I have toyed inside of my skull with several options, but have not found one which I find totally worthy.

While I agree that doing nothing, going to war, and a general appeasement will not work I am not sure that a blockade would be prudent at this time. A blockade could cause a first strike on Seoul by the North and pull us from a bad situation to a worse.

While I personally think that giving Kim his "non-agression guarantee" is a bad idea, I think we need to hunker down and come to an agreement ending the Korean War. For, as many people on here may not know, the Korean War (which was not a declared war) is still technically going on though it has been in a state of cease-fire for 50 years. Some kind of settlement needs to take place, what the details are I am not qualified to propose.

Overall the greatest issue is the question of what it is Kim wants. Does he really want the nuclear weapons or is he using it as an avenue to begin talks with the West in hopes of making economic reforms while keeping a lock on power? Also, we don't really even know what he is like. Is he another Gorbachev who is waiting to turn the system on its head or is he another Stalin? The whole personality cultish nature of the North Korean regime makes me believe his is at least on the surface much more the latter than the former.

Whatever happens I sure hope this cold hostility does not become hot again soon. The US armed forces would be spread way too thin if there was yet another shooting war going on halfway across the world.

North Korea having nukes is a much more dangerous proposition than Saddam having nukes though. Saddam wanted them for himself, North Korea will sell any kind of weapons system to the highest bidder. Where do you think saddam got all of his scud missles from in the first place?

MrS

___________________
Click the sig to see MrSquirrel

-"Reality" is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider - Therefore, the only real option I see available is a blockade of N. Korea. All nations, including China must sign on and isolate N. Korea diplomatically and economically. It will cause significant hardships on the N. Korean people (like his regime isn't already) and hopefully it would encourage a domestic regime change. Given the levels of propoganda and control already in place in N. Korea it is uncertain how effective this strategy would be. Anybody think of any better solutions?

I think the only better solution would be an internal coup before any blockade takes place. The problem with that is it would only happen with outside involvement, which would mean the CIA, and their track records for coups isn't looking to hot at the moment - of course only CIA failures are noticed...

quote:

Originally posted by ChrstnMchl I think the only better solution would be an internal coup before any blockade takes place. The problem with that is it would only happen with outside involvement, which would mean the CIA, and their track records for coups isn't looking to hot at the moment - of course only CIA failures are noticed...

They were "successful" in overthrowing the new democratic (and secular I might add) republic and reinstating the Shah of Iran in 1954. The blowback from that incident was the root cause of the Islamic Revolution deeming the US as "The Great Satan".

MrS

___________________
Click the sig to see MrSquirrel

-"Reality" is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.

quote:

Originally posted by MrSquirrel They were "successful"

That was kinda my point. They can get a country overthrown, but all too often the end results are worse. Chile is another example.

Yeah, I forget who said it but there is a quote something along the lines of "revolution can only come from within". As the CIA track-record would tend to prove, foreign instigated coups can often leave a nation in a worse way than before the coup took place.

As for North Korea, it really is difficult to know what's going on in Kim Jong-Il's mind. The fact that they declare two contradictory nuclear policies on the same day indicates that "traditional diplomacy" probably isn't going to work - it's hard to reason with a mad-man afterall. Quite what the alternative is, though, I have no idea.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by MrSquirrel Overall the greatest issue is the question of what it is Kim wants. Does he really want the nuclear weapons or is he using it as an avenue to begin talks with the West in hopes of making economic reforms while keeping a lock on power? Also, we don't really even know what he is like. Is he another Gorbachev who is waiting to turn the system on its head or is he another Stalin? The whole personality cultish nature of the North Korean regime makes me believe his is at least on the surface much more the latter than the former.

Well I think it's quite clear what Kim wants. He doesn't want economic aid or a non-aggression pact in the traditional sense. Keep in mind he had both going for him in the late 90's when he started up the nuclear weapons program while clinton was still in office. I'd like to think we've learned a very important lesson from that fact. One can only negotiate from a position of strength rather than reason with N. Korea. Therefore one can only conclude that what he wants is MORE power and he's attempting to achieve this by black-mailing neighboring countries and the west.

Personally I think negotiations will ultimately fail. I believe there will eventually be a second Korean war as the regime destabilizes economically more and more. Therefore I almost want to say that the right thing to do would be to pre-emptively attack the N. Korean weapons program before it is too late. Bush has the right idea, he's just suffering from mistaken identity. What I think he SHOULD have done is to pre-empt N. Korean hostilities and negotiate with Iraq ... not the other way around! But that's going into an entirely different argument altogether. So in conclusion, I want to stop before all out war, but I think some kind of proactive steps should be taken, outside of diplomacy, to force the N. Koreans to reform. If they want to play brinkmanship diplomacy, we should play the same game.

___________________
Retro ...

Last edited by occrider on Aug-29-2003 at 03:47

Here's a good CNN article outlining the options available to the uS in dealing with N. Korea similar to what I pointed out ... wierd.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/a...ions/index.html

In most recent news:

quote:

N.Korea Spells Out Demands -Xinhua Quoting KCNA Thu August 28, 2003 11:41 PM ET BEIJING (Reuters) - North Korea put forward a "package of solutions" at six-party talks in Beijing, the Xinhua news agency quoted Pyongyang's KCNA as saying on Friday, saying it would not build nuclear weapons in return for a non-aggression treaty with the United States. "The package of solutions includes the U.S. signing of a non-aggression treaty with the DPRK (North Korea), the establishment of diplomatic relations with the DPRK, the guarantee of DPRK-Japan and inter-Korean economic cooperation, the completion of light-water reactors," Xinhua said in a dispatch from Pyongyang. "In return, the DPRK will not manufacture nuclear weapons and allow in inspection, realize the ultimate dismantlement of nuclear facilities and stop the export and experiment of missiles," it said. http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....storyID=3355133

Ummm can we say BULLSHIT???? Ok guys, you MUST sign a non-aggression pact with me, you MUST build two light water reactors for me, and you MUST engage in economic cooperation with me. In exchange, I'll give you guys concessions WE ALREADY PROMISED TO GIVE IN OUR LAST SET OF NEGOTIATIONS!!! I personally think they are stalling ... or they plan to hide their weapons program again and use it for blackmail once again in the future. "Sure we'll shut down Yongbyon ... snicker"

quote:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States suspects North Korea may be operating a second nuclear weapons facility, this one at a secret location, a senior U.S. defense official told CNN Sunday. Air sensors on North Korea's borders have detected elevated levels of krypton 85, a gas emitted in the processing of spent nuclear fuel rods into plutonium, indicating the possibility of a second facility in addition to the known site at Yongbyon, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. Although computer analyses tracking the krypton 85 as well as other evidence suggest such a site, no other solid information exists, including satellite reconnaissance, the official said. . . . The official acknowledged North Korea has been digging a number of deep underground facilities in mountainous areas over the past several years but could not confirm if these sites might be the location of a nuclear facility. The New York Times reported Sunday that U.S. officials have long thought North Korea might try to build another plant in case of a U.S. airstrike. A suspected underground site was inspected five years ago at U.S. insistence, but it was found empty, the Times reported.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/07/2...lear/index.html

___________________
Retro ...

Last edited by occrider on Aug-29-2003 at 04:27

I was perusing the Chicago Tribune this morning during my break and came across this timeline chart about the NK crisis:



Note the words highlighted in LIGHT BLUE

One of the world's biggest newspaper publishers and they miss something that simple. And it is on the top of the front page too.

I got this off the final edition of the day so they must have all been asleep at the wheel today

I wonder if they printed the same chart in the Washington Post this morning.

MrS

___________________
Click the sig to see MrSquirrel

-"Reality" is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.

North Korea is a tricky situation as we all know.
My predicition is that they will suceed in blackmailing the region and the west, and create Nuclear weapons.

The problem with this issue can be placed under both Clinton and Bush governments. Clinton for obviously creating the problem and Bush for its ill-handle of such a thing.

Such a fallacie is pointed out in MrSquirrel's Chicago chart. The incident of October 2002 - of North Korea admitting to having a nuclear arms program was met with a garuntee for a diplomatic "peaceful resolution".

For anyone but idealist, Diplomacy NEVER works without the threat of force, by saying you will make "peacefull" resolution you undermine your diplomatic initiative.

As I've said before, "Diplomacy is the art of stating what weapons you have and how you won't have to use them".

And N.Korea is doing a much better job in its diplomacy then the US.

A US military option in this situation is extremly unlikely due to North Korea artillery deterance.

I believe Bush should have done the following in October or November after the realization of the Nuclear program.
1. Stated in a speech that "Since the N. Korean's violated the treaty in which we gave them nuclear reactors, we are taking our reactors back".
2. Use a night-stealth air strike to destory the reactors.
3. Convey through secret channels that if N. Korea elevates this crisis to a war, the US will have no choice but to tactically nuke the DMZ.

It might sound crazy (threatening to use nukes and all) but thats exactly how you want the otherside to see you, and Bush arleady has that crazed cowboy image going for him that he would genuinely be able to pull the look that he is willing to do something crazy.

After all craziness is how JFK unsettled the Cuban missle crises, and Regan brought the Cold War to an end.

Who looks crazy right now? The N. Koreans, and who is winning the diplomatic (and overall) crisis --> The N. Koreans.

Its about time the USA started looking like its old crazy self if you ask me.

If they told Saddam that they will nuke him if he uses contraband weapons, why can't they tell the North Koreas they will nuke them if they indiscrimantely bombard civilian targets?

Anyway I doubt that will happen, but that is the only diplomatic-military solution I can see solving such a crisis.

Last edited by Yoepus on Aug-30-2003 at 17:53

I think that there's really no other way out of this situation without having North Korea get nuclear weapons. The only thing US can do is to threaten them with economic sanctions and hope it will slow down their development. If the US decides to intervene, such an intervention will likely have huge consequences. There's simply too much of North Korean military on the border and within the firing range of South Korean major cities. The only option is in my opinion a modified version of what Yoepus said, and that is to nuke the demilitarized zone at the same time at which NK nuclear facilites are destroyed. Just destroying the facilities and threatening with nukes will likely not succeed. Before the US can nuke the demilitarized zone, the Koreans will have time to drop shells and rockets on South Korean towns and kill thousands of civilians. Also, there's no need to mention how much turmoil it will cause in the world if the US actually launches a preemptive nuclear strike against another country. Even more so since North Korea is in no way obligated to not research nuclear weapons, it's their right as well as the right of any other country to pursue that research. The only thing that will help here would be a regime change, but it is also a very tough nut to crack. With its huge security and brainwashed population, supporting internal opposition is impossible, as there isn't any. Also, any spec ops intervention would be very unlikely to succeed, because of the internal security. In my opinion, it is now too late to do anything except watch the Koreans develop nukes.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus 2. Use a night-stealth air strike to destory the reactors. 3. Convey through secret channels that if N. Korea elevates this crisis to a war, the US will have no choice but to tactically nuke the DMZ.

Both of these options are not even remotely feasible.

A single American bullet shot across the 39th parallel would cause an immediate end to the 50 year cease-fire and subsequent, and nearly instantaneous artillery bombardment of Seoul, killing possibly tens of thousands of innocent civilians. If a single .22 caliber bullet could do that what do you think a bombing of a nuclear plant would do?

On the "tactical nuke" idea. A tactical nuclear strike would kill 37,000 US troops stationed on the DMZ along with the North Korean troops stationed on the other side. but more importantly the ramifications of a preemptive nuclear strike on another nation would be nothing short of chaotic. Suddenly you will have countries like India and Pakistan decideing to use "thermonuclear diplomacy" on Kashmir, the Russians using their big plutonium stick on the Chechnyans, and possibly Israel using a nuke on Lebanon to stop Hizbollah artillery attacks. The most important thing that has kept nuclear bombs from falling all over the world since the end of Wrold War II is the knowledge on the part of all the "nuclear powers" that whoever is the first country to attack another with a nuclear weapon will be the next in line to be attacked. The United States would turn itself into the worlds most powerful rogue nation by such a strike.

North Korea knows full well that the US cannot go through with such a threat so they would write it off. North Korea, on the other hand, is already considered a rogue nation so they can do as they please as far as threats.

MrS

___________________
Click the sig to see MrSquirrel

-"Reality" is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.