How is the situation in N. Korea not a crisis?


PDA






Lone_Gunman
December 29, 2002, 02:31 PM
check out this link:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/12/29/powell.north.korea/index.html


N. Korea throws out inspectors, dismantles cameras, reactivates nuclear facilities, receives a large shipment of chemicals needed to refine plutonium, taunts the US, and somehow this is not a crisis?

Colin Powell must have his head up his butt.

If you enjoyed reading about "How is the situation in N. Korea not a crisis?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
QKRTHNU
December 29, 2002, 03:00 PM
Good question.

Why is war desired with Iraq but a "tailored containment" policy is good enough for N. Korea?

Gray Peterson
December 29, 2002, 04:00 PM
Two things:

China and South Korea.

China, if you remember your history, invaded the Korean peninsula and fought US forces.

South Korea, now becoming a much larger economic center of Asia (many companies like Hynix, Hyundai, and so on). North Korea could cause massive destruction to Seoul, the ROK capital, in a matter of hours.

However, I think war with North Korea is inevitable. They're demanding a non-agression treaty in exchange for not making nukes. Remember that we signed a deal to give food aid for them doing so. If we sign a non-agression pact, we pretty much hand over South Korea over to the North Koreans if they decide to invade.

Seeker
December 29, 2002, 05:48 PM
It's not a crisis because the gov't says it isn't.

I wonder if it would be a crisis if NK demonstrated a nuke in a test.

According to the UN (http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/12/27/nkorea.dmz/) the NKs have recently violated the DMZ, on a daily basis, by bringing in troops with light MGs and crew servered weapons. - Has this happened much in the past? If not then I would think it is a signifigant development.

What if the NKs test a bomb, then have thier troops in the DMZ meander into SK? With the threat of a nuke attack would the NKs encounter much resistance in SK?

Malone LaVeigh
December 29, 2002, 06:11 PM
Then there's this. (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1229-07.htm)

"Inevitable is the confrontation with the imperialists as long as they do not abandon the aggressive and predatory nature," said a commentary in Sunday's edition of the Rodong Sinmun newspaper -- the mouthpiece of the ruling communist party.I just hate it when people like that are right about something...

Waitone
December 29, 2002, 06:46 PM
Kick an animal often enough and it'll turn on you.

Is it possible the NK army is getting a little grumpy with its lot in life and has expressed its displeasure to Maximum Leader. ML, having nothing in the cupboard, hatches a plot to extort from the US stuff designed to keep the military warm, dry, and full.

Just thinkin'. ML may well be reacting to internal pressures that threaten his maximum keester.

Wakal
December 29, 2002, 06:59 PM
We are building up forces in the Middle East; meanwhile NK is getting antsy again. So...if we build up in SK too, then that leaves us spread so thin that China could then take Taiwan.

We are supposed to have enough forces to fight one war and one holding action. Yeah, ok, that may be true if we were not out playing "hand out the cookies" all over the world with our military. If we pulled our forces out of the Former Yogoslavia and surrouding theater of operations, then perhaps we could have a chance of it....but that isn't happening anytime soon. Nor are we leaving Afganistan in the near future.

Too many little hot spots have us distracted to the point where we are ignoring the big ones...we have a fair force mix in the Iraqi theater of operations already (Turkey, Saudi, Kuwait), but the rest of our forces are spread way too thin worldwide to get "jiggy" with the other big ones.

Sure, I'm pessimistic, but I've been getting shot at since 1989...and after living through 8 years of Adulterer-in-Chief gutting the military he loathed while at the same time sending us all over the world to hand out bags of rice to corrupt warlords, I don't think I'm THAT pessimistic.


Alex

Gary H
December 30, 2002, 02:05 AM
We now see that it is better to deal with despotic regimes before they go nuclear. Powell has stated that NK had two operational nuclear bombs during Clinton's watch. The Billy boy knew that they had the bombs and just ignored the intelligence reports. Bush inherited the problem. NK is a nuclear nation and Iraq is not. That is the key to the two differing approaches.

Should NK expand and continue to produce atomic/nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them; expect Japan to follow.

How can we sign another agreement? Do we get them to double promise to abide by the new terms?

Economic sanctions work when you are dealing with a country that doesn't already starve its people.

We can not fight two major land wars, but I doubt that we ever planned to fight the 1.7 million North Korean military by means other than tactical nuclear weapons. How else could we stop a major advance before it reaches the capital?

This may be a crisis of the first order. Unfortunately, time is not on our side.

PATH
December 30, 2002, 03:13 AM
Prediction. War with both by the end of 2003. I sure hope I am dead wrong!

Bahadur
December 30, 2002, 03:15 AM
To answer the original question, why is the North Korea situation not a "crisis"?

Very simple answer. North Korea is not Iraq. What do I mean? Let's first look at the Iraq situation.

We have a serious situation in the Middle East. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues. Saudi Arabia is extremely unstable. Iran is undergoing something of a civil conflict between the conservative Mullahs and young students. On top of that, Iraq is still attempting to produce weapons of mass destruction. Then there was 9/11.

Iraq is an unfinished business. Aside from dealing with the simmering problems we have had with Iraq (continuing menace to Kuwait, WMD, assassination and terror attempts), toppling of the Saddam Hussein regime offers a unique chance to demonstrate American will and resolve in combating those that dare to offend it in the region. As such, Iraq is not simply about Iraq, but about the entire region - the region that happens to have produced the 9/11 terrorists.

Now, let's look at North Korea. Though menacing, nothing that the North Koreans have done has changed the strategic equation in East Asia. Both South Korea and Japan, though occassionally squabbly with us, are staunch allies and exceptionally stable societies. China, while antagonistic much of the time, is nonetheless an ally of convenience while Russia is not much of a player anymore in the region. That leaves North Korea isolated and vulnerable. For North Korea to initiate any kind of conflict would be to incur a collective suicide of the ruling class.

What's going on in North Korea is a gimmick, a stunt, a game of chicken. Because we are preoccupied with other, more pressing threats, North Korea has decided that this is an ideal time to blackmail us into more aid. Sadly for North Korea, Bush is not the sort of president easily given to pathetic (and quite frankly idle) threats from a fourth-rate country nor is the country at large in any mood to entertain buying threats off with money after 9/11.

Watch North Koreans backpedal with the gusto of Lance Armstrong when they really get our attention.

If you enjoyed reading about "How is the situation in N. Korea not a crisis?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!