Calling North Korea's Bluff

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by newsports, Jan 22, 2004.

  1. newsports
    Offline

    newsports Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2003
    Messages:
    17
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +0
    In a new report, Siegfried Hecker former Los Alomos National Laboratory leading scientist concluded that he doesn't see any reason to believe that North Korea is capable of creating an atomic bomb as they have threatend. Although Hecker does indicate that N. Korea's program is too dangerous to be ignored and does pose a threat. Has the Bush administration's decision not to be too impulsive in its comfrontation of North Korea proven to be the right move by the revelation of Kim Jong Il's exaggeration of their nuclear capabilities? And is the lack of WMD found in Iraq an example of a failure to adhere to this policy of preemptive patience?

    www.washtimes.com/world/2...-9650r.htm
    http://newsports.us
     
  2. Sabir
    Online

    Sabir Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I think to answer your first question you have to ask the following first.


    1) Does N.K have expansionist ideas?
    2) Is N.K likely to use nukes in a pre-emptive strike to achieve the above?
    3) Is N.K likely to assist terrorists in acquiring nuclear material?
    4) Assuming yes to all the above, can we in the west keep N.K contained, such that the above does not happen?

    Answer yes to any of the first 3 and no to number 4 and a confrontation is inevitable.


    For now I would answer yes to all of them and as in my opinion N.K is contained I would say that the Bush Administration has made the right move in not being to confrontational.
     
  3. bamthin
    Online

    bamthin Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    You forgot:

    5) Does N.K have oil or other exploitable resources?

    6) Does N.K have a formidable military that the US can't just roll through

    From all I have seen/read, North Korea has been actively supplying conventional weapons, including missiles, to the Middle East. This is nothing new, NK has been arming terrorist groups for decades. NK also evicted weapons inspectors and at the very least, has the material to make nuclear weapons (if they already haven't). On top of all that, they are rift with humanitarian issues and ruled by a tyrannical dictator.

    I have always thought that NK was a much bigger threat than Iraq. Saddam Hussein was absolutely crippled by sanctions and weapon inspections. We invaded Iraq while NK was left unattended to enrich uranium and build nukes while they bragged about it. Never quite understood that.

    Iraq was a convenient low-risk nation to invade with little benefit to US security when compared with NK. I can't think of any reason why anyone wouldn't think that NK is a more dangerous problem than Iraq. Why invade Iraq and not NK?. Maybe the plan is to roll through and decimate the crippled Iraq in the hopes that all other rogue nations will be intimidated and crumple under US pressure. That does not seem to be the case in NK, and that gamble may have allowed NK to build another bomb or two.

    Much ado is made about Libya coming clean and even Bush mentioned it in his SOU address. Funny thing is, I was reading early last year that Libya was making every effort it could to get the sanctions lifted as they were completely crippling them. I think they reached some agreement to pay the survivors of the Lockerbie Pan Am bombing a exorbitant amount of money that was equal to more than half of Libya's GDP for the year. It seems dumb to pay all that out and still have sanctions because of their inept nuclear weapons program which appears was hopelessly futile. In addition, I read an article by Gary Hart in the Post that proves that Libya has been seeking normalized US relations for over a decade.

    And another thing, why is it OK for Bush to just let the IAEA inspect Libya's WMD and then let them off of sanctions? Libya has a terrible human rights record and Khadafy is a tyrannical dictator. Is this not what the neocons consider perfect justification to invade? I mean, Libya was involved with the terrorist act of killing 270 people over Lockerbie, Scotland as well, so they are known terrorists who have killed Americans. A bit confusing, wouldn't you agree?


    -Bam
     
  4. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Sounds very familiar.

    I wonder why the intel on NK is acceptable at face value, but the very same people that accept this swear that Bush was lying about the intel in Iraq. If NK was invaded and not Iraq we would be hearing the same argument reversed.

    Who knows what time will bring. Maybe a resolution, maybe another war. NK hasn't been under UN resolutions for 12 years. Time ran out on Saddam.
     
  5. Johnney
    Offline

    Johnney Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2003
    Messages:
    4,330
    Thanks Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    IOWA
    Ratings:
    +141
    war with NK would be ugly. doesnt matter what the state of their army is. they have been brain washed against us for quite a while now.
     
  6. Palestinian Jew
    Offline

    Palestinian Jew Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Messages:
    903
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Fayetteville
    Ratings:
    +18
    Acutally the intel on NK has been proven, many of the weapons caches found in Afghanistan are North Korean in origin, so it doesn't compare to Iraq.
     
  7. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    All in good time. Iran is going to be undergoing a lot more scrutiny:

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm..._chicagotrib/terrortrialwitnesslinksiranto911

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040122/wl_nm/nuclear_iran_elbaradei_dc

    Somehow I doubt they'll be freaking over being referred to UNSC by IAEA, but when GW starts talking, well bet it gets interesting.

    We haven't even been discussing Mr. Assad, who is trying desperately to become relevant via Israel, not likely.

    Then there's always our friends the Saudis...
     

Share This Page