But they have no oil!

April 29, 2005 12:52 AM

North Korea has the ability to arm a missile with a nuclear device. "The Pentagon's top military intelligence officer said yesterday that North Korea has the ability to arm a missile with a nuclear device, stunning senators he was addressing and prompting attempts by other defense and intelligence officials later to play down the remarks." Was Bill Clinton right or just an an appeaser?

But don't worry! Our CIA and our military have never failed us yet, and we have wise leaders: "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." -- Donald Rumsfeld, testimony to Congress, Sept. 19, 2002. So, will we be protecting America from WMDs, that is, giving the "Gift of Democracy" in Pyongyang, or just buying off Mr. Kim again?
posted by orthogonality (33 comments total)

There's no need to set up a dichotomy between agreeing with Clinton and disagreeing with what Clinton did. He was both right in saying that North Korea was a greater threat than Iraq at the time of the invasion, and wrong in what he did in 1994 when he allowed Norh Korea to blackmail us into siging the Agreed Framework which they completely ignored.
I should qualify my assertation that Clinton was wrong, however, by saying that the North Korean situation is extremely delicate and difficult to deal with. It seems like a total lose-lose situation. If one takes the hawkish view and pushes for a military strike to take out North Korea's nuclear facilities and/or topple the government, one risks a massively costly war, not only for our soldiers but for all of South Korea. However, a softer approach has been shown to be simply ineffective. The North Korean government has time and again played a game of brinkmanship and blackmail to get what they want like they did in 1994, and have proven themselves untrustworthy and unwilling to stick to treaties. Economic sanctions have little effect; as the horrifying famine the country suffered through in the 90s showed, Pyongyang is perfectly willing to let tens of thousands of its citizens starve to stay in power. Even attempts at friendliness like the Sunshine Policy of South Korea have very mixed results, with an increase in ties in certain areas balanced by the fact that it did not deter North Korea from doing anything it had been doing, like building nuclear weapons. There is no one route that can have an actual effect on the country without resulting in massive devastation.
The major problem is that North Korea's government desperately wants to cling to power. If pushed against a wall by sanctions or military force, it is very likely that they will lash out. They don't even need nukes to flatten Seoul; the conventional forces arrayed along the DMZ are more than enough to do that.
Given the difficulties listed above, it seems impossible to do anything useful with North Korea in its present state. One might be tempted to say that we should just wait for Kim Jong Il to die and the country will soften, but the opposite seems to be true. As he nears death, he is becoming more desperate to establish a legacy on par with his father's, which means considering riskier moves like war. After all, North Korea has little to lose at this point, especially if further isolated or pushed.
I would suggest that a solution to this very difficult problem would be something similar to what is outlined in this book, Crisis on the Korean Peninsula: How to Deal with A Nuclear North Korea by Michael O'Hanlon and Mike M. Mochizuki. They propose what they call the "Grand Bargain". This involves making a deal with North Korea in which the US and South Korea promise to roll back their militaries if North Korea does the same, over a period of time. North Korea would have to agree to immediately end its nuclear program, in exchange for promises of non-aggression from the US. Also, they would be given economic aid if they agree to begin making changes in their devastated economy. They would have to allow and fully cooperate with annual compiance checks by international inspectors to ensure cooperation, and all military and economic deals would be contingent on the positive findings of these inspections. The process would be very gradual, to avoid shocking the North Korean government into resistance. This program does have its flaws, the major one being that the North Korean government would have to want to do this at all given that this program would certainly mean a loss of at least some power on their part, but it seems like the best strategy possible given the current situation.
posted by Sangermaine at 1:22 AM on April 29, 2005

Too many words. I am going to sleep instead.
posted by TwelveTwo at 1:37 AM on April 29, 2005

stunning senators he was addressing

Why on earth would they be 'stunned'? The Norks have been building and testing short- and mid-range missiles for years, and it's been (despite exclamation-strewn recent news stories suggesting it was new news) clear for nearly as long that they've had nukes, or were rapidly working towards that end.

Could be bad reporting rather than clueless senators, I guess. Could be.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:54 AM on April 29, 2005

I remain convinced that NK is a far worse threat than Iraq ever was. As I said to my scoffing conservative coworkers at the time, Iraq looked to be pretty thoroughly bottled up. I didn't know about chem or bioweapons, but I was absolutely certain that there were no nukes there, and when the administration started asserting that there WERE, I knew it was all bullshit. It was just flatly impossible for there to be a weapons program using centrifuges; that takes a huge amount of power and puts out a vast amount of heat. Iraq was probably the most-surveilled (is that a word?) country in the world at the time, and there's simply no way they could have hidden an entire city's worth of heat output from us. So it was bullshit, it was always bullshit, it could never have been anything BUT bullshit. And even NOW those same conservatives refuse to admit this.

NK, on the other hand, is a real threat. I take a very dim view of a nuclear or proto-nuclear power firing missiles over friendly states and threatening that the US will 'die in a sea of fire' (approximate quote there, but it's about right). Had I been in charge, I would probably have gotten downright belligerent about that.... ignored Iraq completely and gotten Most Stern with NK.

I think one strategy I'd have tried would have been to call up China, and say 'look, we both know that US troops on your border are going to make you real nervous. But this NK thing is a big problem for us. If if it's not settled soon, you may end up with our troops on your border, at least for awhile. If you don't want that to happen, we suggest you do whatever you have to." Basically, give them the green light to just take NK out if they so chose. Maybe even pay them something to do it, although probably in a form where they'd have some deniability about just why we were sending all that money.

As President, I'd not really want to conduct operations so close to China, for the simple reason that I wouldn't want them to get a good picture of our weapons systems in full action. If China could be encouraged to simply take them out, even if it expanded China's influence somewhat in so doing, I'd probably consider that an acceptable outcome. I believe a conflict with China is entirely possible, and I think LOSING is a very real possibility, so doing everything possible to deprive them of intelligence would be in our best interest.

I agree with Bush in one area, about being ruthless about taking out real threats, by whatever means necessary. Not pre-emptive crap where we say we can attack for imaginary possible someday threats, mind you, but responding forcefully to real, credible ones.

Bush's ability to assess real threat, at this point, seems remarkably poor. He seems intent on creating new threats, rather than reducing existing ones.
posted by Malor at 2:51 AM on April 29, 2005

> it seems impossible to do anything useful with North Korea in its present state

So maybe a missile defense system isn't such a bad idea after all?

"The primary mission of National Missile Defense is defense of the United States (all 50 states) against a threat of a limited strategic ballistic missile attack from a rogue nation."

"Perhaps Kim Jong-il has got the capacity to launch a weapon," Bush said. "Wouldn't it be nice to be able to shoot it down?"

"Much progress has been made, and a limited defense against North Korea is under construction in Alaska and California." Build missile defense before it's too late

Of course, it would be nice if the defense system actually worked: Test of Missile Defense System Delayed Again, U.S. Missile Defense Test Fails.
posted by Turtle at 3:43 AM on April 29, 2005

Malor: There is some question as to whether NK is really just China's outlet to antagonise the US/Japan/SK.
posted by PenDevil at 3:44 AM on April 29, 2005

PenDevil, that's an interesting observation. Putting the ball back in their court would be educational for sure. Shame we'll likely never know if Bush tried it.

(although considering how ineptly he handled the UN, even if he DID try it, he could very likely find a way to mess it up.)

As far as the missile defense system goes... if we can actually make it work, it's likely one of the better ideas this administration has had. People worry about the 'balance of nuclear power', but the Cold War is very over. We won, although it was something of a Pyrrhic victory. Deploying a system that can shoot down 20 or 30 incoming missiles isn't likely to result in a frenzy of weapon-building, at least not on the part of large nations. NK will probably never have very many nukes, they just don't have the economy to support them.

I suspect, however, that it's just another boondoggle to line the pockets of big corporations. It might be doable, but our current defense contractors' records of developing new weapons systems successfully seems very poor. Admittedly, we mostly hear about the failures, but you'd think they'd tout a few successes. I can't think of many in the last 10 years except the Patriots, and those aren't all that great.

Considering the relative complexity of a Patriot anti-missile battery versus an air- and space-based ICBM interception system, my confidence that our current contractors can actually succeed is very low.


If we were smart, we'd contract the Japanese to do it. If anyone could build a system that complex, they could. They have the best technology on the planet, far ahead of our own in many (most?) areas, and they'd have a very strong vested interest in making it work.

Of course, it would never fly, politically.
posted by Malor at 4:12 AM on April 29, 2005

Wikipedia has info on recent developments in missile defense and anti-ballistic missiles.
posted by Turtle at 4:31 AM on April 29, 2005

and wrong in what he did in 1994 when he allowed North Korea to blackmail us into signing the Agreed Framework which they completely ignored.

Why should North Korea have followed the framework? We didn't keep a single part of our end of the bargain. The end result of the 1994 Agreement is North Korea waited a decade before restarting their nuclear program, and if Shrub had just kept his goddamn mouth shut, they may well not have restarted it.

Hint: When you declare three countries "evil", and then invade one of them, what do you think the other two are going to do?

Hint: When you claim that you're going to build certain things, and import certain things to a country, and then you never do, why are you surprised when that country considers itself no longer bound to the agreement you've made?

Hint: Who keeps selling NK nuclear technology? Another: They start with "P", and they're an "ally."

Lord knows that the 1994 Framework wasn't a great idea, but the person who has screwed this pooch is Bush, pure and simple. If he'd kept his mouth shut and let his diplomats talk softly, NK wouldn't have raced to complete a bomb. If he'd shipped the damn oil and non-miltary reactors (and if the GOP had let Clinton do the same) then at least we could have claimed that they honestly violated an agreement that we kept our end up on. But, you know, when you agree to pay me $FOO to not make $BAR, and then never give me $FOO, I'm making $BAR.

NK knows that, in a conventional war, they'll lose. They can't hold against a South Korea/US alliance. They couldn't hold before, until China stepped in. So, if the US wants them, they're owned. Unless they have nukes. If they have nukes, the US can't invade.

So, we start threatening invasion. What would you do, Dear Leader?

Hint: Why do you think Iran wants nukes just as badly?
posted by eriko at 4:38 AM on April 29, 2005

It was my understanding that a lot of the resistance to a missile defence system (besides it not working.) was that it was:

a) pretty much an excuse for bush to give more money to his best friends.

and b) going to escalate nuclear and military tension, probably making us less safe.

you know, like the war in iraq did.
posted by shmegegge at 4:52 AM on April 29, 2005

Regardless of the threat to the US, it would be nice to see that government overthrown. Maybe I've been fed a line by the media (though I doubt it), but NK represents the worst kind of dictatorship in the world right now. The NK people are dying and there seems to be no end to the Kim dynasty. Desperate men do desperate things and this is just a powder keg.

Like Sangermaine said, brute force and diplomacy are unlikely to succeed any time soon. I think you could do some sort of psy-ops thing (with the help of China and SK) combined with some crazy multiple assassination thing. But the US doesn't do that anymore, right?
posted by thejimp at 5:00 AM on April 29, 2005

This, in time, will prove to be the reason that Bush and Homeland Security made the announcement that if need be the can kick GPS offline (low tech ROK missle uses GPS for guidance). Betcha I'm right.
posted by rzklkng at 5:10 AM on April 29, 2005

"Desperate men do desperate things and this is just a powder keg."

Exactly. Which is why the Koreans should handle it. If the situation becomes desperate enough, the Koreans themselves will remove Kim.
posted by infowar at 5:27 AM on April 29, 2005

Not if he's got Chinese support, the won't. But then, that's the logic that's lead to our involvement in 2 wars we shouldn't have been involved in.
posted by shmegegge at 5:33 AM on April 29, 2005

*drools, pants*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:25 AM on April 29, 2005

The end result of the 1994 Agreement is North Korea waited a decade before restarting their nuclear program

If you believe that, I got some WMDs, fresh from Iraq, for sale.
posted by stifford at 6:36 AM on April 29, 2005

Tomorrow everyone will be stunned as the Pentagon announces that North Korea has the capability to load a missile with fuel in order to launch it.

I am glad they're looking at a real problem though...
posted by nervousfritz at 7:22 AM on April 29, 2005

"Why should we invade? You can't run your SUV leafblower on kim chi, John!" - Steven Colbert, TDS
posted by fungible at 8:08 AM on April 29, 2005

Bah, don't worry about Nukes. There has been 2 attempts at playing 'wack the George' (George Washington - as in the US Dollar) In the security game, as the attacker you get many shots. As the defender - you only have to fail once. So far the defenders are known to be 2-0.....


"Flavell and Beany. No, not the ingredients of a new multi-bean soup, nor the description of the latest craze in the production of wine from legumes. No, in this case Flavell and Beany are the two central, although minor, players on a real game of risk aimed at bringing down the global economy by crashing the USofA dollar and thus shifting the balance(s) of power instantly.

Paul Edward John Flavell and Sam Beany came to global, albeit internet, media attention as they were just going about their business and were paying a freight bill at their local DHL shipping office in Manila, Philippines. Just as Flavell was handing over the 53,967 Philippine Pesos required to ship their largish box to Zurich, Suisse, he and Beany were busted.

"NBI Director Reynaldo Wycoco said the suspects, Paul Edward John Flavell and Sam Beany, both temporary residents of Room 305, CEO Apartments on Jupiter Street, Makati, had tried to send the fake US reserve notes, which had a face value of $3 trillion, to Zurich, Switzerland, through a commercial courier company.

NBI agent Manuel Eduarte, head of the NBI Antigraft Division, said the suspects were arrested after the agency received a call from DHL courier company about a suspicious package the two suspects were sending to Switzerland. "

The first clue that Flavell had about his sudden change in legal status came when the Manila freighting office of the international cargo forwarder DHL Philippines Inc was instantly filled with agents if the Philippines National Bureau of Investigation. The NBI agents crowded in very small office and to Flavell’s horror, seemed to take an inordinate amount of interest in his and Beany’s package to Switzerland.

Details of the arrest can be found at http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/topofthehour.aspx?StoryId=3274

As the story unfolded, it appears that the NBI agents were quite justified in their curiosity about Flavell’s box. When opened, the packages revealed 3 Trillion dollars in crisp, counterfeit USofA bonds. Now note that this was ‘trillion’ with a ‘t’, in deference to the importance of the amount, it ought to be spelled out in all capitals as in THREE TRILLION DOLLARS!

While it is true that 3 trillion is hardly real money these days, and actually only represents about a third of the USofA GDP, it nonetheless was apparently enough fake currency to do the job.

What job was that? Well, nothing much, just the collapse of the USofA dollar and by extension the collapse of the global financial infrastructure. Even though Flavell and Beany are not saying much since they posted 16,000 Philippine Peso bond and disappeared, there are a host of clues about the plot emerging globally.

Ok, being captured in the Philippines does make sense. In fact, it initially went along with our pre-conception of the Philippine population as a very hard working, enterprising people. And, it makes sense that such a thing could occur in Manila as it is one of the major cross-cultural boundary gateway from SE Asia to the Western world. So, not really out of place. As noted, the Philippines population is hard working, and enterprising, and if they were to turn their hands to counterfeiting they would do well at it. But even so, the amount was a bit large. After all, 3 trillion represents a whole lot of dollars and would be very hard for the average counterfeiting ring to work through their usual distribution channels. Bear in mind the point of counterfeiting is to work the fake money into the system such that real value can be ‘extracted’ in the process. Usually that means making purchases, and either getting the ‘real value’ back in the form of the ‘change’ or alternatively, either returning the item purchased later for cash, or selling it at a discount for cash. No matter how it is achieved, the point of counterfeiting is to swap your fake notes for real FRN’s {USofA Federal Reserve Notes commonly called dollars}.

So, for a counterfeiting story, it is very unusual. A very large amount of fake dollar bonds in very high denominations making it virtually guaranteed that it is not to be processed through regular distribution for such work. Then SE Asian association through Manila, and it turns out that Flavell and Beany are not Philippines citizens, and claim to be British. Indeed, they used British passports and converted British Pounds to pay their bail. And they have two, yet to be apprehended accomplishes according to the NBI, both of whom are also thought to be British. Hmmm….

Nor is it the first time in recent months that such a counterfieting operation has been detected. As the Manila Times noted:

"The NBI said the package, sealed in an iron-cast chest, was similar to the shipment the NBI seized a few months ago that also contained fake US dollar notes. " (emphasis added)
posted by rough ashlar at 8:21 AM on April 29, 2005

eriko,
North Korea never intended to keep that bargain. The highest-ranking defector we have from that state, Kim Duk Hong, has said, "[But the North Koreans] resumed the development of nuclear weapons as soon as they signed the Geneva Agreed Framework, even before the ink dried on the paper.

In 1995, the national military industry secretariat went to Pakistan to trade skills in exchange for producing nuclear weapons. They sent engineers to Pakistan after they signed for Geneva Agreed Framework in 1994. They began to talk about nuclear weapons with Pakistan 1995. It is true. "
(from here)The US and South Korea also were very aware that North Korea had been continuing its research all through the 90s, and had at least one bomb even before admitting to it in 2003. Bush's actions certainly haven't helped, but it's not like he solely caused them to restart their program. They were doing that all along.
posted by Sangermaine at 8:32 AM on April 29, 2005

It occurs to me that Kim Jong Il may be crazy enough -- nix that: is crazy enough -- to blow up the world when he's facing his own impending death. I think he'd see it as the right thing to do: the ultimate honour to his life.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:19 AM on April 29, 2005

1. It seems as though Iraq might have been a greater threat. That is to say: maybe 'threat' has less to do with the absolute strength of the weapons you have and more to do with your position in the world and your leverage in the local area.

2. George W. Bush and his administration might even have lied, or been wrong, about Iraq being the greatest threat in the world. However, that doesn't mean invading wasn't the right thing to do; the collision between the Middle East and the West continues apace, and it is at least a defensible position that securing a Middle Eastern democracy is the single most important step in preventing global terrorism and war.

3. It seems fairly clear to all concerned that, not only would proceeding in North Korea as we did be inadvisable-- it might very well bring about something like nuclear holocaust. Being a more volatile threat (which, I repeat, does not necessarily make it a greater threat), North Korea has to be treated with a certain amount of care, even as we desperately try to disarm it. This was the considered action of Clinton, and it has been the action of Bush as well. Both groped for answers. We need to find them soon.

And a smaller point, so small as to warrant almost no mention:

4. If Bush really has been doing what shmegegge says he's been doing-- risking the fate of the entire world in order to help his friends-- he is not only more evil than Kim Jong Il, but infinitely stupider. The first thing every politician learns, probably to his disappointment, on becoming president, is this: this is your own life you're playing with along with everyone else's, so there's (sadly) really no money to be made without being willing to die for it.
posted by koeselitz at 10:38 AM on April 29, 2005

blergh...

"3. It seems fairly clear to all concerned that, not only would proceeding in North Korea as we did in Iraq be inadvisable..."

</small
posted by koeselitz at 10:44 AM on April 29, 2005

"some sort of psy-ops thing combined with some crazy multiple assassination thing."
Better to engage them. Give them candy, be nice to them. Then stop.
Jerking someone off then stopping pretty much raises the frustration with the government level. There is more than one way to help folks forment a revolution.

"...that doesn't mean invading wasn't the right thing to do"
Yes. Yes it does. I concede that Iraq is strategically important for it's oil, and we did need to secure that. But putting the pieces together it's fairly clear that BushCo did it to maximize their profits and consolidate power here. That combined with the half-assed way they did the invasion does make it the wrong thing to do because it was done in the wrong way. A cop planting drugs on 'a known drug dealer' to nail him is not the right thing to do.

If, in the same way they ignored the professionals on Iraq, BushCo doesn't listen to the people on the front line of this NK business (LOTS of very well constructed ideas in this thread) we're going to wind up losing a west coast city and still look like the biggest assholes on the planet when we retaliate.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:35 AM on April 29, 2005

Smedleyman: "Yes. Yes it does. I concede that Iraq is strategically important for it's oil, and we did need to secure that. But putting the pieces together it's fairly clear that BushCo did it to maximize their profits and consolidate power here. That combined with the half-assed way they did the invasion does make it the wrong thing to do because it was done in the wrong way."

Do you think that the direction of the middle east is important, too important to be ignored? What pieces are you putting together to come to the conclusion that this decision was merely financial?

I repeat my final point: invading middle eastern nations is not a sound business proposition; anyone with half a brain can see that it might mean signing your own death warrant. You may believe that Bush was looking to up the death threats to his person merely for a shot at a nice house in Bermuda; I'm a bit more skeptical. He was already rich.

"A cop planting drugs on 'a known drug dealer' to nail him is not the right thing to do."

Why? In world politics, you can't hope for a pretty little trial that establishes outcomes to all beyond a shadow of doubt. You can only hope that somebody-- maybe Bush, maybe somebody else-- does something that saves lives. Even if that person has no idea what they're doing, and even if they're doing it for financial gain.

If, that is, Bush really is doing this for oil-- an unlikely proposition, as I've said-- then I still don't care. The middle east still gets a democracy out of it.

Now, seeing as how Mr. Bush's actions in NK have been exactly the same as Mr. Clinton's, it looks to me as though they both have no idea what to do in this case. We should be trying to figure out.
posted by koeselitz at 12:05 PM on April 29, 2005

Maybe Bush did lie in the course of invading Iraq. We can't know for sure.

In world politics, you can't hope for a pretty little trial that establishes outcomes to all beyond a shadow of doubt. You can only hope that somebody-- maybe Kim Jong Il, maybe somebody else-- does something that saves lives. Even if that person has no idea what they're doing, and even if they're doing it for their own reasons.

That is why Iran and North Korea must acquire nuclear weaponry.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:30 PM on April 29, 2005

Huh?
posted by koeselitz at 1:34 PM on April 29, 2005

In world politics, you can't hope for a pretty little trial that establishes outcomes to all beyond a shadow of doubt. You can only hope that somebody-- maybe Ted Kaczynski, maybe somebody else-- does something that saves lives...

...in the long run, right?
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:45 PM on April 29, 2005

Exactly. Which is why the Koreans should handle it. If the situation becomes desperate enough, the Koreans themselves will remove Kim.

We should remember that the North Koreans are literally starving.
posted by mrgrimm at 1:50 PM on April 29, 2005

If any kind of nuclear explosions are set off by NK, look for a massive, massive conventional strike on their infrastructure. They may have a nuke or two soon, but they don't likely yet have the confidence to project it.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:38 PM on April 29, 2005

Right, Paris. And poison millions of our allies in South Korea? I think not. Or is Bush's other name Aeolus?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:37 PM on April 29, 2005

Something to remember is that China HATES the DPRK. They pay lip-service to them as fellow commies, but China wants Jong out.
The DPRK owes the Chinese government millions of dollars (which they're never going to pay), their hardline rhetoric makes it harder for China as "communists" to deal with emerging markets like South Korea, and China finds the DPRK's insistance on bilateral talks with the US insulting to its position of regional hegemony. Trust me, there is absolutely no love lost between Pyonyang and Beijing.
Which is why Bush's policy of demanding multilateral talks is the right one (compared to bilaterals), and it was something that annoyed me when Kerry was running, since he seemed to be taking the opposite tack for no good reason.
posted by klangklangston at 4:05 PM on April 29, 2005

"Do you think that the direction of the middle east is important, too important to be ignored?"
Yep.

"What pieces are you putting together to come to the conclusion that this decision was merely financial? "
I didn't say merely financial. I didn't mean to make it sound that way, sorry. The decision was not by any means -solely- financial.
That said, it's clear that there are plenty of financial shennanegans going on that pervert the 'ideal' here.


"You can only hope that..."
I'd rather stick to the law.

"invading middle eastern nations is not a sound business proposition; anyone with half a brain can see that it might mean signing your own death warrant."
Doubtful with the most powerful military the world has ever seen under your command. Assassinate the POTUS and the retaliation would be fearsome indeed. I despise Bush and even I would be howling for blood (until I regained my reason).

"Bush really is doing this for oil-- an unlikely proposition, as I've said-- then I still don't care. The middle east still gets a democracy out of it."

So in essence : it's ok for our leaders to lie,cheat, steal, etc, - as long as the ends justify the means? I can't be with you there.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:07 AM on May 2, 2005