Slashdot Mirror
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."
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?
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!
My work here is dung.
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.
.... The fact that they kind of need food?
t m
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6069606.s
Just a thought.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
see here
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.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."