moral authority from everyone. I am Jesus, the fucking Norwegians who are easily one of the most peaceful people in this world sent Viking raiders against England, that doesn't make Norwegians blood thirsty savages. The Germans committed horrible acts of genocide a scant 65 years ago, and they too qualify as one of the most peaceful nations on this world. Everyone has done something "bad", get over it.

The point is that you can try and prevent such horrible mistakes from happening again. Yes, the US used to import slaves and slaughter its natives. The US now actively seeks to shut down the remaining slave trade in this world and was one of the many nations instrumental in helping the racist South African out of power. That is a *good* thing. If anything, the US with its sullied past on racial equality was a shinning example of how you can reverse the tied in a relativity short period of time.

This whole historical relativism crap is the bane of peace in this world. Every group in the world points to some historical injustice that explains why it is okay for them to commit atrocities they now seek to commit. The Israelis and Palestinians will probably both cease to exist as nations with their fingers still securely wrapped around each other's throats, all the while screaming that the other one started it.

Fuck the past.

I'll happily trust Germans to broker peace deals and safe guard the peace even though they were once raced armies around the world dishing out genocide. I'll merrily trust that a Japanese navy has only peaceful intentions, despite the fact that Japanese ships used to once terrorized the entire pacific. I will also happily trust the Americans to not use their pile of nukes as they did throughout the entire Cold War, even though they once nuked another nation at the height of a genocidal war over 60 years ago. North Korea on the other hand I do not trust with a fucking pocket knife, much less a nuke. I don't have a lack of trust in North Korea because of some ancient wrong they did, but because RIGHT NOW, they are a brutal totalitarian dictatorship that visits unimaginable suffering upon its own people. This is a nation that tests fucking chemical weapons on its own people. This is a nation that steals food from its own starving populace to maintain a massive military. This is nation that, regardless of past deeds or misdeeds, is completely unworthy of our trust RIGHT NOW.

So cram all your historical finger pointing. The simple fact of the matter is that RIGHT NOW, North Korea is roughly the last nation in the world that should be playing with nukes, and it is a damn fine thing that the rest of the world is trying to keep them from doing so.

Re:As if we have the right.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am Jesus, the fucking Norwegians...

Best. Typo. Ever.

Re:As if we have the right.

[mfrank]

You're right. It *is* BS. Using nukes at the end of WWII spared a couple of *million* lives at the expense of a few hundred thousand. It was nowhere close to being an even trade.

Re:As if we have the right.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is possible that the use would be unintentional - either through malfunction in technology and command procedures, because someone with high level access turned out not to be trustworthy or simply because security measures were somehow inadequate.

Odds are much closer to zero than the first remark.

You really trust the USA. You must be sleeping well at night. I hate to change that but have you ever though about the realities of how nukes are transported around the USA?

I mean, these nukes the USA has don't just magically materialize inside a James Bond style security vault.

All terrorists would need to do to get their hands on a nuke would be to shoot down or blow up whatever transportation was being used to transport the nukes. With proper planning, a small band of terrorists could extract a nuke from the wreckage and load it into an unmarked van and be gone from the scene in minutes - well before the authorities were able to mobilize and arrive on the scene.

All it would take would be one informant on the inside able to suss out which plane/train/truck had a nuke on it.

Or, consider another possibility. What if the nukes are disguised as something else, say jet engines. Given how the military operates there are eventually going to be mistakes. What if some airforce tech who has the same mindset as Timothy McVeigh opens up a box that's supposed to be a jet engine and realizes it's actually a nuke?

Sure, it's all not that likely but neither was September 11th. And this would be a whole lot worse than September 11th.

Re:As if we have the right.

[TerranFury]

There is some evidence that Japan was prepared to surrender. Some hypothesize that we used nukes partly so Stalin could see the results. It's plausible, but I haven't studied it extensively.

Re:As if we have the right.

[zacronos]

One, was to demoralize Japan as much as possible to force them to the table for unconditional surrender

Which brings up an interesting point -- why was "unconditional surrender" necessary? As I understand it, one of the biggest sticking points was that they were afraid we would prohibit them from having an emperor, maybe even try their current emperor as a war criminal and execute him. As you pointed out, they viewed him as a god, so this was absolutely unacceptable. Why was it necessary that we not allow conditions on the surrender, specifically allowing them to retain their emperor and promise not to try him as a war criminal? Furthermore, was it necessary to drop 2 nukes? Wouldn't a single city have made the point?

So please, put things in context. People need to understand, at that point in time in history, there wasn't anything lower, nothing more sub-human that a "Jap".

Why do I need to understand that? At risk of bringing Godwin's Law down in myself (we *are* talking about WWII already), the Nazis generally held a similar view of Jews at the time. That doesn't make anything they did acceptable, it just shows that the prevailing attitude was irrational and hateful, largely as a result of propaganda designed to achieve that end.

We had a new weapon...and a just cause. You do the math.

So the end justifies *any* means? We had a just cause, but we did unjust things to achieve it. Would our cause have justified bombing 3 cities? What about 4? What's so special about 2 -- would 1 have been sufficient? We did other horrible things in that war; those who think we had a just cause, so we were the "good guys" and could do no wrong are the ones who are ignorant on the subject (not to mention naive -- you have to be very naive indeed not to know that the winners write the history books). For an example of something else we did that is *very* difficult to defend as the best course without any doubts or qualifications, read about the bombing of Dresden.

Re:As if we have the right.

[Anonymous Coward]

They just have less than we do. I'm sure you meant India & *Pakistan*. We're not happy about either, but neither is run by somebody who's completely insane. As a result, their economy is healthy enough that we simply can't pressure them. Hence, less efforts.

umm... the current american economy is not as healthy as before, and the current president is (arguably) insane. should other nations start sanctioning the US? this is just a hypothetical question. of course they can't isolate the US, because it is the largest consuming nation in the world, but that's not the point here. the point i'm trying to make is, sanctioning a country because the leader is 'insane' won't work. an insane leader can keep on bullying other countries as long as he/she is powerful enough, with or without sanction.

Re:As if we have the right.

[khallow]

Two cities served a few useful (from the US point of view) purposes, it implied (somewhat falsely I gather) that the US had a stockpile of these weapons. And dropping a second a bit of time after the first probably had some psychological intent. They could, after all, have dropped both at the same time, but the Japanese might not have understood that the weapon was carried by a single plane. But after the second detonated, they would understand that all it took was for one plane to get through. Finally, pragmatically, it tested a second bomb design and put a little fear into the USSR.

Re:As if we have the right.

[Anonymous Coward]

arrogancy flows between your lines

Re:As if we have the right.

[bucky0]

Here here. If I had points, I'd mod that up.

Re:As if we have the right.

[GooberToo]

Which brings up an interesting point -- why was "unconditional surrender" necessary?

Ultimately, it wasn't. We allowed them to keep their emperor and agreed to not persue as a war criminal. In the end, that dicision allowed for much more rapid reconstruction of post-war Japan.

Furthermore, was it necessary to drop 2 nukes? Wouldn't a single city have made the point?

I see that another poster already hit the nail on the head. It was a bluff. Its intent was to signal to Japan (and the USSR) that we had a huge stock pile of these weapons and if they did not surrender, we would destroy the entire country from the air. Truth is, we used the only two weapons we had and it would have been another 18-24 months (IIRC) before we could have another weapon ready. This is why we did not forewarn, as we were afraid the weapon would not work and had nothing to replace it.

the Nazis generally held a similar view of Jews at the time.

While rumors ran throughout the world, truth is, most did not believe (perhaps by desire) what had been done to the Jews until the war was over. Even those that rescued Jews toward the end of the war often had trouble grasping what it was they were seeing. Don't get me wrong, during WWII, no one loved Germans, but by in large they up held their war time obligations. On the other hand, the Japenese were strange, unknown, different color, fanatics, who fought to the death and often to the last man, have been known to eat enemy soldiers (during mid to later part of the war), worshiped a man-god, sometimes carried swords, and were more brutal to each other than we were to most prisoners. Don't think for a second that people thought the Germans were even in the same book as the Japenese. Remember, most of the time, the Japenese would not even take prisoners...they would execute them in the field...and when they did, they often tortured and/or killed them for fun. The Japenese often used prisoners for sword practice. For the most part, Germany actually tried to meet its obligations. So, to say it again, while the Germans were considered war savages, the Japenese were considered sub-human...and not because of propaganda. Propaganda only made the divide even wider.

So the end justifies *any* means?

Sounds like you didn't do the math. ;) Given the choice, if you could save 300,000+ soldiers by dropping two bombs, would you do it? Remember, radiation sickness was not well understood and the true nature of the horror (RNA/DNA damage, mutation, blindness, horrid burns, etc) was only vaguely within grasp of the scientists which worked directly on the Manhattan Project. So given the choice between saving your own countrymen and killing people you would more than likely have to kill anyways...which would you pick? Since you seem to be crying for humanity, I assume the decision is obvious...just not easy...as it was for Truman at the time.

While this is a very odd thought, had we actually had to have invaded mainland Japan, and 300,000+ soldiers died, Truman himself could have been tried as a war criminal. As he had within his grasp to save those lives.

We had a just cause, but we did unjust things to achieve it.

War is never just. Period. I'm certainly not trying to justify every horrible action, on all sides, which were taken during the war. My comments are specifically focused on the use of the bombs on the Japenese. I believe it's very important to understand the nature of the enemy and the mindset of those involved at the time.

Lastly, which is a widely unpopular view, just imagine how many people's lives were ultimately saved by using nukes so early on. If the horrors were not understood, the world over, what are the odds you would have seen them used during the Korean Conflict? During the cold war? My personal belief is the use of those weapons on Japan saved 300,000+ soldiers, plus an untold more because the horror of their use has become imprinted in who we ar

Re:As if we have the right.

[GooberToo]

Actually, that name is known to history directly because of the meddling of other nations. Most people believe Hitler was able to rise to power as a direct result of post-WWI sanctions impossed on Germany.

This is not to say I believe we should leave countries unchecked...I'm just saying the chess piece can fall face up or face down.

Re:As if we have the right.

[GooberToo]

Just FYI, most people don't realize that every nuke has a return address. Every nuke has a unique radion signature which identifies its source of enrichment. Ever reactor enriches slightly differently. This tidbit needs to be shared with more of the world. That way it's understood, should a nuke make it way from say, NK (Iran), and explode within a friendly border, NK (Iran) would suddenly start to glow very brightly.

Re:As if we have the right.

[GooberToo]

That's unique radiation...not radion...

Re:As if we have the right.

[aeryn_sunn]

I also think you should have added that those who criticize the US nuclear bombing of Japan to end WWII are also looking at what happened during 1945 through the lens of 2006... they seem to forget context... the same goes for those that like to criticize the Sodom & Gomorrah bombing campaigns against Germany... odd that people who criticize war tactics and strategy seem to always forget the horrors the Japanese inflicted upon the Chinese, Koreans, the Phillipinos, etc...or what the Germans did to the Jews, Gypsies, Polish, etc... or the fact that almost 55 million people were killed in WWII... so all this second guessing on nuking Japan to end WWII is nonsense...

Re:As if we have the right.

[zacronos]

So the end justifies *any* means?

Sounds like you didn't do the math. ;) Given the choice, if you could save 300,000+ soldiers by dropping two bombs, would you do it?

Not if I could do it by dropping one bomb, especially if I thought I could always drop the second later if it proved necessary.

Let me point out that in my previous comment, I never questioned whether dropping nukes was better than an invasion of Japan. I did the math, and I never questioned it -- there is no need to debate that point with me. I questioned whether dropping two nukes is justifiable compared to the option of dropping one.

You and another poster gave some good reasons for dropping two. However, I must say I am not yet convinced that one nuke could not have done the job, or more accurately that one nuke would have been so significantly less likely to succeed (as you did convince me that it would have been less likely to at least some extent) that dropping two was clearly justified. I do understand cost-benefit analysis (I say this because you seem to assume I don't). You and the other poster have given some justification for dropping two, but not enough to convince me that the difference in benefit between destroying one city and destroying two cities was worth the difference in cost between destroying one city and destroying two cities. Besides, would it not have been possible to drop one, and then drop the second if they did not surrender within a certain timeframe? Yes, I'm sure it would have been much harder to get the second nuke through, and maybe required the sacrifice of several escort planes, but (if we could have done it and if it would have worked to force a surrender) that hardly balances out against the possibility of only having to destroy one city instead of two.

Maybe you can convince me that the reduction in probability of getting a surrender from only one nuke would have been so great that it was not worth consideration. Maybe you can also convince me that the second attack could not have gotten through if we waited for their response before dropping the second. But, if it is reasonable to assume that one nuke would have worked, or that we could have dropped the second one later and that that would have worked to get a surrender, then I think the loss of a few escort planes (or for that matter, even the lost of 10, 15, or hell even 20 escorts if necessary) do not balance out against the destruction of an additional city. That's what I meant what I asked "So the end justifies *any* means?" -- we avoided invasion, and that's good, but could we have done so with less cost of Japanese lives (i.e. could we have done so by destroying only one city)?

Furthermore, the first point I brought up in my previous comment was intended to question the validity of the "ends" that supposedly justify the "means" dropping of both nukes. Specifically, you said (and even stressed) that part of the point was so we could achieve unconditional surrender. I questioned whether unconditional surrender was a necessary end, and you seem to have conceded that it was not. So, with that in mind, we can re-evaluate all the questions I asked above. Even if one nuke would not have been enough to get unconditional surrender, isn't it possible it would it have been enough for us to get an acceptable conditional surrender? There is historical evidence which suggests that the Japanese might have been willing to surrender even before we dropped the nukes if we had conceded as conditions of their surrender that we would have allowed them to keep their emperor and that we would not have tried him as a war criminal. (Furthermore, there is evidence the US knew this.) Even if this turned out not to be true, I think consideration of conditional surrender would have greatly increased the probability that a single nuke would have sufficed. At the very least we could have made those concessions part of our original offer, rather than demanding an uncondi

Re:As if we have the right.

[fredrik70]

hear, hear, for example, durnig the cuba missile crisis you showed great restraint (so did soviet I suppose), very close, but you made it

Re:As if we have the right.

[GooberToo]

Not if I could do it by dropping one bomb, especially if I thought I could always drop the second later if it proved necessary.

Some of the details are still debated by historians but I believe the second bomb was primarily used as a message to the USSR. Before the first bomb had been dropped, the Japenese had already indirectly signaled they were ready to talk surrender...conditionally; though it was unknow what that meant. The first bomb was then dropped. Somewhere in this time table, the USSR then declares war on Japan for the sole purpose of claiming territory. The Japenese were already, effectively defeated, save only for an actual invasion. While the USSR already knew we had atomic bombs in development (because of spies), IIRC, the dropping of the second bomb was leaked to the USSR through indirect channels. To me the political under pinnings are clear. While at the time, we were allies with the USSR, everyone understood it was more a, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", type arrangement. To be clear, the USSR had disdain for the US even back then. They distrusted the US so much, the warning of Germany's attack arrived in plenty of time to counter it, yet it went completely unheaded. At the time, the USSR had a neutrality agreement in place with Germany.

In the long run, we needed a second front in the war on Germany so we supplied weapons of war and some logistics to them. Otherwise, they probably would have had their asses handed to them, despite Germany's complete stupidity and the horrid Russian winter.

Let's also not forget that immediately after WWII ended, Russia claimed half of Germany and attempted to claim all of it. This is what the Berlin Air Lift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_air_lift) was all about. And they did so with full intensions of claiming all of Germany, right our from under us. You need to remember, the USSR government was nothing but hostile asses despite being "allies"; before, during, and after the war.

The long of the short, the above is just the tip of the ice berg. I sincerely do believe dropping both bombs is easily justified, so long as the complete context is brought into light. If you seriously wonder about this stuff...there are probably a hundred books which cover different aspects of the politics surrounding the dropping of the bombs. I'm sure most of them will do a much better job of swaying you one way or the other then some loon, such as my self, on slashdot can do. ;) Heck, just turn on the History Channel from time to time.

Cheers!

Re:As if we have the right.

[GooberToo]

Your primise makes for a better movie plot then reality. Sorry, nice try. But, let's say the improbable odds are beaten. Big deal. They still need arming codes. This means a police, FBI, CIA, SWAT, and/or military interception of a truck...a shoot out...and the bomb is back in our hands. Worse case, a 500lbs bomb is dropped near the truck, or 20mm chain gun is fired ...containment is not lost...and it's back in our hands. The spies would then be rounded up...if they were still in the country and executed. End of story.

Like I said, makes for a great movie plot...just not realistic in the least.

Re:As if we have the right.

[rblum]

Maybe - but at least I'm willing to put my name on my statements.

Could it have something to do with....

[8127972]

.... The fact that they kind of need food?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6069606.st m

Just a thought.

Re:Could it have something to do with....

[Qzukk]

The fact that they kind of need food?

That didn't stop them in the moments leading up to their nuke test.

Most likely its because their nuke test was a colossal failure and everyone knows it. Kim pissed off a lot of powerful people, not only on our side, but their side as well, by trying this stunt and rather than proving that they have nukes as an incentive to not invade them, they've got nothing and in getting nothing they gave everyone an incentive to invade them.

So now he's really, really sorry. Bush will establish sanctions on them just like Clinton did and Kim will continue to work on nuclear weapons in secret just like he did when Clinton did it.

If Bush and the Republicans hadn't had such a hardon for dicking around with their guns and not wasted our resources and support on Iraq, at this point we probably could have taken North Korea down with a bit of diplomacy and brute force, the way wars are supposed to be run: Convince China to take in the Koreans (at least temporarily), and then pamphlet bomb North Korea with a simple message: "go to China and live, stay or cross the DMZ and die", send in some snipers to help convince the military to not hamper the civilians, then start marching the DMZ north a few weeks later. When we get to the top and have killed everyone in our path, we convince China to return the Koreans (or let them keep them... it's not like anyone really should be living in most of that region), convince South Korea to reunite families, and everyone in the area to support whatever new nation the people remaining come up with if South Korea doesn't want to unite.

Re:Could it have something to do with....

[bucky0]

So, you propose that instead of what we're doing now, we should've tried to cause the North Korean populace flee the country, then invaded NK?

I think what we're doing isn't the best solution possible, but what you're advocating is sheer lunacy. For no other reason than the fact that NK is capable of putting hundreds of thousands of artillery shells PER HOUR into Seoul. They would lose hundreds of thousands of people in a day, and the SK economy would be destroyed.

The Angry Letter

[Morbidsoul]

I guess the last Angry Letter the UN wrote worked!

Re:The Angry Letter

[east coast]

That would be a first: something from the UN that actually works.

That sucks.

[arthurpaliden]

Now the price of oil will fall and with it my oil stocks.

WHAT IMPOSSIBLE

[Chris whatever]

they can afford a table?

ooooooooooooooooooooooo too easy

Thank God for GWB!

[PHAEDRU5]

When Bill Clinton was in power, Jimmy Carter took it upon himself to give the Kim Family Country nuclear power plants, food, Chivas, porn, etc. Hence the current state of North Korea.

With GWB in power, the gargoyle's been left empty-handed. With any luck, we'll see the people of North Korea do a Mussolini on him. I, for one, will welcome the day.

Re:Thank God for GWB!

[arthurpaliden]

And true to form the US will promot the revolution and then do nothing to aid it as the participants are killed. Remembering the revolt in southern Iraq after the first Gulf War.

Re:Thank God for GWB!

[Onan]

Sure, I guess that's one way to view things.

Or, for those of us who prefer some sanity, there's the other description: When Clinton was in power, negotiations successfully stopped Korea's plutonium refinement process, and no weapons were produced. Bush, on the other hand, abandoned that agreement, resulting in Korea restarting their plutonium refinement program, producing several nuclear weapons, and testing one of them successfully.

So why exactly are we thanking him again?

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006 /10/do_you_feel_saf.html is a good recap of the situation around the DPRK's nuclear weapons program, going back to the first Bush administration.

Re:Thank God for GWB!

[everphilski]

It takes more than six years to develop a nuclear bomb. I don't care who says what. This has been in the works for quite some time.

Re:Thank God for GWB!

[remove office]

I think you're forgetting that President Bush gave 95 million dollars to North Korea for their nuclear program back in 2002. NK had about 2 nuclear devices (if any) when Clinton left office. While we have been tied down in Iraq, they developed 8-10.

Re:Thank God for GWB!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, Clinton and Kim Jong Il had an agreement, but the NoKos continued to work on nuclear weapons despite it.

With the abandonment of its plutonium program, North Korea began an enriched uranium program. Pakistan, through Abdul Qadeer Khan, supplied key technology and information to North Korea in exchange for missile technology around 1997, according to U.S. intelligence officials. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapo ns_of_mass_destruction

The Bush Administration realised that the bilateral approach had failed, and that military options were very limited, so they've tried to work multilaterally. Hence the six-party talks and the Security Council resolutions.

IMHO, the US doesn't have the influence over North Korea to make a satisfactory agreement. Only China has that influence, so the fact they've decided to push North Korea back to the table is a very good sign.

Re:Thank God for GWB!

[Onan]

Sure, Clinton and Kim Jong Il had an agreement, but the NoKos continued to work on nuclear weapons despite it.

With the abandonment of its plutonium program, North Korea began an enriched uranium program.

Yes, the Agreed Framework halted plutonium refinement. North Korea violated at least the spirit of the agreement by then pursuing uranium refinement.

But that was still a substantial success. Uranium refinement is a vastly slower, more difficult, and less reliable path to nuclear weapons. If North Korea were still limited to refining uranium in secret, they would be at least years, possibly decades away from having a single working weapon. But because Bush walked away from the agreement and allowed them to resume plutonium refinement out in the open, they now have somewhere around six of them.

I'm not saying that North Korea was a completely solved problem in the Clinton era. But the situation was leagues better than it is now, or is ever likely to be again.

Re:Thank God for GWB!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, which is why a Uranium device can be made with a lump of material of sufficient grade and size, a monkey and a hammer. And a plutonium device requires precision explosive lenses that North Korea seems to have botched.

They'll have to sit at the kids table

[Anonymous Coward]

It fits them better.

How about we publish unbiased history of US first?

[PRMan]

How about we publish an unbiased history of the US first?

OK. OK. I get it.

[PHAEDRU5]

America is the cause of all the world's problems. *And* we don't pay enough in taxes.

Gotcha. Thanks. I'll go flagellate myself immediately.

Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

The US is the only nation to have ever used a nuke on another. Who the hell can actually have any trust in us when it comes to nuclear weapons?

Trust is something that happens between people, not governments. Nobody in power in the US has ever used a nuke against another country; President Truman is dead. The analogy of talking about the USA like it is some 200-year-old person might have its uses, but it is nevertheless an illusion. Who in the USA bears the responsibility for Hiroshima? Nobody, that's who (unless you're one of those mystical reincarnation types).

As for "rights", that's another illusion. Again, people have rights, and those are protected by their governments. If you use the analogy of states-as-people and talk about NK's "right" to nukes, well, who is the government that is going to protect that right? None. There is no world government. So while idealistic hippie types might try to assert NK's "right", that doesn't mean the other nations are going to respect it. USA's government, with respect to NK at least, is doing what it feels is in its best interest. If you are thinking in terms of rights instead of interests, then you're going to be frustrated and impotent at international (i.e. absolutely lawless) politics.

We have that saying in Texas, too!

[interactive_civilian]

Screw me once, shame on you. Screw me twice... you get the idea.

Uhhh...never get screwed again?

Re:We have that saying in Texas, too!

[bogjobber]

For those of you that missed the joke the first time.

North Korea sits down at the table

[SuperStretchy]

"Who put the whoopie cushion on my chair??"

Jimmy Carter

[Anonymous Coward]

I would argue that Jimmy Carter was one of our BEST Presidents.

Why?

Because he was a Democratic President in office when there was a very strong Democratically controlled Congress. Based on our current experience when the Executive branch and the Legislative are both controlled by the same party and their complete fiscal, Civil Rights, International, etc... irresponsibility, Jimmy Carter could have done some horrible damage to this country. Instead, he set up Ronald Regan in wonderfull situation that got him elected twice and then a subsequent Republican presidency was elected.

Re:Jimmy Carter

[ArcherB]

I would argue that Jimmy Carter was one of our BEST Presidents.

WOW! I wouldn't! I remember the late 70's and they sucked! Inflation, energy crisis, high unemployment, extremely high interest rates (mortgage rates that looked like credit card rates of today), and of course, the "Iran Hostage Crisis" (and Iran in general).

Then, after leaving office, he won't go away. Compare Carter, as a former Prez to Clinton, Reagan, Bush 41, and Ford. Carter won't shut up. He is the only one who constantly criticizes the presidency and even the US itself. I didn't see Bush41 hammering Clinton. I didn't see Ford hammering Carter. Hell, even Clinton refrains from getting too deep into it. You need a certain level of class to be a good X-President, and Jimmah ain't go it! He should stick to building houses because his diplomacy skills suck. It doesn't take a diplomatic genius to simply grant every point to the opposition while getting nothing but empty promises in return.

Will "W" get any credit?

[the Gray Mouser]

It took long enough, but it looks like Kim Jong Il is blinking.

This is why bilateral talks would have been a bad idea. We've finally got them talking to their neighbors as well as us. NK doesn't care about lying to the US, but they're not too keen about lying to China. What comes from these talks remains to be seen, but at the least it's a step in the right direction.

As for sanctions ever working - they did a good job during the cold war against the Soviet empire. It takes a long time, and it requires sanity at the government level, but they can be effective. In NK's case, the sanctions against luxury goods probably matters more than anything else, as they really don't care how many of their people starve or go without anything. But the leaders need their wines, cognacs, and lobster to maintain their own standard of living.

Re:Will "W" get any credit?

[oh_my_080980980]

Not with morons like you who know jack shit about foreign policy.

North Korea has Bush by the balls and they know it. Bush can do jack shit to stop N. Korea.

What's Bush going to do:

Stop them from kicking the u.n. weapons inspectors out? No.
Stop them from unlocking the nuclear fuel? No.
Stop them from starting up the nuclear plants? No.
Stop them from making a nuclear bomb(s)? No.
Stop them from testing missiles? No.
Stop them from testing the nuclear bomb(s)? No.

Hmmm....so what exactly is Bush suppose to be given credit for?

Dumbass.

Re:Will "W" get any credit?

[dlhm]

The didn't test the nuke in South Korea

NKs were heard to say...

[Anonymous Coward]

NKs were heard to say... ...returning to tables is great. We were tired of eating... err... starving on the floor. Maybe they'll send chairs next, and some food for the table. Please?

Oh my.

[PHAEDRU5]

I remember the US when Jimma was President. He gave us the best of both worlds: high unemployment, and high inflation. He'd decided the decline of the US was inevitable, and ruled accordingly. And when we, the citizens of the US, objected, he got on TV and told us all this was our fault, and we'd better just get used to it.

No wonder Reagan won in a landslide.

Since leaving offive, Jimma's showed himself to be a typical small-town Southern politician: small-minded, and with a mean streak a mile wide.

Jimmy Carter: History's greatest monster.

Re:Oh my.

[spun]

Good God, that started out as a nice troll but you just went to far. A good troll has to be believable. The first paragraph was excellent, a few untruths and distortions, but nothing that is completely unbelievable. The next line should have been the last, though. The next to the last line is where you start to lose it. A mean streak? Come on, his worst critics would never say that. Then in the last line you go so far over the top that one almost has to conclude that you really feel exactly the opposite about Jimmy and are using an extreme form of sarcasm. History's greatest monster, indeed.

And for a slightly different angle on all this,

[The Mgt]

see here

Re:And for a slightly different angle on all this,

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. That was actually a really good read. How different could it possibly
be from the ignorant chest-beating insecure crap in the American media and the
rubbish recirculated by apologists for war, aggression and abuse here?

Reading this measured and informed analysis makes me realise that our media
is an absolute joke.

Re:And for a slightly different angle on all this,

[khallow]

I noticed that the bolded line near the bottom should read "North Korea will attempt to nuke Japan and the smoking craters that are left will surrender to South Korea." No way that Japan will let North Korea gain a nuclear edge.

Keeping NK talking is the only real option

[Anonymous Meoward]

As much as I'd like to see KJI push up the daisies, I'm afraid the options of all major players are limited.

Economic sanctions are the only real cards left worth playing, and they're still dicey. Let's assume they actually work. You have a number of scenarios to deal with afterward:

• Military response from NK. Not likely, but it would devastate the South if it did happen. Seoul could cease to exist. Japan would probably be fired upon as well. And the global economy might not be able to endure the strain.
• Kim Jong Il abdicates the throne, voluntarily or otherwise. This sounds pleasing, until you consider that you have no idea who will take power next.
• Massive refugee issues. The international community can't even handle Darfur. How about (tens of?) millions of refugees streaming over the Chinese border? (Not exactly something the Chinese want to deal with before their big coming-out party in 2008 either.)

The best course of action is probably what China is pursuing today, however slyly. On one hand, they're ramping up pressure ever so slightly on NK. On the other, they're getting trained cadres in place to take over the administration of the failed state once it finally collapses.

This probably won't sit well with US neo-cons and others who want to see a democratic state in the North. Not bloody likely. Realpolitik wins this round.

So the best we can do right now is to buy time while turning up the heat on NK ever so slowly.

One success story

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Economic sanctions cut Idi Amin's ability to buy the loyalty of Uganda's armed forces. He was out of power shortly thereafter.

I hope someone is making realistic calculations about how many people Mr. Kim needs to keep sweet, how much hard currency that requires, and how much hard currency would come in with trade shut off and ships getting searched for drugs, counterfeit money, and exported weapons.

Team america was right afterall

[Anonymous Coward]

Kim got so ronrey he just had to come back to talk.

Re:Every time I turn on the news, it's Team Americ

[kfg]

The distance between genius and insanity is measured only by success.

Both are seeing the world in ways that the common run does not. The difference between the two, however, is that one sees the world more clearly, while the other sees it less so.

An essential problem is that the common run cannot see the tools used to measure the success of a genius either; and thus are, inherently, not equiped to differentiate the two.

KFG

What would work?

[Rodong]

You've tried war, you've tried sanctions, lets look at what works: How didya open up china and cause them to at least restrain their worst crazy ideas?

Simple:Trade. Not a lifting of sanctions or anything half assed like that, start full scaled trade with them, let them buy and sell all the goods they want, and profit off it too, the populace will never get the strenght required if they have to scavenge for food. it's all about the the phases of need, first you eat, then you think, and then you act. If you were to warm up on em and embrace them into trade, you'll have a development much like china and vietnam, where the party might still be strong but it's desperation wears off and the population is better off.

Re:What would work?

[krell]

"How didya open up china and cause them to at least restrain their worst crazy ideas?"

Among their worst crazy ideas are the ongoing occupation of Tibet, and the quite open "We will do it just because we want to. Muahahah!" threat to cross yet another international boundary and trash Taiwan. Has either of these crazy ideas been restrained?

Re:What would work?

[Richard_at_work]

Tibet is a complex situation because China never renounced its claim to sovereignty over the area, and indeed sovereignty was recognised in several post independance treaties by external countries between 1912 and 1960.

Re:OK. OK. I get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

*And* we don't pay enough in taxes.

Unless and until you neocons can get the balls to actually cut government spending, we sure as hell aren't paying enough in taxes. Racking up debt is just going to increase the amount you eventually pay in taxes. With interest, you're going to pay MORE than you think you're saving now. Deficit spending == tax hike.

No, they make tables their own way in NK

[spun]

No, no, no. They can't afford a western style table, but they have their own solution. Kim just has a couple flunkies get down on all fours, then they lay a few more flunkies across the first two. Sure it's a little uneven but considering how little the average North Korean has to eat, most of them are thin and flat enough to make a lovely table.

The hole in the wall over your head behind you....

[PHAEDRU5]

Is a Simpsons reference going right over your head.

Go look up what happened when Marge was sent to jail.

Re:OK. OK. I get it.

[krell]

Defecit spending does not equal tax hike IF you make the tax cuts permanent.

Mod Parent -1 Idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously. What an asshole.

Well...

[JimXugle]

Well, hopefully, the financial sanctions will be put in place this time.

Re:The hole in the wall over your head behind you.

[spun]

Oh shit. I feel dumb now.

Re:OK. OK. I get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

So you permanently cut taxes and keep spending away. Then when China finally decides to stop buying US bonds, interest rates go through the roof, and runaway inflation sets in. Since we apparently never intend to repay the debt, the dollar will get devalued until most of the debt gets cancelled out. Your wealth goes down the toilet along with value of the US financial system. Nice planning, Einstein.

Please mod up

[Weaselmancer]

Excellent article, with a lot of historical detail. Good find.

Re:Please mod up

[Anonymous Coward]

The above article is completely misinformed. The article claims that Korean nationalism was forged during the Japanese invasion of 1592, and that consequently the Korean people have been obsessed with a desire for revenge against the Japanese.

On the contrary, Korea had been a unified nation for nearly a millennium before the invasion of 1592, and as such there certainly was a national consciousness formed well before that invasion. In particular, Korean peasants resisted the 13th century invasions of the Mongolian empire for decades, whereas most nations extant at the time either surrendered or were crushed by the Mongolian empire within a few years. If you want to make the argument that a major invasion foments nationalism, then you certainly have to concede that Korean nationalism was formed at least as early as the Mongolian invasions, centuries before the Japanese invasions of 1592.

As for this strange Korean obsession with revenge against the Japanese that the article mentions, it should be mentioned that the Koreans never attempted any counter invasion against Japan. If the Koreans were so intent on revenge, why would they not attack Japan immediately after wiping out the Japanese army and navy, given that that was the perfect time to take any punitive actions? More generally, when is it ever accurate to describe an entire nation of individuals as obsessed with anything? I might say some Americans are obsessed with football, but it is inaccurate to say America as a whole is obsessed. In fact, there are many Americans that don't care about the sport at all (I would guess they are particularly prevalent on slashdot).

I could go on, but the point is the article that you describe as "excellent" is actually full of inaccuracies and, to put it nicely, creative interpretations of history. Before you go about praising any highly opinionated article about the history of an entire nation, I suggest you read a little about the history of that nation first.

And this is on slashdot why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Other than the endless political debates by geeks (which are not known for their political knowledge) sounding like a discussion of a game of Sid Meier's Civilization, how is this tech related? It should at least put a tech angle on it, like talking about how this will affect when we'll see the cool cell phone toys like they have in south Korea... or whatever..

Re:OK. OK. I get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then regressive taxes against the poor to make up for the inability to tax the rich adequately. That is the result if the rich are made to pay less tax than the poor.

Back at the table with dice in hand.....

[rubberbando]

Kim Jong-il wants to DM this time...

Re:OK. OK. I get it.

[krell]

"Then regressive taxes against the poor to make up for the inability to tax the rich adequately."

In the current tax plan, the rich (as a group) pay the lion's share of taxes. Individually, the rich pay a higher percentage of their income (and also, of course, a higher amount of real dollars. The rich are already taxed quite adequately.

"That is the result if the rich are made to pay less tax than the poor."

That is an imaginary situation that has nothing to do with anything. There's not even a proposal to do what you describe. From anyone.

Sanctions are going the wrong way

[Colin Smith]

It's a much better idea to get NK involved, integrated and dependant on trade with the world. Try to build up a wealthy middle class in the country, they're the ones who have their sights set on political power. America can dump it's unwanted excess agricultural capacity there, subsidise businesses who are able to get in to do business.

Re:Sanctions are going the wrong way

[kbielefe]

It's not either-or. Sanctions were necessary to bring them to the table, and the threat of further sanctions is necessary in order to maintain a strong enough negotiating position to accomplish our goals, but that doesn't mean the kind of help you described won't be on the table during the talks.

Everyone hopes that the carrot approach will work, but don't forget that we are negotiating with a government that doesn't care that much about the economic prosperity of its people, and that doesn't see much upside to an integrated, involved, wealthy middle class.

Have they tried....

[Belial6]

Have they tried offering to let him direct a live action Daffy Duck feature length movie? From everything I have heard, this guy just want's to be an American mover and shaker. One movie deal, and we just might have him distracted for a couple of years.

There's probably a support group for that.

[Kadin2048]

Have they tried offering to let him direct a live action Daffy Duck feature length movie? From everything I have heard, this guy just want's to be an American mover and shaker. One movie deal, and we just might have him distracted for a couple of years.

Sounds like a plan to me. I mean, what's one more megalomaniac Communist in Hollywood? He'll fit right in.

Re:There's probably a support group for that.

[ConceptJunkie]

Well, he'd be a bit on the conservative side, but yeah, I'd give that a go.

Re:There's probably a support group for that.

[tehcyder]

what's one more megalomaniac Communist in Hollywood?

I'd love to know what your definition of a Communist is. The megalomaniac bit is fair enough.

Why NK does not collapse like East Germany

[DeltaQH]

The main reason why the NK regime exist is China. And I am not talking of what happened in the Korean war.

In my opinion the main reason for China to support NK and prevent thre regime to collapse, is not a massive influx of refugees, but a collapse of NK in the way East Germany collapsed.

If something similar happened in NK it will mean a political problem for China. Collapse of a "Communist" one party rule into a multiparty democratic society unified with the SouthKorea? No way!

That would put quite a presure on the Chinese government system and society....

In order to prevent it they do not care at all about the miserable life of people in NK and the continuation of the division between North and South, with what does means to friends and families on both sides of the DMZ. Not to speak of quite a bit of kidnapped people by NK trapped in that country

But now china has next to his doorstep a nuclear capable crazy regime. I do not think that they Chinese powers that be are sleeping well lately. It looks like a case of dammed if you do, dammned if you dont.

I hope for the sake of its people that one day that crazy regime collapse. Curious... I always thought that Albania would last longer than NK, but well.. they did not have China next door after all.

Re:Why NK does not collapse like East Germany

[Anonymous Coward]

it is possible for a communist country to follow china's path to reform itself to be something new. that is what vietnam is doing and recently, they even started an election inside the party to choose their leaders..., even a step ahead of china. the reason that NK is not on the same path is partially due to US's policy to NK. US has shown to the world it enjoys using the military actions to resolve issues. NK always wants to talk to US directly, but US refuses. it is US that put the NK on a special list and claimed every one on the list should be taken care of ... in other words, US didn't give NK a chance, a choice, or another way out. imagine if you are JK-II, i think probablly you would do the same thing on the nuke tests.

with sanctions

[Phantom of the Opera]

That risks the scenario of the north opening up the borders and flooding its neighbors with refugees. On top of that, the north may feel they have no other options but invading the south.

Re:with sanctions

[sadler121]

Nobody is going to flood china with refugees, at worst, china will have a lot of dead bodies on their hands as the shoot anyone who crosses the border with North Korea. China has done just that with Tibetan refugees fleeing over the Himalaya's, they will have no problem doing it to North Koreans. The Chinese do not care about life, they'll just charge South Korea for all the bullets.

Re:with sanctions

[Shakrai]

That risks the scenario of the north opening up the borders and flooding its neighbors with refugees. On top of that, the north may feel they have no other options but invading the south.

They can't invade the South. Even without US help it's been about two decades since the North had military superiority over the South.

North Korea can't win a war against the South. The South can still lose a war against them but the North can't win unless their objective is to go out in a blaze of glory.

Arguments for war

[Kadin2048]

Depends on your definition of "worse."

If you believe that a nuclear North Korea really would use a weapon against a populated area (either in the U.S., or South Korea, or Japan), and that the odds of them doing this only increase with time until it becomes a near certainty, and you also believe that it is the duty of governments to protect the lives of their own citizens first, and enemy states' citizens second, then there is an argument for a first strike against North Korea.

I wouldn't necessarily call it a "war," though. I'm not sure what term you use for wiping out another country's infrastructure and population in a fraction of a second, but 'war' seems to imply more back-and-forth than that action leaves room for.

Of course, I don't think that the U.S., or the West in general, has the stomach for that sort of action. We have tacitly accepted the idea of a nuclear North Korea -- really, a nuclear Kim Jong-Il -- in our refusal to contemplate such drastic measures, which are the only guaranteed method of preventing a budding nuclear power from joining the club for real.

Either we acknowledge them as a power, or we annihilate them before they have a chance to become a threat. If we cannot do the latter, then we have already chosen the former.

I'm not saying whether such actions would be a Good Idea or not (probably not), but it's time to admit to ourselves that the age of nonproliferation is over, if we're not going to forcibly prohibit, using whatever means are necessary, countries from acquiring nuclear weapons. If inaction is what our collective conscience dictates, then we should get used to the effects.

Re:Arguments for war

[antv]

If you believe that a nuclear North Korea really would use a weapon against a populated area (either in the U.S., or South Korea, or Japan), and that the odds of them doing this only increase with time until it becomes a near certainty, and you also believe that it is the duty of governments to protect the lives of their own citizens first, and enemy states' citizens second, then there is an argument for a first strike against North Korea.

I believe that NK will use nuclear weapon as a defense measure, if they are attacked and couldn't defend otherwise - the same way we would. If we don't attack them, I highly doubt they would attack us first, because there's absolutely nothing for them to gain. I also highly doubt NK will share their nukes with anybody willingly. The really scary part about this is that NK is not capable of adequately securing their weapons, so it's in both our and their best interest to make sure no terrorist group steals a nuke. Now, going to war will destabilize NK, and quite obviously it will be way much harder to keep track of their nukes (remember the story with RDX in Iraq Al-Quaqua base after invasion ?). Plus, there's always a risk that NK will actually use a nuke when attacked.

Re:Arguments for war

[shutdown -p now]

If we don't attack them, I highly doubt they would attack us first, because there's absolutely nothing for them to gain.

There is a lot for them to gain by threatening to attack, and then asking for ransom, though.

Re:Arguments for war

[argStyopa]

I highly doubt they would attack us first, because there's absolutely nothing for them to gain. I also highly doubt NK will share their nukes with anybody willingly.

DPRK has hardly, by any standards, behaved rationally. Ever. Their entire history has been about constant frothing brinksmanship for the most trivial of issues. On what basis do you assume that they are going to start making reasonable cost/benefit analyses now?

Kim Jong Li

[timmarhy]

NK is a fucking bat shit crazy place, and if it got turned into a smoking nuclear waste land the world would be better off. you only need to hear the story of the 4 americans who deserted to NK in the korean war to know this. fuck their only friend in the world is china, and even they are against them now.

no. not true

[totalctrl]

china doesn't have the complete control over NK. Russia does... NK only uses china as a supplier, but treat the Russia as its ally...

the million man army

[Meph_the_Balrog]

Thing with China is, if North Korea becomes too much of a political liability, they'll just move in and annexe the whole country. IMHO the man in charge has more to fear from China than from the US.

Re:the million man army

[sadler121]

[china will] just move in and annexe the whole country

lets just hope a neo con is not at the helm here in the US or we may goto war with China. Seeing that it was China almost pushed the US into the sea during the Korean war (after wave, and wave of china men which overheated our machine guns).

Welcome to the draft, and learn to speak mandarin.

Re:the million man army

[Shakrai]

lets just hope a neo con is not at the helm here in the US or we may goto war with China. Seeing that it was China almost pushed the US into the sea during the Korean war (after wave, and wave of china men which overheated our machine guns).

Pushed into the sea? You don't have a lot of knowledge of military history do you? They pushed the United Nations (not the US) forces out of North Korea and managed to recapture Seoul before running out of steam. They didn't have the logistical capacity to go any further. In short order (two months later) the UN recaptured Seoul and pushed them back to the 38th parallel. China didn't almost "push the allies into the sea".

The Chinese lost between 100,000 to 500,000 soldiers killed in action, not counting wounded. The North Koreans lost another 500,000. Nobody knows exactly how many as both sides have ample reason to inflate or deflate the estimate. Contrast that to about 35,000 American KIAs and another 17,000 allied (not counting the South). At the Battle of Chosin Reservoir the Chinese lost ten times as many soliders as the UN did. That's what it took for them to obtain "victory".

I think I'll pass on the Mandarin lessons.

Re:the million man army

[Shakrai]

Thing with China is, if North Korea becomes too much of a political liability, they'll just move in and annexe the whole country. IMHO the man in charge has more to fear from China than from the US.

That's not going to happen. Nobody would stand for it (not the South, not the US, not Japan, and not even Russia), the Chinese would have nothing to gain but problems (do you want to clean up the mess that is North Korea?) and ask the Japanese how well the Korean people respond to being occupied by an outside force.

Re:the million man army

[Meph_the_Balrog]

Nobody would stand for it

Perhaps, but the US isn't exactly in a position to argue - they're spread a little thin as it is. Also, after seeing the ways China has historically dealt with their own people, combined with the fact that *everyone* wants to be commercially in bed with them, I'm sure they'll all turn a blind eye as China makes all their troubles in the region just disappear.

The reason I believe this to be a possibility, is that in the past, China has had a history of asking the rest of the world to lay off North Korea and leave them alone. With the North Korean government changing from what appeared to be just an oppresive and semi-stable dictatorship into something with long range ballistic weaponry and the attitude of a rabid wolf, China will be starting to get very nervous.

The last thing China needs on their western border is a number of nuclear exchanges. Even if one of them is launched by a technical ally of theirs.

Re:the million man army

[Meph_the_Balrog]

err - that would be EASTERN border - I suck at geography :P

Re:the million man army

[Shakrai]

Perhaps, but the US isn't exactly in a position to argue - they're spread a little thin as it is.

And the South Koreans and Japanese would just roll over and take it? Heck, I could envision the South helping the North if the Chinese were to invade. They are Koreans first, North and South second. And if you think that Korea couldn't hold off the Chinese for quite some time then I suggest you study the Winter War. It's amazing what a small number of outnumbered defenders can do to defend their homeland. The Finns managed a 5 to 1 ratio against the Soviets -- even though they were outnumbered almost four to one.

combined with the fact that *everyone* wants to be commercially in bed with them, I'm sure they'll all turn a blind eye as China makes all their troubles in the region just disappear.

There's no way that anybody would turn a blind eye. Not Japan, not South Korea, not Russia, not the United States, and certainly not the UN.

The reason I believe this to be a possibility, is that in the past, China has had a history of asking the rest of the world to lay off North Korea and leave them alone. With the North Korean government changing from what appeared to be just an oppresive and semi-stable dictatorship into something with long range ballistic weaponry and the attitude of a rabid wolf, China will be starting to get very nervous.

China isn't "very nervous". In their eyes (the Chinese) the North embarrassed the hell out of them and proved just how little influence they had when they tested that nuke. But they aren't "very nervous". The only thing China doesn't want to see happen is a failed North that sends millions of refugees pouring across the Yalu river.

The last thing China needs on their western border is a number of nuclear exchanges. Even if one of them is launched by a technical ally of theirs.

A "nuclear exchange" would imply that North Korea had a number of nuclear weapons and a suitable delivery system. Nobody knows for sure how many nukes they have (probably less then half a dozen) and they don't have anything remotely like a delivery system. There's not going to be an "exchange". This is all brinkmanship. The Chinese know that. So does everybody else.

Taken from the book of Iran

[HermMunster]

It could be nothing further from the truth. They are simply pulling a page out of the Iran book of how to fuck with the world diplomatically. Sanction them, make it hard, make it affect everyone. Destroy their facilities in the middle of the night on bombing raids. Move American war ships over into that area and get ready to pound them into oblivion. Making nuclear weapons is illegal so unmake them as soon as possible, even if it means force.

Re:Taken from the book of Iran

[arthurpaliden]

Excuse me but making nuclear weapons is not illegal. If it was then the US would be a rogue state.

Aside from taxes and Gov spending...

[Anonymous Coward]

Presidents have very little impact on the economy.

And you completely missed my point: Carter with a Dem. Congress could have really fucked up this country, but instead he stuck to his ideals. Bush has failed in that respect completely, and so has every other modern President (Truman I'm still deciding). Carter was an engineer and Governed as an engineer: too much reasoning and not enough BS'ing.

Take note, the smartest people are not the best leaders.

Pot? Kettle? Black?

[vandan]

I'd like to see the US rock up to multilateral talks where they are threatened with sanctions and military strikes if they don't discontinue their nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction programs. After all, the majority world opinion is that it is the US that poses the largest threat to world peace, not North Korea. When is the last time North Korea did something more provocative than: the US, or Israel, or the UK, or Australia, or China? Perhaps people should be more worried about their own WOMD and less about North Koreas?

Re:Pot? Kettle? Black?

[Zerbs]

When is the last time North Korea did something more provocative

There is plenty of interesting reading on North Korea and the threat it poses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_North_Kor ea I'd like to especially point out "The North has an estimated 1.08 million armed personnel, compared to about 686,000 South Korean troops, plus 17,000 US troops in South Korea." and "Military spending is estimated at 20%-25% of GNP, which would mean that the DPRK spends the largest proportion of its GNP on its military in the world"

Re:Pot? Kettle? Black?

[vandan]

"Military spending is estimated at 20%-25% of GNP, which would mean that the DPRK spends the largest proportion of its GNP on its military in the world"

Yes but its GNP is pathetically small, and yet it still takes a sizable swag of money to arm and defend yourself. Anyone who thinks North Korea has plans to take over the world, or even its southern neighbour, needs to get themselves a large dose of reality ... and no, not Fox reality or Sky News reality ... I mean reality as in stuff that is actually going on. It's the western powers, with the US at the helm, that has the expansionist policy. Everyone else is rushing to defend themselves. There's a big difference.

Totally China's call

[loose electron]

If China turns off the supply chain, North Korea crumbles. China can't piss off the rest of the world, but that does not mean that they will overtly support the west in pushing their "allied communist country" around.

Negotiators (high level) went from China to N Korea to privately slap their hand after the baby bomb was fired off.

On the other hand, if N Korea crumbles, China then has to deal with the refugeee problem across their border.

It is in China's best interest to maintain the status quo, and that is exactly what happened.

Old news, nothing surprising here.

its nice to talk but its not going to solve any

[RobertLTux]

What will solve it is an "Honorable Family" getting Kim and his buddies in the same room and using a Katana on the whole lot of them.
or installing a short sword in the normal place

Full Stop

The actual diplomacy issue...

[smithpg1002]

There is one thing that strikes me as almost comical, if it wasn't also so horrific at the same time. Mr Il-Sung (crazy muppet's father) invented the idea of "juche", which at it's cornerstone, besides the cult of personality creationism, is the idea of self-reliance. It's actually amazing how arrogant they are in the idea that they can survive in the world without anyone's help, yet they are nearly crippled and destroyed without aid from China and South Korea.

Now there are a few things (and I did skip over 50% of the comments) that I didn't see mentioned that make North Korea a competent enemy (if that's what they are classified as). It really has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. The first reaction is who are they going to sell them to, or if not the weapons, then the technology. I think that isn't the issue. If that were an actual worry, then we should have paid attention when India and Pakistani scientists were willing to sell them to anyone a decade ago. The weapons themselves are to keep the U.N. at a stand still in dealings with North Korea. Mr. Jong-Il has 3 things going in his favor to keep his regime in place. China wants to be a major player in the global economic world, as is shown with moves into technology, such as Lenovo's purchase of IBM's PC line, it's country's courting of Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft for example, and it's heavy investment in it's higher-education. But they cannot afford 2 things. A mass flood of refugees along it's border with North Korea, and a destabilized North Korea with an unpredictable regime and nuclear weapons for them to use to keep them in control. Not only would it be bad on the regions along the border, China would also loose any bargaining chips in the U.N., G8 and elsewhere in it's ability to help in global policing responsibility, and in that is what it takes in this day in age to also be a player in the global economic world.

With South Korea it is a bit more tricky. Some do want reunification (most I gather do not). Not only is South Korea a prosperous country economically, they do not want authoritative control again, as it would wipe out 50 years of progress for their society since the Korean War.

But this does pose a secondary problem for the three nations surrounding North Korea. Do they stick by the U.N. sanctions verbatim, or do they risk a dictator with a nuclear weapon, who's only goal is to stay in power? I think it's too easy to pass him off as a crazy madman. I think he really does know by what grips he has everyone.

My guess is the end game for him is not selling the technology as he is fully aware that there would be a regime change in 24 hours if that happened, but to keep that region on just enough edge that they still receive aid, and his regime stays in control. It's easy to say he does this kind of thing because he's the 5 year old that didn't get any candy, but, while not Bobby Fisher (sp?), he plays chess better than we think.

Re:The actual diplomacy issue...

[dbIII]

he is fully aware that there would be a regime change in 24 hours if that happened

How? You couldn't even have a regime change in Utah in 24 hours if the govenment there did something crazy and illegal that the Federal Government didn't like. War is horrible and takes time - everything else also takes time, even if you have film of Jong-Il personally giving Bin Laden a truck with a nuke on it shown on CNN (note: paranoid fantasies used in this post should not be confused with reality).

Re:The actual diplomacy issue...

[smithpg1002]

dbill,

I apologize, 24 hours is a bit short of a time. But if you look at coups in the past (Thailand for a recent example), the act of the coup is not what takes the amount of time. We can easily get into a discussion of why we are failing in Iraq a opposed to a military strike in North Korea today. Iraq was a completely different set of circumstances. We all know what a monster of a person Hussein was, but about the only thing keeping that country from a civil war was his religious indifference. In the Middle East crisis (not just this war) we are not aware of the inherent religious backgrounds of the differences in these cultures, and therefore we don't understand why we can't just install an American democracy and everything is just fine. It's certainly not that one side or the other is wrong or right, we have no comprehension of why there are differences.

But in the case of North Korea, there are no undertones in the right of land, or territory (as far a I know), there are just starving people, who just need help. That's why if the regime crumbled in a matter of hours, as regimes often do, you would not see the civil war that we are currently experiencing in Iraq. I want to say something about the "war is horrible and takes time", but that would be a party debate and neither has come up with a responsible solution or even idea for foreign policy in the last (how long have we been a country?) while.

Re:The actual diplomacy issue...

[dmohanty]

India a proliferator! You must be smoking something serious.

The list of proliferators (source->destination) goes thus

US->UK
USSR->China
China->Pakistan
Pakistan+China->North Korea
Pakistan->Iran

India (mis)used a reactor supplied by Canada to generate plutonium that was used in its first nuclear test way back in 1974.

The US which has conducted the most number of nuclear tests and puny UK and France, US stooges Japan and Australia have no right to complain about proliferation. If the US is so concerned about proliferation, it must acknowledge that it is the one who started it all and give up its stockpile and the world will follow suit.

Don't mod this down unless you are smoking something more serious. Do some googling and you will realize that India is not in the same league as proliferators US, USSR, China and Pakistan.

Re:The actual diplomacy issue...

[smithpg1002]

Actually if you had read the post, I wasn't accusing India of poliferation, although they did develop nuclear weapons without guidance. But in this reality that doesn't matter anymore. Maybe back in the 60's or 70's the treaty meant something. What I was talking about is the wholesale of nuclear technology that made only a one hour news cycle 10 years ago, and now we are worried about who Mr Jong-Il is going to sell the technology to, which in my asssumption is no one.

In this day and age, no one is stupid enough to actually use a nuclear weapon as a deterrent. And there isn't a person on earth that doesn't wish we could un-invent the nuclear weapon. Your list is a bit wrong on the cause and effect for each country to gain nuclear powers, but the point is well taken. The point of nuclear capacity is not who supplied it but why the buyer wanted it. Even a moron in a hurry would realize that no one can use a nuclear weapon without reprocussions from every other nation with the capacity.

BTW, India didn't misuse a reactor to test fire nuclear weapons in 1998.

Word of advise, read some books, don't be a mouth-piece for your parent's uneducated politics.

Re:The actual diplomacy issue...

[dmohanty]

Man, you are such a pig-headed idiot. Go through your earlier post. A portion of it reads

"we should have paid attention when India and Pakistani scientists were willing to sell them to anyone a decade ago.". My post was in response to that.

Now, go through my earlier post. In 1974 (not 1998), India used a reactor of Canadian make to test a plutonium bomb. 24 years later India conducted a second series of tests.

A word of advice. Before you display your moronic arrogance again, get an education at least for your next generation and before you rush to reply to this, go through this mail ten times to make sure that you get it.

Re:The actual diplomacy issue...

[smithpg1002]

It's nice that you resort to nothing more that high school name calling to support your claim. I can guarantee that I read more books in a week than you do in a year. I don't base my ideas on what CNN or FOXNEWS tells me. For you to call me a "pig-headed idiot" just shows that instead of having a rational arguement, you resort to high school name calling.

Who gives a flying fuck as to what India did in 1974. When you are dealing with a nuclear power, or a wanna-be, you could give a shit less what they did 20 or 30 years ago.

If you want to suck GWB's dick, go do it on some other forum.

Re:The actual diplomacy issue...

[dmohanty]

The point is that you do not have a point and hence are resorting to profanity. You know that more than anybody else.

Be a man/woman and not a coward. If you misrepresented some facts, accept it. A thousand lies can't bury the fact that India never proliferated.

Don't Reward Tyrany

[Zerbs]

Economic sanctions aren't going to hurt him, they're just going to make the poor poorer.

It is not the sanctions that have made North Korean people poor, it is the terrible mismanagement of the nation by its government. Why should we reward the tyranical government of North Korea with trade that will only benefit the elite aristocracy of that country and the army.

China Trade Has NOT Worked

[Zerbs]

China is still ruled an oppresive regime. Don't get fooled thinking the population there is better off. There is still censorship, there is still unjustified imprisonment, there is still government control of the press, government control of religion, and more. China still supports rogue states such as it has with North Korea where it publicly says no-no with one hand and then gives them rewards with the other. Bread and Circus may keep the population happy for now, but it doesn't mean they are better off.

Re:China Trade Has NOT Worked

[frogstar_robot]

If the goal is to make China a nicey-nice place full of nicey-nice people then forget it. NOTHING is going to do that. The initial goal of opening up to China was make them if not our friend than at least not an enemy. Secondly, some really cool heads saw an opportunity to make China a REALLY big thorn in the side of the U.S.S.R. Thirdly, it helped to redirect China's show of external force into more constructive paths. Economic competition with China is surely hard on the American worker but it isn't nearly as hard on them as an exchange of nukes would be.

Say what you want about ole Tricky Dick but he kicks the crap out of Shrub when it comes to foreign diplomacy and foreign policy. He took a couple of years too long to do it but he also knew it was time to pull the plug on Vietnam. There is good management of potential enemies and will to pull the national boot out of a quagmire. What a time we live in when Tricky Dick Nixon is someone to look up too.........

Awww, rats!

[Anonymous Coward]

Dagnabit! I was a hopin' we'd get to nuke 'em little yeller bastards!

Nuclear threat Exagerated?

[arthurpaliden]

So the North Korean have a few bombs. What can they do with it? Threaten or actually use it against the South, Japan, the United States maybe or sell them to terrorists. Does any one really think that the Chineese government would allow North Korea to exist in its present form it did any of that. Any war with the South, Japan or the United States will creat a major refugee problem for China. They do not want that. They will stop it from happening. Sell it to a terrorist organisations. Just consider for a moment the number of anti China groups that there are. Tibetan independance for example. Does any one really think that China would for one moment allow North Korea to put nuclear weapons into the hands of terrorist when they might be used against them. After all China is a closer and a much easier target and terrorist don't use or abide by "End User Certificates".

Why should we bother? No nukes there.

[dsmall]

Actually, I'm wondering why the U.S. is bothering to go the table at all. What do we have to gain? Let's go and watch them squirm. They have *nothing* we want. Maybe if they offer up Kim for arrest? Possibly of interest. He's certainly a criminal to his country.

Let's skip the whole "they have the bomb" rhetoric. They don't. *That's* the reason they're coming to the table. If they had nukes, they would be acting Big And Bad.

But, their nukes just don't work, and just imagine the fun meeting where Kim learned that another test wouldn't make things any better: they *still* won't work. (He should have listened the first time. But Kim, like Stalin and Beria, tended to have hearing problems.)

They screwed up -and- got really bad economic sanctions handed to them. Double bad news.

Every country that's tried for 20 kt on its first explosion has succeeded until now, which makes the North Koreans the world's most incompetent nuclear scientists. Sixty years after the successful first try, they couldn't manage even this? Good grief.

Remember the seismograph readings: First, the chemical explosives, then the bad nuclear fizzle; then the rifles as the scientists were shot.

Okay, why don't I think they have nuclear weapons?

The North Korean test was a fizzle. Remember it yielded about 0.5 kiloton. Usually a first generation nuclear device (implosion - plutonium) yields right around 20 kilotons. Given that the source of their plutonium was fuel rods run in a power reactor (not in an environment specifically designed to make plutonium, a "driver reactor" -- there's a huge difference), the most likely problem is the plutonium-239 is contaminated with plutonium-240. Probably the whole North Korean supply of plutonium is contaminated. -240 is very active, enough so to screw up the first generations of a fission explosion, which mean the last generations, where all the real energy comes from, just don't happen.

The U.S. rather famously ran into this problem with its first plutonium from the big driver reactors at Hanford. It had Pu-240 contamination. We had to use implosion to get around the problem. No one knew if this was even possible, which made it a pretty tasty hack to pull off. I think the quote is, "Half the work of the Manhattan Project was getting implosion to work".

We then did the math, optimized the time that U-238 was put into the neutron flux to produce the most Pu-239 and minimize the Pu-240, because Pu-240 is *always* a problem. (To oversimplify, it's a matter of getting one neutron to stick to the U-238, eventually producing Pu-239; if two stick, you get Pu-240. You're always going to get a little -240. Obviously, neutrons are randomly flying, there are quantum effects, and so forth. And yes, I'm leaving out a lot of details to get to the point; if you want to get into the Neptunium and two weeks and so forth, Wikipedia will make you happy.)

When you're expressly making plutonium, you can run the reactor at a given neutron flux level and keep the U-238 rods in a certain amount of time. But when you're making electricity, you're going to want to run the U-235/U-238 fuel rods as long as is economically feasible, and you're going to run them at power levels to make steam for a given energy demand, which is a whole different timing. And you are going to get Pu-240 problems. (Well, there are ways, but it is much harder.)

What's really interesting is that the proportions of Pu-239/Pu-240 are an exact signature of where the plutonium was made. Literally, what reactor, which batch, when. Sometimes, what part of the reactor! There are databooks of signatures. Given a sample or two of the North Korean plutonium, we'll know if it *ever* gets used, and the stated U.S. reply to such a use is something akin to a Trident D5 onto whereever Ki

Indian Scientists

[Anonymous Coward]

Indian scientists never sold or proliferated nuclear technology. Pakistan scientists and military establishment was always ready to trade their nuclear technology for missile technology.

Naive

[iendedi]

I think you might be being a bit naive here. The fact is, North Korea owes it's existence to China and China has the power to control them in pretty much any way they wish.

In this sense, North Korea is much like Israel. Israel is the United States' foaming-at-the-mouth laptog in the middle east in the same way that North Korea is China's foaming-at-the-mouth lapdog in Asia. Powerful countries that wish to present themselves as benign often have ferocious pet countries.

Hmm... I may need to re-think that... Maybe it's the other way around and the U.S. is Israel's foaming-at-the-mouth laptog these days? We are fighting their wars, after all.

Funny how that works...

Re:Naive

[somersault]

Well you tend to get attached to pets after a while, don't you? How exactly is Israel the US' lapdog?

Re:Naive

[richlv]

Hmm... I may need to re-think that... Maybe it's the other way around and the U.S. is Israel's foaming-at-the-mouth laptog these days?

oh. i thought that was obvious ;)
and not only these days...

Why can't the nuclear monopoly be broken?

[Fedarkyn]

why other countries can't have the atomic bomb? The most beligerant and war-mongering country in the world have lots of them!!! This country even have used it to anihilate 2 civilian cities (with no sanctions imposed until now) and for the last century was always involved in a war on some part of the world (except it's own territory, so it's allways attacking, never defending himself).

This monopoly caused the entire world being a hostage of the US agenda (see afghanistan and iraq) since they can use force every time negotiations prove being too slow or too costly.

The atomic bomb knowledge being spread can give the world some balance in the international politics scenario.

Consumerism

[joshsnow]

Personally I think the reason for all the anti-Americanism is the wild capitalism we export. Making money is the only thing and that causes concern as the old cultural values and communities are slowly being whitewashed with nothing but consumerism

Interesting. From what you've written, I can see that could be a problem. However, I think that given the option of pursuing consumerism, many people will do just that. In China, for instance, nobody cares about democracy except those in Hong Kong who have experienced it. Those that aren't still trapped in a life of serfdom or peasantry are busy making and earning money.

it is very evident that what they are really bringing is shopping malls, KFC, and Gap stores

Which is what people think they want - a comfortable life with posessions they don't need and therapists to tell them why their lives are empty. Which is why democracy is a secondary issue. In Iraq, for instance, instead of dropping bombs, the US should have found a way of dropping Starbucks, KFC and MacDonalds.

America! Fuck yeah!

[Original Replica]

"You obviously just made it into THE country (U.S.A.) recently (illegally, no doubt). "
Nope. Sorry, I was born in a US Navy hospital, and grew up with the other officers kids. Some of the more impressive US shows of military might (a returning carrier fleet, recommissioning the USS Iowa, etc) were commonplace in my youth. I know plenty about how the US military machine works.
"By having more powerful nukes, we can effectively destroy any country (or planet) that decides to use, threatens to use, or test a significantly weaker nuke."
That's why we are Team America: World Police.