Threatened by US, North Korea seeks nuclear counterforce

January 1, 2003 7:16 AM

Proliferation 101: North Korea, included in the Bush Administration's "Axis of Evil" (and cited as a potential target for US attack), revives it's nuclear weapons program. And while the US has stated " 'We will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes and terrorists to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.'... there is no sign that this new unconditional doctrine will be directed against North Korea." (NYTimes)
posted by troutfishing (98 comments total)

How much oil does N. Korea have? I've forgotten.
posted by damnitkage at 8:12 AM on January 1, 2003

Maybe NK has nukes already, and we can't attack them, even though wewould like to be able to. Why does that impeach the wisdom of going after Iraq to avoid having a Middle Eastern North Korea?
posted by ParisParamus at 8:23 AM on January 1, 2003

How much oil does N. Korea have? I've forgotten.

Wow, what a useless first comment.

NK is an issue and problem where it is hard to see any kind of a winning solution.

If you decide that diplomatic disscussion is the way to solve the problem, you end up perpetuating one of the most brutal regimes of the day. We need to be blunt, any supplies sent to NK go to feed and enrich those who rule first. Anything left over is given to the peasants who are then told that their benevolent ruler has provided this bounty to them.

If you decide military measures are necessary you can pretty well kiss Seoul good-bye. There are too many artillery pieces and missiles within range of Seoul to hope that we could neutralize them all before they could devistate the city of 14 million people. This isn't even mentioning what would happen to Japan, which is in missile range of North Korea.

After that, you would need to worry about China and how they would respond to military action in the North. I can't believe the would be happy about it nor would they sit on their hands and let the North fall. They enjoy that buffer between them and those who, even if they are in a disagreement right now, support the US.

North Korea is just a nasty situation with no good solutions.
posted by Plunge at 8:29 AM on January 1, 2003

We need to be blunt
economic sanctions are blunt. Having no heating oil is blunt.

If you decide military measures are necessary you can pretty well kiss Seoul good-bye

The real danger to Seoul is from a North Korean invasion not NK counter-attack. (though Seoul would most likely be damaged.) ARTY and missiles would be all but gone if we and some allies preempted, I would say we would get 65% of arty and missile in the first 24 hours. Its all those NK troops that are a problem. Remember, the arab armies outgunned the IDF, though most of the arab armies counter-attacks where poorly done. (kinda hard with an airforce)

Japan? So South Korea gets hit, then japan gets bombed and...what. China would not allow it unless they had an interest in regional instability and that would make them look weak and war like. If NK tossed so much as a mortar shell at Japanese the JDF would most likely get free reign in counter-attacks. And the JDF has some good stuff to counter with..

I can't believe the would be happy about it nor would they sit on their hands and let the North fall.

who cares about chinas north korean insecurity. They will do little. and to have this be "diversion" into Taiwan is not very likely.

IMO, the NKs' appear to be whining and saber rattling. Jong and co. are just bleating out the "listen to me rhetoric" Come on, these people have to sell missiles to countries like Yemen. which is fine. go ahead, sell missiles while a majority of North Koreans live in poverty and worry. Let them crank up that ole fission buster...because if it becomes a real problem, someone will just bomb it.

it is not just a nasty situation with no good solutions. this is why we have responded little to NKs' whining. It is simple, turn off the reactor, you get your fuel oil...oh, i'm sorry...this is about oil is it not? Hmmm oil, why die for that....right? It only runs vehicles and keeps people warm and starting a war because of lack there of IS "silly".

we are doing the best thing, averting thier confrontational tone and back- channeling a deal. it is politics.
posted by clavdivs at 9:18 AM on January 1, 2003

"MR. BLITZER: But this seems so frightening. This is one of the members
of the "axis of evil". It's a Stalinist regime, unpredictable. And you are now acknowledging they probably already have two nuclear bombs and they might be able to build a lot more.


"SECRETARY POWELL: Don't be quite so breathless. They've had two nuclear weapons, we believe, for some time. It is not something that we have suddenly discovered ...

"But it is not yet a crisis that requires mobilization or for us to be threatening North Korea. Quite the contrary, we have been saying to North Korea that we have no plans to invade you, we have no hostile intent towards you. You have people who are starving. We are the biggest food provider to the people of North Korea as part of the World Food Program. So we have no ill intent toward North Korea, but we are deeply concerned about some of the actions they have taken over the years to proliferate weapons of mass destruction throughout the world, to sell this kind of technology throughout the world ..."

"... it is not just the United States. It's China, which provides 80 percent of their energy and 40 percent of their goods. And remember the very strong statement of President Jiang Zemin made when he was at Crawford with President Bush. The Chinese policy is for a denuclearized Korean
Peninsula."

Outfoxed by North Korea - NYT (our original link)
Calling Dubya's Bluff - Counterpunch
Korean Meltdown - David Warren
South Korea denounces US Pressure on Stalinist North

Japan eyes punitive measures against North Korea
"The planned measures would deal a severe blow to the impoverished nation as Japan is North Korea's second-largest trade partner after China."

Pyongyang appears to have exasperated its last ally, China. It has little food, virtually no fuel, and no economic development. "It has no friends, no way of attracting attention. Occasionally it seeks crises in order to get that attention," says Mr. Mitchell ...

"China, by its own admission, is keeping the North Koreans on life support," said a Western diplomat.

(What clavdivs said.)
posted by sheauga at 9:27 AM on January 1, 2003

If N. Korea has nukes, why not just hire them to take care of the "Iraq problem?"
posted by rushmc at 10:02 AM on January 1, 2003

You forgot I made pizza for Kim Jong Il.
posted by y2karl at 10:32 AM on January 1, 2003

Wow, what a useless first comment.

How about -

Well, North Korea isn't Muslim.

Well, North Korea has mad science.

Well, China is no fucking joke.
posted by the fire you left me at 11:31 AM on January 1, 2003

I think the N. Korean crisis is being handled well - if anything, the media is exacerbating it. The US has said nothing on the record about economic sanctions and has specifically denied any military preparation. We're working the back-channels, trying to get a deal.

What upsets the North Koreans is that they can't support themselves, and literally have to be fed by the UN (and substantially by the Americans). They have a crazy leader who is known to be unpredictable.

So why not attack? Anti-moslem hyprocrisy? No. It's because, as has been mentioned, North Korea has a) 2 million troops on the border with South Korea, b) 2 enemies within missile range (Iraq could barely reach Israel and would not attack an Arab country at this stage), c) almost certainly nuclear weapons.

Diplomacy is the only option in this case. In fact, diplomacy is the option being used in Iraq right now, being that the UN has inspectors in and the US is going through the UN at every stage, but don't tell the ultraleftists that.

(As an aside, the US is giving North Korea heating oil, and recently stopped. So if a war broke out, it very well could be, like Japan's involvement with the US in World War II, an actual war for oil. Though the odds of a war are, as noted, incredibly unlikely.)
posted by Kevs at 12:04 PM on January 1, 2003

The real danger to Seoul is from a North Korean invasion not NK counter-attack. (though Seoul would most likely be damaged.) ARTY and missiles would be all but gone if we and some allies preempted, I would say we would get 65% of arty and missile in the first 24 hours. Its all those NK troops that are a problem. Remember, the arab armies outgunned the IDF, though most of the arab armies counter-attacks where poorly done. (kinda hard with an airforce)

What? Do you realize just how much artillery is within range of Seoul and how many missiles are in range? We aren't talking hundreds, we are talking THOUSANDS. All of which are in attack mode. Seoul would be destroyed if we attacked. Trying to compare North Korea to what has happened in the middle east is foolish. The terrain, conditions and training of the opposing forces are completely different.

Japan? So South Korea gets hit, then japan gets bombed and...what. China would not allow it unless they had an interest in regional instability and that would make them look weak and war like. If NK tossed so much as a mortar shell at Japanese the JDF would most likely get free reign in counter-attacks. And the JDF has some good stuff to counter with..

If North Korea has nuclear weapons, Japan would be their first target, most likely one of our bases there. Also, if it came to war, NK wouldn't care what China thought about it.

North Korea is starving. It's people are starving and like I said, there is no good solution. If you supply them with the oil and food that they want, you perpetuate one of the cruelest, inhumane regimes left. If you cut them off, you face the prospect of a very nasty war.

So, your choices are to give them what they want and leave millions in virtual slavery with no freedoms, torture a looming prospect and no way for the citizenry to change the situation, or war.

AGAIN, there are NO good solutions to this.
posted by Plunge at 12:08 PM on January 1, 2003

I thought Rafe's comments on his site were important considerations: that dealing with N. Korea diplomatically, but Iraq militarily gives rouge nations an incentive to develop nuclear weapons.
posted by mathowie at 12:14 PM on January 1, 2003

What exactly do they want to discuss? That's the reason they're doing all this right? We didn't hear anything from them, and now they are suddenly on the offensive. I keep hearing the reports that they want to talk with the US and we have our ears open, but I haven't found anything that describes what they want to talk about.

Might it have something to do with Bush's current antagonism in Iraq, the missle defense shield, or what?
posted by destro at 12:18 PM on January 1, 2003

I thought Rafe's comments on his site were important considerations: that dealing with N. Korea diplomatically, but Iraq militarily gives rouge nations an incentive to develop nuclear weapons.

The only minor point I would insert here is we are dealing with a country that allegedly has nuclear weapons, not one that is trying to develop them. Once they get the bomb, it changes the ways in which you can deal with them.
posted by Plunge at 12:21 PM on January 1, 2003

I think that when most americans think of the North Korean conflict (if they remember it at all), they think of it as being approximately equal to Viet Nam. No president is going to send troops into Viet Nam, hence no troops into N. Korea.

When most americans think of Iraq they think of death raining down from the sky video game style. They think of the army surrendering within minutes, and a job not quite finished. When it comes to armed conflict, Iraq is the media spin that the administration wants so we approach them very differently than we would Korea. Plus, Bush and his cronies still seem to have a bizarre burr under their butts with respect to Iraq.

A more interesting question is why does Korea keep popping their heads up to stick their tongue out at us? I know we just cut off oil and trade or whatever, but the steps they're taking seem to be tied to an agenda that exists outside of what North Korea seeks, so whose agenda is it exactly?
posted by willnot at 12:55 PM on January 1, 2003

This all seems a bit, well, unilateral to me. I know little about North Korean international relations, but just considering the geography and its technology, North Korea seems to pose much more of a direct threat to Russia, Japan, China and South Korea than it does to the United States. Yet the general attitude in this discussion seems to be "What should the US do about North Korea, in a unilateral way if necessary?". I don't quite see the part here where the US is obliged to act as the world's policeman.

Surely it is up to the United Nations to decide to negotiate or else to effect forcible regime change. Russia and China in particular both have well-funded, high-tech defense forces - they will are likely to have a critical role in any military exercise in the region. North Korea is surely much more their problem than it is the United States' ?
posted by Bletch at 1:33 PM on January 1, 2003

destro - they're probably trying a repeat of the oil / food shakedowns they've done in the past when the NK economy tanked. Appeasement is cheaper than repairing the damage from a war and it seems like most of the surrounding countries are trying to maintain the status quo until something changes the NK government (like a coup or Jung's death) - given the problems of dealing with an untrustable, paranoid xenophobe this may be the best solution.

bletch - I think it's because the US is the only country other than China which could do anything about it. No outsider other than the US could realistically conduct major operations in the area. Russia's military is a mess and China's military, while large, is still rather low-tech. A war against a nuclear power will get very expensive unless it's extremely fast and that means ultra-high-tech - the primary goal being to identify and take out the nukes before they can be used. Combine this with the fact the NK has a very large army, tons of artillery and a fairly constant state of alert and you're talking a massive precision air strike that even the US would have a hard time carrying off without significant collateral damage. That's also assuming that the US is willing to run the risk that world opinion would be supportive - a first strike on NK would probably lead to another round of "The evil cowboy Bush".

Besides the idiocy in his comparison between NK and Iraq, was I the only one who got the impression that Fuerth was only enthusiastic about war with NK because he was part of the Clinton administration while the war plans were being drafted?
posted by adamsc at 1:53 PM on January 1, 2003

A little Googling later, I've found that even China probably wouldn't be able to pull off an assault on North Korea. From a (nonprofit, nonmilitary) site called CDI : North Korea has an effective defense force, and that China, while capable of defending itself, has no real offensive or invasive capability, like South Korea. More interesting facts: The USA spends nearly as much on defense as the rest of the world put together. And who knew that Japan had the world's second largest defense budget?
posted by Bletch at 2:20 PM on January 1, 2003

I thought Rafe's comments on his site were important considerations: that dealing with N. Korea diplomatically, but Iraq militarily gives rouge nations an incentive to develop nuclear weapons.

Buchanan made a similar point a few months ago in this article (discussed here.) These recent events just reinforce their point, IMO.
posted by homunculus at 2:27 PM on January 1, 2003

Another reason North Korea is swaggering around is because a new president (Roh Moo-hyun) has vowed to appease and obscenely fund the North's terrorist dictatorship for the next five years like a Korean Jimmy Carter, with a penchant for ignoring the fact that South and North Korea are still technically at war.

The North Koreans know that the South's political leaders are pantywaists and will let them do whatever they want, so they do it, and they get their international attention and their ability to bargain for more goodies like cash and food to keep them in power.
posted by hama7 at 3:55 PM on January 1, 2003

Bletch...the US is specifically involved because we have treaty obligations to protect South Korea and Japan. In any case, the US will be involved in pretty much every world crisis because a) we represent a large portion of most nations trade, and b) we have the only military in the world with the strength to enforce diplomacy with the "big stick".
posted by Kevs at 3:57 PM on January 1, 2003

Saying it better than I could, certainly...

Thinking further about this, perhaps it's time to let our EU peers, who believe they should have a full share of leadership alongside the U.S., take the lead in this crisis. This is, after all, only reasonable since the reactor North Korea is using for its plutonium production, designed and built not for energy production but for weapons programs, was designed and built for North Korea by Europeans (Germany, to be exact).

37,000+ French, Italian, Dutch, German, et al troops can replace the American troops on the peninsula and be responsible for serving as a "tripwire" in case of North Korean attack. They can take the lead in deciding how to diffuse this one, and if they decide force is needed, they can bear the lion share of the burden - our troops are busy elsewhere, and our full partners should be able to handle this one while we handle the other. Oh, the U.S. won't be out of the picture - like I said, it will be role reversal. The EU will be expected to "consult" with us at every turn, whatever moves they make will be subjected to un-constructive criticism, and if they make even the smallest of mistakes we'll be quick with the finger of blame.
posted by swerdloff at 4:20 PM on January 1, 2003

North Korea: From famine to rat race
posted by homunculus at 4:29 PM on January 1, 2003

bletch - I've always thought that was a great example of the shear size of modern, high-tech economies. The U.S. military defends the U.S., Europe and South Korea (and to a lesser degree, most of the world) and is significantly ahead of the rest of the world by any measure of power. For this we pay a princely 3-4% of the GDP - that's even less than we spend on education, let alone things like health-care or social security.

It's interesting comparing the CIA's table of military spending as percentage of GDP - most of the high spenders are also notorious hell-holes. The Economist's world in figures has a list of the top 48 - there are two countries (Taiwan, Greece) where you might choose to live if you had a choice.
posted by adamsc at 4:36 PM on January 1, 2003

that dealing with N. Korea diplomatically, but Iraq militarily gives rouge nations an incentive to develop nuclear weapons

I don't think rogue nations are waiting around for some incentive to develop nuclear weapons. Its not too hard to figure out that having the same weapons as your opponent will make them treat you differently.

Why not deal with N.Korea diplomatically? This is a developing situation and all reasonable diplomatic solutions have not yet been exhausted. We should not be so quick to call for war.
posted by jsonic at 4:37 PM on January 1, 2003

Wow. That rantingscreeds link is spectacular, and a great idea! I can imagine the cold sweaty palms and lightheadedness of U.N. officials at the very suggestion!

I just wanted to add a link to CNN:

South Korean President-elect Roh Moo-hyun, who won a December 19 vote partly because of surging anti-U.S. sentiment among his people, on Tuesday warned against "blindly following U.S. policy."

"The United States should consult fully with South Korea, rather than making a decision unilaterally and then expecting South Korea to follow it," said Roh, who begins a five-year term in February.

An interesting statement considering there is no factual basis whatsoever to what he seems to be claiming. Also, "blindly following" wouldn't be the exact expression I'd choose for a half-century of alliance, cooperation and economic prosperity based primarily on export. Meet the new prez.

We should not be so quick to call for war.

Huh? We aren't, they are!
posted by hama7 at 4:50 PM on January 1, 2003

Here are some other thoughts from the USS clueless.
posted by hama7 at 5:10 PM on January 1, 2003

Huh? We aren't, they are!

I guess I missed N.Korea's call for war against the U.S. Last I heard they were reactivating a nuclear reactor that we told them not to mess with. Not quite a declaration of war, is it.

War may be a neccessity, but only if diplomatic efforts fail.
posted by jsonic at 5:57 PM on January 1, 2003

I guess no one picked up my implicit point (the reason why I titled the post "Nuclear proliferation 101".) - Mathowie came closest with his "dealing with N. Korea diplomatically, but Iraq militarily gives rouge nations an incentive to develop nuclear weapons." - But it goes further than this.

Let me explain:

Try a simple thought experiment and think as a North Korean military strategist might. I know this is, in reality, impossible - and yet we can safely assume that North Korean analysts are following certain lines of analysis. So:

(hypothetical North Korean military analysts' report)

"1) BACKDROP - A new US presidential administration, post 9-11, claims for the US the right of unilateral, preemptive strikes against any and all perceived enemies (and even potential threats). And the ascendant, and now dominant, clique within the adminstration (Cheney, Wulfowitz, Rumsfeld) maintain that the US must cement it's position as the dominant military power on the planet through massive military spending and by toppling potentially troublesome regimes around the globe (to eliminate potential threats and, we can safely assume, cow potential enemies). Documents associated with this ascendant clique ("Rebuilding America's Defenses", From "The Project For a New American Century") have spelled out the first series of targets: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. These same nations are then referred to, in speeches by the US president, as comprising an "Axis of Evil". Meanwhile, the US takes aim against Iraq, and begins a massive military buildup in the Mideast, while calling for Iraq to relinquish it's "weapons of mass destruction". At the same time, the US accelerates it's efforts to develop anti-missile defense systems.

CONCLUSION - Due to numerous US statements, and the inclusion of North Korea in the US' so-called "Axis of Evil", we must assume that the US will, in the near future (1-4 years), attempt to exert significant military pressure to topple the North Korean Government. We must also assume that the US may have the capacity to nuetralize (or substantially nuetralize) our counterforce measures aimed at Seoul. We must assume, for our national security, that we may lack a sufficient counterforce to deter the Americans, and that the only way we can prevent this is to develop, as fast as possible, the largest possible force of nuclear weapons - which can be delivered reliably by our missiles (at LEAST within the Asian theatre). Due to the American efforts to develop anti-missile defenses, presumeably to be deployed to nuetralize out counterforce, we must marshall all available national resources to build the largest possible nuclear force in the shortest possilbe period of time.

RECOMMENDATION: Restart reactor program, optimize for maximum plutonium production. Channel maximum resources towards nuclear weapon and missile development programs."

So much for the Korean unification plans
posted by troutfishing at 6:10 PM on January 1, 2003

I guess I missed N.Korea's call for war against the U.S.

I doubt North Korea would come out and declare war on the US, what with already being technically at war with South Korea, but N. Korea: 'Brink Of War' sounds promising.
posted by hama7 at 6:53 PM on January 1, 2003

Troutfishing: smart reasoning. One glitch: didn't they think we were about to invade before the Axis of Evil speech? Further possible glitch: who are these loons who perpetuate North Korea? Can we actually trust them to have a rational thought process? Can we really get inside their heads? The place is such an abject failure, quantums more of a failure than Cuba, the Soviet Union, or any other country...

Also, assuming they don't nuke South Korea or Japan (a big if...) how good a military could they really have?
posted by ParisParamus at 6:53 PM on January 1, 2003

Contrast the North Korean hysterics with General Powell's calm "not a crisis" comments, completely devoid of hostility or "calls for war".
posted by hama7 at 6:57 PM on January 1, 2003

Too bad we just can't find the coordinates of their generals and leader and beam them all to a holding cell.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:06 PM on January 1, 2003

adamsc: I really doubt that this could be a simple ploy for more aid considering the current situation.

hama7: those statements came after South Korea urged us for calm. We were previously making statements that we could handle a war on two fronts if necessary.
posted by destro at 7:30 PM on January 1, 2003

troutfishing - that assumes they ever thought otherwise. There's no evidence that they ever actually stopped their nuclear program - the only new wrinkle was a public announcement that they had not followed past agreements, which wasn't really a surprise to anyone who was paying attention. Given the extreme xenophobia and paranoia which has marked the North Korean government, I doubt they ever consider the possibility that they won't need nukes to deal with an invasion.
posted by adamsc at 7:30 PM on January 1, 2003

destro - I think it is because of their history of saber rattling whenever they need western aid and because they're so dependent on imports to fend of mass starvation and run their economy. The 1994 deal expired in October and, since the North Korean government admitted never having followed their side of the deal, fuel oil shipments were suspended after November.
posted by adamsc at 7:49 PM on January 1, 2003

Too bad we just can't find the coordinates of their generals and leader and beam them all to a holding cell.

Yeah, to hell with such outmoded concepts as "sovereignty" and "self-determination!"
posted by rushmc at 8:02 PM on January 1, 2003

Hama7 - Please, don't insult my intelligence! Colin Powell can say whatever soothing things he wants to. He's merely playing the role of a fixer. The "Axis of Evil" speech, the US 'Unilateral preventive 1st strike' policy, and the 'let's knock off Iraq, Iran and North Korea off one by one' suggestions were the immediate provocations for the North Korean 'hysterics': I can hardly IMAGINE the US 'hysterics' which would ensue if a hypothetical nation - with a military budget dwarfing that of the US by a factor of 20-1 or more - included the US in some "axis of exil" and suggested a possible military solution to the 'problem' which WE (the US) represent.

ParisParamus - "Troutfishing: smart reasoning. One glitch: didn't they think we were about to invade before the Axis of Evil speech?" - it's a question of degree. Life isn't usually binary. Previous to the "Axis of Evil" speech (and other aggressive signalling by the Bush administration), the North Koreans weren't so worried about the US that they were going full speed ahead with their nuclear armaments program. Now they are.

As to the question "how good a military can they have?...I'm as dubious as you, but I have no qualifications with which to make that assesment and military analysts, in general, seem to take them seriously. So I defer.

Are they rational? Well, can't an otherwise irrational party have an effective military strategy? I think so. Humans have an incredible ability for schizophrenic compartmentalization. Take WW2 Germany. Was Hitler nuts? Sure. Was he a good military analyst? Sure - up to a point. Were Nazi military strategists astute? Certainly. So I'd be willling to grant the North Koreans the ability for very astute military analysis within an overall situation (the state of North Korea, it's economy and people, that is) which is clearly insane.

If the leaders of North Korea are on the thin edge of sanity, I would hardly think that saber rattling would improve their state of mind. It's not that I think pressure tactics are always unwise, but I would hardly call the current US rhetoric "nuanced": it seems to be, currently, mere rhetoric which is unconnected to a productive strategy of political engagement designed to make the North Koreans feel more at ease or to ensure that they refrain from building weapons of mass destruction. And I see no graduated, "carrot and stick" pressure being applied here. On the contrary, the Bush adminstration seems to be casually, even thoughtlessly, provoking the emergence of a new nuclear power in an already tense region.

AdamSc - "There's no evidence that they ever actually stopped their nuclear program - the only new wrinkle was a public announcement that they had not followed past agreements, which wasn't really a surprise to anyone who was paying attention." --OK, but North Korea lacked, as far as I have heard, fissionable material for more than a handfull of nuclear devices. So have they decided (on the basis of the rising temperature of US rhetoric?) to kick out UN inspectors and restart their reactor. I would call this an acceleration of their nuclear program. Wouldn't you?

"I doubt they ever consider the possibility that they won't need nukes to deal with an invasion." OK, but the difference is that now they think that they will need A LOT MORE than a handfull of nukes to deter the US.


I don't feel more secure. Do you?
posted by troutfishing at 8:08 PM on January 1, 2003

Adamsc - you're right, though, about my use of the word "revives" - it was incorrect. I should have said "accelerates" instead. My post was a bit dashed off (time pressures).
posted by troutfishing at 8:15 PM on January 1, 2003

The Official Page of the People's Democratic Republic of Korea
extends its wishes of health (.mp3) for a Happy New Year 2003.

Happy New Year to you too, Korea!
Here's wishing everyone on the Korean peninsula health, happiness, family reunification, and new beginnings in 2003.
posted by sheauga at 8:18 PM on January 1, 2003

Yeah, to hell with such outmoded concepts as "sovereignty" and "self-determination!"

There is no such thing as "self-determination" in North Korea. You have a population with no power and no way to get the power. They are brutally suppressed by and a ruthless regime.

My question to all here. Should North Korea be allowed to remain the way it is? Does "sovereignty" trump human rights and is one of the most dictatorial governments allowed to remain in power even though it is starving and abusing millions of it's own people? Should we continue to shore up this monstrosity with food aid and oil allowing it to perpetuate and abuse more for decades to come?
posted by Plunge at 8:24 PM on January 1, 2003

General Powell's calm "not a crisis" comments

I agree. I watched Powell on Meet the Press on Sunday and he specifically stated that diplomacy, not military force, was the current course of action. My comment that you intially responded to about being "quick to call for war" was aimed at those in this thread who were advocating war as the appropriate solution at this time.
posted by jsonic at 8:32 PM on January 1, 2003

Troutfishing...

North Korea's acceleration of their nuclear program has nothing to do with the Axis of Evil speech. We have had troops guarding their neighbors for 50 years. Technically, we're guarding a country that North Korea is still at war with.

North Korea accelerated because the US caught them red-handed doing nuclear weapons related work. Once the cat was out of the bag, why would they keep it low-key anymore? It's as simple as that. To even imply that North Korea is the victim and the US is forcing their actions is like saying that the US forced Japan to attack Pearl Harbor because we helped set up an oil embargo. It's proposterous propoganda and everyone knows it.

On the concept of "self-determination", I never understood why that mattered. You don't get to self-determine. In the long term, the stability of having nations (preferably democratic in some way) far outweighs the short-term benefits of division after division. I'm sure Alabama wanted self-determination in 1960, but I don't think anyone in hindsight feels this would have been a good idea (except for Trent Lott, I imagine).
posted by Kevs at 8:37 PM on January 1, 2003

NORTH KOREAN RHETORIC SAMPLE (Feb 2, 2002, BBC)

I liked this quote. It's not exactly designed to 'bolster my case', but I found it blackly funny - "In a statement from the foreign ministry, Pyongyang said Washington's recent problems were "entirely attributable to the unilateral and self-opinionated foreign policy, political immaturity and moral leprosy of the Bush administration". ...The US Central Intelligence Agency has released a report saying that North Korea sold numerous missiles to the Middle East and other areas of tension last year. ....According to the report, the hard-line communist state is using the missile trade to fund its nuclear weapons programme." "

moral leprosy?

Plunge - meanwhile the US is the #1 arms dealer on the planet, but you are right (and I AM taking your comment seriously. I don't have an absolute answer) - the North Korean regime is monstrous and probably would be willing to grind it's own citizens into Chicken McNuggets to further it's nuclear weapons program. But how do we best deal with them? Wouldn't some type of 'graduated engagement' be better? oh yeah? oh yeah? You go, Mr. Chamberlin. NOT. Bombs away! *hums tune from 'Dr. Strangelove'* 'we'll meet again, who knows where, who knows when?'..."
posted by troutfishing at 8:41 PM on January 1, 2003

Kevs - you might be right about that, but I don't think it's so simple. How did I imply that North Korea was a 'victim'? I just said that US rhetoric (and new stated policies of unilateral preventive 1st strike, etc.) influenced North Korean behavior and probably result in an acceleration of their nuclear program. Leon Fuerth sums it up: "One political reminder from this episode is the danger that can come from tough talk. When using words as weapons, a leader must be prepared to back up his rhetoric with force. The president's nomination of North Korea as a member of the "Axis of Evil" in his last State of the Union message now looks like a bluff that is being called. And the outcome of the administration's diplomacy is that we are preparing to fight a war with a country that might eventually acquire nuclear weapons, while another country is closing in on the ability to go into mass production."

I honestly do think that words DO have an effect...especially across such a wide cultural divide. North Korean leadership might be somewhat opaque to observers in the US, but I doubt that the motives of US leaders are transparent to North Koreans. Both parties have to take words somewhat seriously. Often we have little else.
posted by troutfishing at 8:59 PM on January 1, 2003

We'll try to stay serene and calm
When Alabama gets the bomb.

Who's next?
posted by Bletch at 9:09 PM on January 1, 2003

Please, don't insult my intelligence!

Well, [insert snarkoid comment here].

North Korea was playing patty-cake with Clinton for years and violating every single promise that they made well before Bush came into the picture. If you're attempting to blame Bush for North Korea's newly renovated weaponized nuclear program, then there are some North Koreans who might agree with you, but the fact remains that they never abandoned the program in the first place.

Not only that, they routinely fire on and kill South Korean soldiers (see sea skirmish during world cup where 12 South Korean sailors were killed, without much attention paid). Bush didn't do that either, or cause them to explode passenger airplanes.

I doubt that the motives of US leaders are transparent to North Koreans.

The motives haven't changed for half a century, if they don't get it yet, then they never will. I need not remind you that they were the aggressors in a war that has yet to end.
posted by hama7 at 9:12 PM on January 1, 2003

Background:

North Korean Leadership

Federation of American Scientists National Intelligence Service (ROK) documents on North Korean military

From the Hwang Jang-yop Speaks section thereof:

Preparations for war in North Korea

True Picture of North Korea According to a Former Workers Party Secretary

North Korea's Southern Policy and Inter-Korean Relations
posted by y2karl at 9:42 PM on January 1, 2003

From the first link of the comment above:

The persona of Kim Jong Il still remains an enigma. Above all, his reclusive behaviors continue to puzzle the outside world. He has rarely traveled outside the cocoon of the hermit kingdom. His public appearances are extremely rare. His public utterances are almost nil. Such behaviors give birth to numerous speculations over his personality. He is characterized, particularly by westerners, as "an unstable madman," "a black prince of terror," "a reckless and unpredictable leader," "a provocative actor," or "a closet reformer." Casting Kim Jong Il into such a stereotype, however, is misleading. He appears to be more clever, calculating and tactful than expected. In the light of his political actions, he is likely to master and/or enjoy dual tactics. His dualistic ploy may be seen in such practices as: (a) "controlled reform" to attract foreign investments while reiterating "our own-style socialism"; (b) the provision of exclusive favors for the People’s Army while taming it with harsh sticks; (c) the rejection of official dialogues with Seoul while encouraging unofficial contacts with businessmen; and (d) a brinkmanship diplomacy toward Washington with a nuclear card in one hand and with a peace card in another. Although these tactics have not always produced benefits, it might be safe to say that Kim Jong Il is neither stupid nor crazy.
posted by y2karl at 9:47 PM on January 1, 2003

Y2Karl - thanks for the background links. I'm too tired to read them tonight, alas.

Hama7 - they may not have abandoned their nuclear weapons program but, once again, there's the little problem of the fissionable nuclear material. I don't know of anyone who disagrees that North Korea's nuclear reactor was shut down. So the lack of plutonium or other fissionable material was a bit of a bottleneck in their nuclear weapons program. No more.

"Not only that, they routinely fire on and kill South Korean soldiers (see sea skirmish during world cup where 12 South Korean sailors were killed, without much attention paid). Bush didn't do that either, or cause them to explode passenger airplanes." -- Has ANYONE on this post asserted that the North Koreans are nice? I think these comments are largely irrelevant.

"I doubt that the motives of US leaders are transparent to North Koreans. - The motives haven't changed for half a century, if they don't get it yet, then they never will."

US foreign policy toward North Korea - and the motivations which has driven it - has remained unchanged for over 50 years? Even if you make this (dubious, in my opinion) claim, you haven't actually challenged my statement (in logical terms). Are you so sure that our (benign, I suppose you are asserting?) motives are known to the North Koreans? How?
Certainly not from our rhetoric.
posted by troutfishing at 9:48 PM on January 1, 2003

I'm tempted to pronounce "What Idiots!". But sadly, obviously, this world isn't run by idiots at all. If only they lived in the shoes of us chatterers, then they'd be living in the shoes of us chatterers chattering themselves--just like some idiot who wouldn't shut up at the bar. Anything at all public these fuckers do is to get us primped for their next violent, un-lubed entry. The working class mean nothing to any nation involved in this ludicrous global fiasco of lightspeed news coverage of terrorism, threats, dangers, and freedom fearing ne'er do wells we're supposed to be harried by. They might as well call for sun with a chance of nukes tomorrow. We have equal as much control of either. What the fuck is the point? Why the fuck don't we revolt from these authoritarian corrupt bastards that pull our fucking strings? Why don't we vocalize the idiocy of life on a planet lived in fear is not life at all? Why is it we who argue amongst ourselves about what they do?

Why the fuck should we take anything we just so happen "to know" about North Korea, Iraq and indeed America, sight unseen, as the truth? It's obvious the US government is equally as brutal as NK and Iraq, its dalliances with corruption eclipse, as far as I'm concerned, in many times magnitude, anything that Iraq and NK both without massive world-wide media saturation, can ever hope to muster. We simply have a more beautiful and recognized national anthem. Why do we need our governments and their ridiculous soap opresque PRopaganda departments to define for us what planet Earth is? Is this a planet to live in fear of?

When selfish profiteers off the backs of humanity and environment write the script of worldwide fear (if you're in a relatively safe western country with blaring commercialization), famine and "civil" unrest (when you're an African), hard-labor type slavery (if you're a southeast Asian or central American), forgotten (if you're an indiginous minority of anywhere) etc, we're bound to just love our democracies. Everybody together now! "We fight for DEMOCRACY"!

What the fuck ever. The original Korean war was fought supposedly to defend democracy from the spread of communism. Now we think diplomacy is the key.

Now we war against Iraq for Democracy. Billions of lives hang in the balance of these handful of murderers who make the decisions. And our own selectiveness of what we place import on of humanity's own history allows them to do so. This isn't any more about democracy for Iraq than diplomacy with North Korea is today, 2003. And yet we know this flies in the face of every "modern" idea of humanistic potential, technology, science and everything else growing up watching PBS taught us.

Every terror threat, every announcement by the FBI, CIA, DHS, FAA, ATF, 666, Bush, is just like it is in North Korea I imagine, Bullshit. The impact the "official announcement" has on the psychological malleability of the populous is much preferable to any kind of reality that the threat, should it be, real, would have.
posted by crasspastor at 10:01 PM on January 1, 2003

------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 1, 2003, New York Times

"President Makes Case That North Korea Is No Iraq
By DAVID E. SANGER

CRAWFORD, Tex., Dec. 31 — President Bush drew a sharp distinction today between the nuclear standoff with North Korea and his confrontation with Iraq, saying he was certain that weapons projects in North Korea could be stopped "peacefully, through diplomacy." He said that Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, "hasn't heard the message" that he must disarm, or face military action.

Answering questions on his way into the only coffee shop in this one-stoplight town near his ranch, Mr. Bush issued no demands that North Korea halt the nuclear programs it has threatened to restart, and he did not mentioned the ouster today of the international inspectors who have monitored activity at the country's primary nuclear site.

"I believe this is not a military showdown, this is a diplomatic showdown," the president said, on his way to get a cheeseburger and to chat with his neighbors here. "

Considering Y2karl's background links, wouldn't it be more accurate for George Bush to say "Iraq is no North Korea"? North Korea sounds like a far more cohesive, potent military threat to me. Any challenges on this one?
posted by troutfishing at 10:09 PM on January 1, 2003

Has ANYONE on this post asserted that the North Koreans are nice? I think these comments are largely irrelevant.

The attempt that's being made to excuse North Korea's racheting up their nuclear weapons program because of U.S. foreign policy, or comments made by Bush acknowledge precious little of North Korea's history of repeated brutal aggression, or their repeated violations of agreements that they themselves made. The suggestion is that have no other choice but to make nukes, which is inaccurate.

Are you so sure that our (benign, I suppose you are asserting?) motives are known to the North Koreans? How?
Certainly not from our rhetoric.

I really don't follow the munutiae of U.S. foreign policy changes, but I am disappointed that the new president Roh equates anti-American sentiment with "pride", vows not to "kowtow" to America, and thereby sets the stage for North Koreans to bluster and fume, thinking that the majority of Koreans agree that a wedge should be driven between "one Korea" and South Korea's most devoted ally in the region.

Any challenges on this one?

North Korea doesn't have any money or food for starters.
posted by hama7 at 10:11 PM on January 1, 2003

Is not North Korea what we have decided to not allow Iraq turn into, on a significant level?
posted by ParisParamus at 10:11 PM on January 1, 2003

From Talking Points Memo

Just to get us started on the North Korea question, here's an apt interchange in an interview which CNN's Miles O'Brien did with Newsweek's foreign affairs correspondent Roy Gutman on Monday ...

O'BRIEN: Is this a tacit admission by the administration for all its might, the U.S. military can't do much on the Korean peninsula?

GUTMAN: It's a tough situation, because in terms of conventional sources, the north has enough force mustered and enough artillery aimed at the south that it can cause havoc and enormous bloodshed in a very short time. So in a sense, they've got a club on our head.

Secondly, you know, the U.S. does have about 40, 000 troops there, but they're a kind of a trip wire. It can be the wrong kind of trip wire. They can be, in a sense, hostage. The options are not -- there are not a lot of good options.
posted by y2karl at 10:29 PM on January 1, 2003

Well, when, if ever, does a North Korea collapse? Would it have collapsed some time in the 1990's sans the aid provided to it by the West? Will it ever collapse? Will it collapse if it's deprived of the funds it gets from the Middle East and Pakistan for the arms it supplies? Or does this hellish regime go on in perpetuity?
posted by ParisParamus at 10:33 PM on January 1, 2003

Also, from Talking Points Memo and all too pertinent:

There are two points to focus on here. One is that the situation we're now in isn't so much a matter of an over-focus on Iraq, or even the pursuit of too belligerent a policy. It's really the product of the administration's inability over the course of two years to figure out what its policy on North Korea was. It's flip-flopped back and forth between Powell's policy of engagement (which was essentially a continuation of the Clinton policy) and the hawks' policy of confrontation. In so doing it's let the whole thing spin out of control.

Point two: One of the most important rules of foreign policy is not to let yourself get pushed around. An even more important rule, though, is not to make threats or issue ultimatums that you either can't or won't follow through on. That not only makes you look weak. It also makes you into an object of contempt. That's just what the administration has done in this case.

The White House called the Clinton policy craven and dishonorable. That policy was essentially to pay the North Koreans to behave and hope that in the medium-term a better solution -- perhaps a soft landing in the North -- would arise. Not pretty certainly, but it was a difficult situation.

The Bushies told the North Koreans that they either had to shape up or we'd take them out. Now the North Koreans have called our bluff. And the administration -- as signalled by Powell's comments over the weekend -- has caved, enunciating a policy which is now substantially more dovish than the Clinton policy.
posted by y2karl at 10:44 PM on January 1, 2003

Does missle defense still seem as wacky as it did a year ago?
posted by ParisParamus at 10:50 PM on January 1, 2003

North Korea doesn't have any money or food for starters.

Ahem, from Preparations for war in North Korea as linked above:

Kim Jong-il and the KPA brass have absolute confidence that North Korea will prevail over the ROK, and most North Koreans refer to the ROK armed forces as 'scarecrows' and 'pushovers'.

Kim Jong-il once went so far as to declare 'the world does not deserve to exist without the DPRK', and should North Korea implode, "we will take the rest of the world with us".

The upper echelons of the DPRK hierarchy admit to the ROK's economic superiority, but also regard it as a military pygmy, and unification by force is a forgone conclusion if not for US support for the ROK. A greater percentage of North Koreans believe war is preferable to a persisting food crisis and chronic starvation.

to quote Josh Marshall,

And this is an extremely complex problem with no easy solutions. But the Bush administration has pursued a keystone cops policy on the Korean Peninsula for two years now, mixing think-tank braggadocio with feckless inconstancy. Now we're all going to pay the price.
posted by y2karl at 10:52 PM on January 1, 2003

Meanwhile, next door, "two of the United States' largest aerospace companies have been charged with illegally providing China with technology that could be used for intercontinental missiles."
posted by homunculus at 11:24 PM on January 1, 2003

Now we're all going to pay the price.

Sounds scary, and it's all Bush's fault, I suppose?

I blame Kim Dae-jung's wrongheaded "sunshine policy" in no small part for sending veritable boatloads of money and technology to the North in return for, well, more grandstanding and broken promises. Hyundai corporation was ready to collapse in a heap because of all the construction it planned and implementyed in NK, only to be told to "Get out" once the work was complete; all investment lost.

The money went to feed the soldiers, buy new Mercedes fleets for the Kim clan, and to buy weapons and weapons technology from Russia among notable others.

Cowering, compensation, and acquiescence has created this problem, are we to imagine that more of the same will solve it too?

Stonewalling might work if combined with choking the flow of cash and aid.
posted by hama7 at 11:32 PM on January 1, 2003

Does missle defense still seem as wacky as it did a year ago?

Well nothings really changed on the technological feasability front. So, yes, about as wacky as last year. Maybe a smidgen less wacky than when it was first mooted, but in balance, a whole lot more cynical.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 3:22 AM on January 2, 2003

BAGHDAD OR BUST by Ralph Peters
posted by ParisParamus at 5:21 AM on January 2, 2003

Proliferation 101

Lesson 1

Talk loudly and belligerently and carry a very small stick ...err.. dick?

Lesson 2

Blame Clinton. That bj will lead to Armageddon yet.

Lesson 3

Now can I have missile defense? Yeah, yeah, I know 99% of the knowledgeable scientists say it's pissing away money at an amazing rate but my favorite defense contractors (Carlyle etc.) just love the idea!
posted by nofundy at 5:35 AM on January 2, 2003

Crisis Proportions
by Robert Lane Greene
posted by ParisParamus at 5:42 AM on January 2, 2003

Paris - re: antimissile defense. Wacky? I don't think so in the long run. And if we could merely snap our fingers and "make it so", it might actually be a positive development for world peace...provided that the US used the new technology with impartiality (which is rather unlikely). Nonetheless, the ability to shoot down the first volleys of nuclear armed missiles in of of the world's flash points - IndoPak border say - might be worth it. But, alas, the reality is rather different (see below) and, while we tinker with hugely expensive and cranky antimissile systems, the world is arming to the teeth and some alarming new members are joining the "nuclear club". And why shouldn't they? It's a dangerous world (due to all these damn weapons!) and the US military is a fearsome thing indeed (as it should be, given the expense in creating and maintaining it!).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

January 2, 2003, New York Times

"M.I.T. Studies Accusations of Lies and Cover-Up of Flaws in Antimissile System By WILLIAM J. BROAD

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — The Massachusetts Institute of Technology is looking into accusations that its premier laboratory lied to cover up serious problems with the technology at the heart of the administration's proposed antimissile defense system...."

Hama7 - "Stonewalling might work if combined with choking the flow of cash and aid." - I'd agree with this statement if you added "and resarting the flow of aid in exchange for 'good behavior' ". North Korea understands, if nothing else, a bottom-line approach. Threat! Counterthreat! Weapons! Cash! - and direct quid pro quo agreements, with immediate shutoff of aid if said agreements are abrogated. This is their language (and human suffering doesn't much figure into it, I'm afraid) but the Bush adminstration is doing no better than the Clinton administration in succesfully 'communicating' with North Korea in these terms -- and, arguably, considerably worse.


Hama7, ParisParamus - you'd both do well for your case if you responded to Y2Karl's quote (which sharpened my original point): "...the situation we're now in isn't so much a matter of an over-focus on Iraq, or even the pursuit of too belligerent a policy. It's really the product of the administration's inability over the course of two years to figure out what its policy on North Korea was. It's flip-flopped back and forth between Powell's policy of engagement (which was essentially a continuation of the Clinton policy) and the hawks' policy of confrontation. In so doing it's let the whole thing spin out of control."

Consistency is important with little children too.
posted by troutfishing at 6:38 AM on January 2, 2003

If North Korea has nuclear weapons, Japan would be their first target, most likely one of our bases there. Also, if it came to war, NK wouldn't care what China thought about it.

if they dropped a bomb on Japan, there would be no North korea as we know it.

We aren't talking hundreds, we are talking THOUSANDS. All of which are in attack mode

i said if we pre-empted a strike with allies. Hundreds of planes, thousands of sorties a day. Of course Seoul would be hit but not totally destroyed.
posted by clavdivs at 8:02 AM on January 2, 2003

trout: not sure if two years, filled with a 9/11, and then a South Korean election, is a lot of time. I would agree that the line on Korea has been kind of inconsistent, but is presenting a carrot and a stick simulateously, or one after the other really that incompetent? And there's always the question of what the adminstration knows/found out that it isn't making public.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:36 AM on January 2, 2003

if they dropped a bomb on Japan, there would be no North korea as we know it.

But does the North Korean government realize this; and do they care?
posted by ParisParamus at 8:41 AM on January 2, 2003

In the long term, the stability of having nations (preferably democratic in some way) far outweighs the short-term benefits of division after division.

So because you like democracies, you claim the right to impose them everywhere across the globe? How very...American of you.
posted by rushmc at 9:01 AM on January 2, 2003

So because you like democracies, you claim the right to impose them everywhere across the globe? How very...American of you.

If NK didn't have a clear history of hostility towards SK; and one of exporting arms; if it kept to itself, we would not be entitled to will its demise. But once it goes "international," it loses that privilege. And actually, If it's "American" to feel that way, that's something of which to feel proud.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:09 AM on January 2, 2003

Those are a lot of "ifs", plus one big one that makes no sense. How can half of a nation (in this case referring to a deep definition of a group of people) keep to itself? I'm not choosing either side, just saying that to suggest NK ignore the division of the Korean peninsula is absurd.
posted by Dick Paris at 9:56 AM on January 2, 2003

So because you like democracies, you claim the right to impose them everywhere across the globe?

Democracies are by definition governments composed by the will of the people. Therefore it cannot be 'imposed' on them. Any government where the people cannot choose their leaders IS a government being imposed on them.

Imposing democracy is akin to forcing people to be free.
posted by jsonic at 10:06 AM on January 2, 2003

It's only absurd in the sense that a military regime, essentially as no other "product" than beligerence. I'm not talking about NK "keeping to itself," and not promoting its way of life, or goat cheese, or high quality kim chee, films or museums.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:08 AM on January 2, 2003

Do Koreans even make cheese? Did you not suggest that North Korea (and the South by implication) should essentially ignore the fact that they are a divided people? Again, I don't want to suggest that the North employs a better (or lesser) model for governing a society but how can you expect any Korean to ignore the peninsula's half-century division? -- i.e. keep to themselves.
posted by Dick Paris at 10:55 AM on January 2, 2003

I said they were free not to ignore the split, but they were not free to do so by firing bullets, rockets, dig tunnels, etc.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:06 AM on January 2, 2003

And while we're on the subject, has anyone ever used metal Korean chopsticks (I tried them inthe Korean restaurant on 2nd Ave. in NYC)? They're like knitting needles: low coefficient of friction: very hard to pick stuff up and get it to your mouth.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:10 AM on January 2, 2003

That may be what you wanted to say but it does not read that way.

I and some others were once scolded in the proper use of Korean chopsticks. The main rule being they are not used to move food to your mouth but instead from the communal plates to your bowl. Recently, at a different restaurant, we were told that these rules we were given are incorrect: call me puzzled as well. We've some Korea dwellin' MeFi members though. Maybe they can shed some light.
posted by Dick Paris at 11:27 AM on January 2, 2003

Talking Points Memo today in its entirety:

Let's call this entry 'Unraveling the Administration Korea Mumbo-Jumbo, Part I'. There's a lot of mumbo-jumbo so it'll take a few entries to do all the unraveling.

Let's begin by sketching out the stance and narrative favored by the administration's supporters.

In their view, the Clinton administration went to the mat with the North Koreans in 1994. Instead of facing them down, they appeased them. They agreed to send them fuel oil, food, and perhaps even greetings cards on special occasions. They also agreed to build some non-weapons-grade-material producing nuclear reactors. And this was all in exchange for them agreeing not to do what they shouldn't have been doing in the first place -- that is, producing large quantities of plutonium to make nuclear weapons. But the Clintonites got hoodwinked by the North Koreans who took the goodies and proceeded to start a secret -- uranium-based -- nuclear weapons. The Bush administration found all this out, exposed the folly of Clinton's appeasement, and now has to pick up the pieces.

That's their story. And as the saying goes, they're stickin' with it.

This argument mixes so many distortions, falsehoods and tendentious points that it's not easy to know where to start. But let's begin with one thread.

Columnist and talk radio host Hugh Hewitt makes a version of the argument above. And in his new column he compares the current administration's situation with North Korea to that which the British faced after Hitler's invasion of Poland in 1939. It's a revealing comparison -- but one that shows the current administration in a rather poor light.

Let's assume for the moment that most of what is contained in that thumbnail sketch above is true, that the last decade has been one of appeasement and that President Bush is Winston Churchill.

What had happened when Hitler invaded Poland? The British and the French had given Hitler an ultimatum: an attack on Poland meant war with Britain and France. As was clear then and since, this wasn't the most propitious moment to draw a line in the sand -- neither Britain or France were in a position to actually defend Poland. It was just a tripwire. It should have been done earlier in Czechoslovakia or the Rhineland. But a line had to be drawn. And it was drawn on the Polish border, even though it was done with the knowledge that it almost certainly would mean war. And of course, it did.

In their endless desire to see every diplomatic standoff through the prism of 1938, conservatives want to cast themselves in the role of the guys who put an end to appeasement -- in this case, in North Korea. So they're the ones who said 'this far and no further' -- as the Brits and the French did in Poland with the Nazis.

But there's a problem with this analogy, and an infinitely revealing one. The Brits and the French knew what they were going to do if Hitler called their bluff. They had a plan: go to war. And they did. They had, in a word, a plan.

What's the administration's plan with North Korea? They don't have one.

The line taken on this point by administration defenders is, what do you want us to do? Go to war? They've got nukes and forty thousand of our soldiers are there ready to get slaughtered and they can destroy Seoul and on and on and on.

This line of argument is supposed to shut up administration critics because who wants to be in the position of encouraging the administration to go to war.

But it doesn't end the argument, it just gets it going. If war is such an ugly and unviable option -- and it is -- then why in the hell did they provoke this situation in the first place?

It's a really good question and one the administration and its defenders are entirely incapable of answering.

You only get to seem tough and principled and Churchillian if you draw a line in the sand and then have something to follow it up with. You only get credit for pointing out what everyone already knew -- that the 1994 agreement was an imperfect one and perhaps only a stopgap -- if you've got something better. If you don't, you just look like a fool.

The administration says it has a plan: isolate the North Koreans economically and diplomatically. But how serious a plan is that?

Are we going to get the Europeans to withdrew their offer of membership in the EU? Please. North Korea has virtually no diplomatic or economic relations to start with. Their most serious one is with China. And that would make our entire policy dependent on the good will of a country whose influence in the region we're trying to stem, not augment.

More to the point, in the situation the administration has painted us into the NKs have a lot more cards to play than we do. Short of doomsday scenarios like lurching across the DMZ, they can shoot off a few more test missiles or try to sell more missiles to other bad-acting countries. Of course, they can just kick back and start frying up plutonium in their reactor, every new ounce of which will destabilize the region profoundly.

Of course, getting rolled by those sorts of threats is simply untenable. We can't blink just because the North Koreans won't put any limits to their provocative actions. But that just makes the point. We're in a very bad situation. The administration has sat us down at a card game in which we're holding a fairly weak hand. Conservatives are free to play Churchill if they've got a better plan or the will to force a better solution. Since they have neither, they've got to put away the cigar and bowler hat.

As we said a few days ago 'tough talk sounds great until your opponent calls your bluff and everybody sees there's nothing behind the trash talk. Then you look foolish.' We're still there today.
posted by y2karl at 12:05 PM on January 2, 2003

Here's what the commie bastards really want: a Flurry of Efforts to drown their complaints in cash. Can't you just see the politicians mincing around on tiptoe trying not to upset the grumpy totalitarians?
posted by hama7 at 3:31 PM on January 2, 2003

Dick ParisParamus: You know they've seen the fork. Oh they're well aware that we have the fork. And the spoon. I don't know how they missed it. Chinese farmer getting up working in the field with a shovel all day. Hello, shovel, there it is. You're not plowin' forty acres with a couple of pool ques.
posted by Ron at 3:33 PM on January 2, 2003

Comment from link above:

Why is the fact that the United States has given North Korea $650 million in food aid since its food shortages began in the mid 1990s never mentioned by the Korea Times? Why is the fact that the US was the largest supplier of food aid in 2002 not mentioned? What is the goal of the anti US coverage plus pro Pyongyang stories? Does the Korean press have an agenda??

Do you see what I'm talking about? It's unbelievable.
posted by hama7 at 3:37 PM on January 2, 2003

OhmyGawd. This debate is like a scene from "Rocky 9" where Sylvestor Stallone takes on the creature from the Black Lagoon or something. *ding* "Round 37....Rocky's up...oh no! the Creature has it's tentacles around his throat. But wait! Rocky has head butted the creature, who'd down, and...."

Hama7, ParisParamus, Y2Karl - your doggedness is awesome. You go. I have to go and install a toilet (no implied comment on the discussion. really, it's true!) Maybe I'll rejoin the fray tomorrow.
posted by troutfishing at 3:50 PM on January 2, 2003

Ron, was that a Jay Leno bit (from when he was actually funny)?

Hama7: VERY good observation.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:56 PM on January 2, 2003

BTW, tonight's Nightline is about the lives of North Korean famine refugees living illegally in China.
posted by homunculus at 4:28 PM on January 2, 2003

I have stayed out of this discussion because the subject angers me so much. What North Korea gets away with makes me sick to my stomach. China infuriates me as well. They don't give a flying fuck about Korea. All they want is the buffer between them and the south and, if there was a war, they are afraid of millions of refugees flooding over their border.

Finally, I encourage everyone to watch this Nightline report. I've spent a lot of time in China with the North Korean refugees, it is really pathetic the way they are forced to live. Yet, they would rather live like that than return to North Korea.
posted by Baesen at 5:51 PM on January 2, 2003

If NK didn't have a clear history of hostility towards SK...

The time to respond to past actions was in the past (and I believe we did). While an awareness of a nation's past policies and behavior may help in predicting their future actions, it remains the case that no one is entitled to respond to an action that is only predicted and has not actually occurred. All unilateral "pre-emptive" actions are on very shaky moral ground, IMO.

And it's always foolish to be proud of arrogance and ignorance.
posted by rushmc at 8:03 PM on January 2, 2003

Paris, it was Jerry Seinfeld.
posted by Ron at 2:48 AM on January 3, 2003

Thanks. Also, everyone should be aware that Japanese wooden chopsticks (the small, varnished ones which taper) make the absolutely best PDA stylus (even if you haven't lost the original one)!
posted by ParisParamus at 5:19 AM on January 3, 2003

The time to respond to past actions was in the past (and I believe we did).

Except that the hostility continues. A year doesn't go by without some bizarre NK attack/endeavor in the DMZ or on some boat.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:22 AM on January 3, 2003

ParisParumus - yeah, how about those weird little minisubs for kidnapping Japanese citizens?

By the way, Paul "LiberalsMarchingInLockstep" Krugman of the NYT (the "Soviet Times" according to Hama7) has a piece on North Korea today. It mirrors my own. Damn you Krugman! I know you read Metafilter.....

"So here's how it probably looks from Pyongyang:

The Bush administration says you're evil. It won't offer you aid, even if you cancel your nuclear program, because that would be rewarding evil. It won't even promise not to attack you, because it believes it has a mission to destroy evil regimes, whether or not they actually pose any threat to the U.S. But for all its belligerence, the Bush administration seems willing to confront only regimes that are militarily weak.
The incentives for North Korea are clear. There's no point in playing nice — it will bring neither aid nor security. It needn't worry about American efforts to isolate it economically — North Korea hardly has any trade except with China, and China isn't cooperating. The best self-preservation strategy for Mr. Kim is to be dangerous. So while America is busy with Iraq, the North Koreans should cook up some plutonium and build themselves some bombs.
"

now about those liberals marching in lockstep...must. block. alien Q rays. Must. heed. Rush Limbaugh...no! yes! must. must stop reptilian UN conspiracy to take over world. must. stop. creeping socialism...God, THE PAIN, THE PAIN AAeeiiiii!
posted by troutfishing at 9:26 AM on January 3, 2003

This is nice, except for the fact that North Korea has been "negotiating" in bad faith from the beginning. They never stopped their nuclear program. THEY LIED FROM THE BEGINNING. So, if you continue to negotiate with them, unless you put in FIRM and STRINGENT safe-guards and inspections, you are just paying the local thug not to beat up on you. You also ignore the fact that he is beating his wife and children as well.

All that shows is you are weak and craven.

Yes, this analogy isn't perfect, but it seems to fit for the most part.

We should all be ashamed that we have let such a barbaric regime exist for so long.

No, I don't have a perfect solution. I see three ways of handling it, none perfect, only one of which would not necessitate death but would be the one most likely to be rejected by the North.

1. Massive amounts of aid is guaranteed. The new nuclear plants put on the fast track. Massive amounts of food, medicine and oil guaranteed as well as large amounts of cash. Enough to more than make up for their own shortfall and cash to enrich the "elite". sovereignty of Pyongyang is guaranteed with conditions. North Korea must allow for full inspections for nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. It must allow for independent dispersal of the food and medicine. It would also need to completely shut down it's concentration camps and guarantee basic civil rights for the North Korean people such as NO MORE TORTURE and the like.

I feel this is the best but least likely solution.

2. With the first solution being rejected, a full and total economic blockade of the country is erected. NOTHING is allowed in or out. This is done in the hopes that some moderate army general would rebel and end the corrupt regime before too many starved to death or before North Korea began war on their own.

3. War. The North Korean regime is toppled by massive military might followed by massive aid. Korea is reunited under the government of South Korea and Korea is made whole again. A buffer zone is created between China and Korea and massive diplomatic efforts between the two countries begins. UN forces stay in Korea for the time being, but instead of US forces, it would be comprised of non-Asian, UN peace keeping forces, a force of a few thousand that could leave over time as relations between China, Japan and Korea solidified.

Unfortunately, I see a forth option that is most likely. Everybody weenies out, aid is restored on some disingenuous promises by the North and the status quo is maintained.

*sigh*
posted by Baesen at 5:02 PM on January 3, 2003

What if the leadership of North Korea, sees itself as being in precisely the same situation as Iraq, and just as endangered? Is it possible that once the Iraqi was starts, North Korea, fearing that they are next, will invade South Korea?
posted by ParisParamus at 8:36 PM on January 3, 2003

Here's what James S. Robbins calls Iraq in Reverse.
posted by hama7 at 9:10 PM on January 3, 2003

Hama - Interesting link (hmmm...ponders link..)

Baesen - another *sigh*
posted by troutfishing at 11:21 PM on January 3, 2003

Krauthammer has an ominous proposal: "What to do when your hand is so poor? Play the trump. We do have one, but we dare not speak its name: a nuclear Japan. Japan cannot long tolerate a nuclear-armed North Korea. Having once lobbed a missile over Japan, North Korea could easily hit any city in Japan with a nuclear-tipped weapon. Japan does not want to live under that threat.

"We should go to the Chinese and tell them plainly that if they do not join us in squeezing North Korea and thus stopping its march to go nuclear, we will endorse any Japanese attempt to create a nuclear deterrent of its own. Even better, we would sympathetically regard any request by Japan to acquire American nuclear missiles as an immediate and interim deterrent. If our nightmare is a nuclear North Korea, China's is a nuclear Japan. It's time to share the nightmares."

I doubt Japan would develop their own nuclear deterent, but I'm beginning to wish they would.
posted by homunculus at 11:36 AM on January 4, 2003

Homunculus - that Krauthammer scheme was - "dangerously seductive?" I liked it. Maybe too much. I know nothing about the situation, really.

ParisParamus - Interesting point. I've made some similar ones recently - Oh no! Left/right distinctions breaking down! Must. maintain. Ideological polarization. must post trollish comment. must...
posted by troutfishing at 9:33 PM on January 4, 2003

Trout: how did the toilet installation go? Can you tell me if it's tough using a wet saw: I'm thinking of tiling my kitchen myself.

Does North Korea answer the question of whether the Soviet Union would have fallen apart on its own?
posted by ParisParamus at 9:26 PM on January 5, 2003

Paris - I actually used a dry saw - I couldn't justify renting a wet saw. But let me tell you -- even with a limited amount of tile cutting (with ceramic 7" circular saw blades) the dust was very intense. Anywhere else but a sealed off bathroom, it would have spread all over the house (the proper grade of silica dust to inhale and clog one's lungs, very fine). But based on the dry saw experience (it went through the tiles very easily), I would say that using a wet saw would be a snap. The tiles took a while, though (with mortar).

I don't doubt that the Soviet Union would still be festering now (if it hadn't been opposed). One interesting question though - how would the USSR have developed had not the west vigourously opposed it from day one? (with troops, that is - American and Brit forces (maybe others too) in Northwestern Russia and in Vladivostock). I'm not saying that it would have been wonderfull - but I suspect that the western opposition to the emerging USSR played a considerable role in the ascendance of the most tyrannical Soviet rulers (such as Stalin). Anyway, I think the homogeneity (sp?) of North Korea helps somewhat in holding it together. The USSR was very diverse.
posted by troutfishing at 3:31 PM on January 6, 2003