|
North Korea Says It Has Nuclear Weapons (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by TheVrk
When is everyone gonna realize that EVERYTHING
coming from the Pentagon is bull?
ALL THEY DO IS LIE:nervous: |
i work for the Pentagon.
i was briefed on this three years ago.
i can say this now because it is common knowledge.
you have certain misconceptions that are not valid.
it is not your fault. |
|
|
| josh4 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
i work for the Pentagon.
i was briefed on this three years ago.
i can say this now because it is common knowledge.
you have certain misconceptions that are not valid.
it is not your fault. |
What are you being briefed on that is not yet common knowledge? hmmm? |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
What are you being briefed on that is not yet common knowledge? hmmm? |
No it WAS common knowledge, even I knew N Korea had nuclear weapons (or the US believed them to have nuclear weapons) |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
So out of the 3, they all have possible downsides. I concluded 2 would be the best option as to show the world you cannot go unpunished for leaving the NPT and making nukes, plus I dont think NK will retaliate with just sanctions, but might do if nuke facilities were bombed |
I agree that Economic sanctions are the only viable option although; it presents an array of problems.
Full economic sanctions would be the most effective method to put pressure on the regime but would exact the highest toll on innocent civilian life. In doing so you would increase public support for the regime. We saw this effect in Iraq.
It would be impossible to enforce sanctions if china or Russia viewed them as immoral or against their economic/geo-political interests.
If you allow the partial sanctions for humanitarian goods they will find away to channel the money/goods back to the regime like was done in Iraq.
In light to these problems I doubt sanctions would be productive. The only usefulness it would provide us with a bargaining chip to counter NK nuclear card. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
I agree that Economic sanctions are the only viable option although; it presents an array of problems.
Full economic sanctions would be the most effective method to put pressure on the regime but would exact the highest toll on innocent civilian life. In doing so you would increase public support for the regime. We saw this effect in Iraq.
It would be impossible to enforce sanctions if china or Russia viewed them as immoral or against their economic/geo-political interests.
If you allow the partial sanctions for humanitarian goods they will find away to channel the money/goods back to the regime like was done in Iraq.
In light to these problems I doubt sanctions would be productive. The only usefulness it would provide us with a bargaining chip to counter NK nuclear card. |
Well NK is a lot different to Iraq, for example, when Iraq was allowed to sell "oil for food" it was able to divert funds to the regime. NK does nto have anything the West wants to export under such conditions (the West needed oil) so the regime would be hard done to divert funds from somewhere. Also, NK is extremely secretive so the affects on public opinion would not be as great as Iraq. NK's economy is in absolute ruin, nothing like in Iraq. Sanctions would cripple NK alot more than Iraq (which is probly why they view such actions as "an act of war") As for China and Russia, I really dont think they care about NK. People just assume that (at least) China is somekind of an ally to NK, but its not. They may both claim to be communist and they may look the same but that does not mean they are somehow on the same side. China's interests in this conflict in volve the possible Japanese militarisation. China does not want Japan to have nuclear weapons as they would see that as a threat. |
|
|
| igottaknow |
I disagree with a lot of what you said. You're opinions don't have a concrete basis.
First Iraq/NK comparison is valid starting point to predict what effects sanctions would have. While they aren't the same they offer a good insight into the psychological, economic, and political impact of sanctions. If you have a better comparison that would support your opinions, I'm all ears.
NK doesn't need to have oil to make Iraq a valid comparison. Their number #1 export is weapons and weapons technology. Last time I checked those are as hot commodity as oil is on the world market (just ask Pakistan and Iran). Given the current threat Iran is under form the US bombing their nuclear infrastructure, I'm sure they would love to trade oil for NK missile technology.
As for what China and Russia thinks about NK, that's an interesting point of contentions. While they might not be strong allies as they used to be, they don't seem that concerned that NK has nukes. The NK crisis has actually raised their status with the US; we now need them. If I were them, I would let the situation continue to simmer. Maybe step in now and then to prove their worth and extract favors from the US. It would be a mistake to view the situation in terms on Communism versus Capitalism.
While NK is secretive you can bet they'll let their ppl know the West (lead by the US) is using sanctions to impose their imperial will over NK. When the NK ppl are dieing of starvation I don't think it will be that difficult for them to make the connection to the sanctions. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
NK doesn't need to have oil to make Iraq a valid comparison. Their number #1 export is weapons and weapons technology. Last time I checked those are as hot commodity as oil is on the world market (just ask Pakistan and Iran). Given the current threat Iran is under form the US bombing their nuclear infrastructure, I'm sure they would love to trade oil for NK missile technology. |
You missed the point. America LET Iraq sell oil because Iraq's oil on the world's market place was in America's interests. Are you seriously implying that America would let NK sell technology it already doesn't want NK to sell??? My point was that NK does not have a commodity to sell that would be in the interests of the West, in fact one of its major earners, missile technology, goes against the interests of America doesn't it?
| quote: | | As for what China and Russia thinks about NK, that's an interesting point of contentions. While they might not be strong allies as they used to be, they don't seem that concerned that NK has nukes. The NK crisis has actually raised their status with the US; we now need them. If I were them, I would let the situation continue to simmer. Maybe step in now and then to prove their worth and extract favors from the US. It would be a mistake to view the situation in terms on Communism versus Capitalism. |
Who's viewing this in terms of communism vs capitalism? In fact I said the opposite that just because they both claim to be communist does not make them allies (look at China and the USSR for example, they were not allies). China has influence over Pyongyang yes, but China is not their protector, they have stated they would not become involved in any conflict involving NK. In fact, if an NK arms build up leads to a militarised, or even nuclear Japan, that is exactly the opposite of what China wants, therefore it is in China's interests to be on the American's side. I have no idea what Russia's point of view but I think that is as irrelevent to them as it is to the Korean situation.
| quote: | | While NK is secretive you can bet they'll let their ppl know the West (lead by the US) is using sanctions to impose their imperial will over NK. When the NK ppl are dieing of starvation I don't think it will be that difficult for them to make the connection to the sanctions. |
When you talked about public perception of sanctions causing harm I thought you meant our (the West's) public perception? Like many in the West hated the sanctions as they led to the death of half a million people (if you believe some sources). I thought you meant our governments would face the same backlash as that regarding the NK people? But if you want to discuss the NK people then they are already starving and living in poverty so I'm not sure sanctions would make that much difference to them (altho it gives the NK government the propaganda to pursuade them it is the West's fault, not Pyongyang's) However, why I think this differs from the Iraqi situation is as follows...
It's not that it's different on both publics, or that they will react any differently to sanctions, its the implications for the wider situation. In Iraq, a Muslim population that is percieved to be being punished by the West has far reaching implications around the Middle East (a region of vital importance to the West) as well as implications for our own national security (re terrorism). However, even if the NK public did react the same as the Iraqis, the consequences will not be the same. It will not affect international affairs the same, it will remain within NK's borders and not spill over... |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Are you seriously implying that America would let NK sell technology it already doesn't want NK to sell??? My point was that NK does not have a commodity to sell that would be in the interests of the West, in fact one of its major earners, missile technology, goes against the interests of America doesn't it? |
The US may not like NK to sell weapons and related technology but, NK has every right to export non nuclear weapons legally.
| quote: | | China has influence over Pyongyang yes, but China is not their protector, they have stated they would not become involved in any conflict involving NK. |
That cuts both ways, they would neither help nor hinder. That could be interpreted if the US wants to get into a military conflict with NK don't expect them to help us out. It’s also a message to NK that they're on their own too. Which leads me to believe they are content with the current situation as long as it doesn't get out of hand.
| quote: | But if you want to discuss the NK people then they are already starving and living in poverty so I'm not sure sanctions would make that much difference to them (although it gives the NK government the propaganda to persuade them it is the West's fault, not Pyongyang's) However, why I think this differs from the Iraqi situation is as follows...
It's not that it's different on both publics, or that they will react any differently to sanctions, its the implications for the wider situation. In Iraq, a Muslim population that is perceived to be being punished by the West has far reaching implications around the Middle East (a region of vital importance to the West) as well as implications for our own national security (re terrorism). However, even if the NK public did react the same as the Iraqis, the consequences will not be the same. It will not affect international affairs the same, it will remain within NK's borders and not spill over... |
Since the objective of sanctions would be to bring down the regime from with in (like in Iraq) it doesn't matter what the external consequences would be. NK has been under sanctions since 1950's with no effect on the regime. What makes you think it would have a positive impact renewing them? They didn't work in Iraq and haven't worked in NK. I don't believe creating an isolated, paranoid militaristic society has helped. China, Vietnam, and the USSR are examples of sucessful use on engagement instead of isolating, punitive sanctions. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
The US may not like NK to sell weapons and related technology but, NK has every right to export non nuclear weapons legally. |
No, under UN sanctions, NK would not be able to sell any technology, and no one would be able to buy it. So your suggestion that it could sell technology to make the sanctions ineffective is wrong.
| quote: | | That cuts both ways, they would neither help nor hinder. That could be interpreted if the US wants to get into a military conflict with NK don't expect them to help us out. It’s also a message to NK that they're on their own too. Which leads me to believe they are content with the current situation as long as it doesn't get out of hand. |
No, they would not help, that means, they would not help. Not sure what you mean by "could be interpreted if the US wants to get into a military conflict with NK don't expect them to help us out" cos I have never said China has told America it would not help them, I have said China has told North Korea it would not help them. I'm not sure what you think China has to gain by hightening tensions in the Korean peninsual (because that is what is happening)
| quote: | | Since the objective of sanctions would be to bring down the regime from with in (like in Iraq) it doesn't matter what the external consequences would be. NK has been under sanctions since 1950's with no effect on the regime. What makes you think it would have a positive impact renewing them? They didn't work in Iraq and haven't worked in NK. I don't believe creating an isolated, paranoid militaristic society has helped. China, Vietnam, and the USSR are examples of sucessful use on engagement instead of isolating, punitive sanctions. |
I dont think it has been under international (UN) sanctions. I know the US has a boycott (after the Korean War) but not sure who else. Obviously this does not stop NK dealing with countries like Iran, but under UN sanctions, it would not be able to do so, therefore, these sanctions would be a lot different to the current ones.
As for Iraq, the sanctions were to ensure Saddam could not develope WMDs, i'm not sure if an objective was to cause the regime to collapse (or they could have very easily have done that directly after the Gulf war either by supporting an uprising that the Iraqis were praying for, or simply do it themselves)
Anyway, you seem to have changed your mind from earlier where you said economic sanctions were the only option (or did you mean the only option but not an option we could take?) so what is in your opinion the best way to deal with the Korean situation?? |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | | No, under UN sanctions, NK would not be able to sell any technology, and no one would be able to buy it. So your suggestion that it could sell technology to make the sanctions ineffective is wrong. |
That’s only if we could pass such a provision in the UN. If it passed would it be enforceable? Without China’s help it would be difficult enforce thus meaningless. No I’m not wrong. Drugs are illegal and they’re still prevalent. Hello it’s illegal to proliferate nuclear weapons but NK got them under our watchful eye. You're starting to sound really naïve. If you know anything about the history UN sanctions you’ll understand they are quite ineffective. Case in point Iraq.
| quote: | | I'm not sure what you think China has to gain by hightening tensions in the Korean peninsual (because that is what is happening) |
Since both China and Russia allowed NK to acquire nuclear weapons I would surmise they don’t view it as a problem or crisis. That’s why China said they aren’t going to intervene. If they allowed this to happen what makes you so sure they would help enforce sanctions?
| quote: | | Anyway, you seem to have changed your mind from earlier where you said economic sanctions were the only option (or did you mean the only option but not an option we could take?) so what is in your opinion the best way to deal with the Korean situation?? |
My view is that economic sanctions are what the US will most likely pursue. If given a choice between military action that could trigger a nuclear war or economic sanctions, I would pick the sanctions, even though; I don’t think they would make a difference. By difference I mean convincing them to dismantle their wmd program or effect regime change. If there were a clear way to diffuse the situation we would have done so already.
As I said before the US was party to creating this mess back in the cold war. You can’t divide a country in half and expect everything to be hunky dory. This is what you call the chickens coming home to roost. If we are unwilling to address the underlining causes to the conflict then we are doomed to fail. I think engagement is the most promising solution to this situation. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
That’s only if we could pass such a provision in the UN. Even if we pass it the question would be could it be effectively enforced? Without China’s help it would be difficult enforce thus meaningless. No I’m not wrong. Drugs are illegal and they’re still prevalent. Hello it’s illegal to proliferate nuclear weapons but NK got them under our watchful eye. You're starting to sound really naïve. If you know anything about the history UN sanctions you’ll understand they are quite ineffective. Case in point Iraq. |
Thats a fair point about whether or not sanctions would be effective but at the end of the day, NK are scared of sanctions enough to consider them an act of war (btw, Japan and SK are also scared of sanctions for that reason - they would bare the brunt of any NK aggression) However, I do think it would make a difference (unless NK decides to concede before sanctions are imposed, if they are at all)
| quote: | | Since both China and Russia allowed NK to acquire nuclear weapons I would surmise they don’t view it as a problem or crisis. That’s why China said they aren’t going to intervene. If they allowed this to happen what makes you so sure they would help enforce sanctions? |
China has told NK it wont intervene on NK's side. It has made no such statements to Washington. And it is a problem for them because Japan is an extremely powerful nation on China's doorstep. Japan is already developing theatre missile defence with the US as a direct result of NK's nuclear/ballistic missile programs. If it goes that step further and turns nuclear, this will be seen in Beijing as a direct threat.
| quote: | My view is that economic sanctions are what the US will most likely pursue. If given a choice between military action that could trigger a nuclear war or economic sanctions, I would pick the sanctions, even though; I don’t think they would make a difference. By difference I mean convincing them to dismantle their wmd program or effect regime change. If there were a clear way to diffuse the situation we would have done so already.
As I said before the US was party to creating this mess back in the cold war. You can’t divide a country in half and expect everything to be hunky dory. This is what you call the chickens coming home to roost. If we are unwilling to address the underlining causes to the conflict then we are doomed to fail. I think engagement is the most promising solution to this situation. |
What do you mean by engagement? Either NK gives up its nuclear programs before it gets aid and security assurances, or it does it after. America will not, and should not, allow NK to be given aid and security assurances before it gives up its nuclear programs or that makes a mockery of the NonProliferation treaty and sets a very dangerous precedent (it will effectively state that nuclear weapons are a viable method to acheive policy aims right?)
So, if we agree NK has to give up its nuclear program before it recieves US aid and security assurances, how do you propose we acheive this? |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
If you know anything about the history UN sanctions you’ll understand they are quite ineffective. Case in point Iraq. |
Well that depends what the sanctions were for. As I said above, I am not aware the objective was regime change, but it was to stop Saddam developing WMDs (and as we have seen, thats been pretty effective). Another example of where an economic boycott has been extremely effective has been in South Africa.
Pyongyang seems desparate to avoid international sanctions to the point it claims it will view such a move as an act of war and will take measures accordingly. Why do you think sanctions would be so ineffective when the North Koreans seem so scared of them? Also, one of Pyongyang's objectives is for financial aid, which suggests they are pretty ed economically right? Sanctions could be the final nail in the coffin...
And the North Korean regime it would seem think so too... |
|
|
|
|
