Why isn't anyone doing anything about North Korea?

[Isaac Brock]

It seems to be North Korean and also Iran, are the greatest threats to world security. Why does there not seem to be any pressure being pushed on by the world's superpowers. Forget Iraq. NK seems to me to be a clear and present danger.

 

[dmp]

North Korea is no greater a threat than they were 40 years ago - perhaps less. They are whiners...the government. Sometimes they whine louder than other times.

 

[Avatar4321]

It seems to be North Korean and also Iran, are the greatest threats to world security. Why does there not seem to be any pressure being pushed on by the world's superpowers. Forget Iraq. NK seems to me to be a clear and present danger.

I think the President believes we may be able to accomplish something peacefully with them. Well maybe he doesnt but he is trying it anyway maybe to stall for time. The President has said he will go to war as a last response. North Korea is a very delicate situation because of China's closeness. If China wasnt nearbye i think we would have taken North Korea out already.

Iran is stuck between a rock a hard place. We have them ebtween Iraq and Aghanistan. and we also have access to their southern board from Kuwait. We are in a very good negotiation position with them if they do negociate which i doubt and if they have to defend against three fronts.

Either way i think both will probably be settled within the next four years if President Bush is reelected.

 

[HGROKIT]

Maybe Canada can step up and take the lead.

 

[Avatar4321]

Maybe Canada can step up and take the lead.

yes perhaps its time for our northern colder brothers to move forward the cause of freedom.

 

[onedomino]

It seems to be North Korean and also Iran, are the greatest threats to world security. Why does there not seem to be any pressure being pushed on by the world's superpowers. Forget Iraq. NK seems to me to be a clear and present danger.

One monster regime at a time, Isaac. Nothing significant will happen regarding Iran or NK until after the November election.

A couple of obvious things to consider: the IAEA has been ineffective preventing the spread of nuclear weapons related technology to NK and Iran. The UNSC is a non-factor. Even if the UNSC was at the forefront of the Iran/NK nuke weapons debate, it would not be able to agree to a meaningful course of action. The UNSC could not even agree on something comparatively easy, such as stopping the genocide in Darfur. With its current membership structure and parliamentary procedures (voting rules, etc), the UNSC has slipped into almost complete dysfunction.

This leaves meaningful action against nuke weapons in Iran/NK to a coalition of those countries willing to make the commitment. Thus far, the countries that have spoken most forcefully against NK nukes are the US, SK, Japan, and Australia. Regarding Iran, only the US, Israel, and Australia have spoken in a determined manner. The German Foreign minister recently said that nuke weapons in Iran would be a "nightmare." A weak coalition of EU countries, France, Germany, and the UK, were recently double-crossed by Iran when the terrorist government broke agreements regarding nuke weapons development.

Regarding NK, the horse has already left the barn. It almost certainly possesses at least five nuke weapons. Moreover, it possesses ballistic missile technology (enhanced from that obtained from the now defunct USSR) that can target Japan. Everyday, NK is working to develop ballistic missiles that can reach North America. This reality is one of the main drivers behind President Bush’s program to develop missile defense. NK uses its nukes to extort money, food, and fuel, from the US, SK, and Japan. NK has a massive amount of conventional weaponry pointed at Seoul, SK, a city of 12 million people, located only 30 miles south of the NK/SK DMZ. NK has said that it will turn Seoul into a “sea of fire” if it is attacked. Certainly the US and Japan are capable of defeating NK and taking out its nuke capability. But not before NK nukes have hit SK, and possibly Japan, or American forces on Okinawa. Thus, there is not a good military option against NK and such will not be exercised. NK will continue to blackmail the US, SK, and Japan, to obtain money, food, and fuel. In 1994, during the Clinton Administration, if massive SK casualties were sustained, the US had the military option to prevent the development of NK nukes. In fact, the US was preparing for such action. Then, at the last moment, Jimmy Carter brokered a blackmail scheme that extracted a NK promise not to develop nuke weapons. Clinton agreed to provide 500,000 tons of food and non-weapons nuke technology to NK in exchange for the promise not to develop nukes. The US failed to deliver on the non-weapon nuke technology portion of the extortion brokered by Carter. Meanwhile, NK secretly retained the capacity to make nuclear weapons and continued to develop ballistic missile technology designed to threaten Japan, and ultimately the US.

Regarding some possible non-military options to prevent nuke weapons development in terrorist Iran, review this article that recently appeared in “YaleGlobal Online.” http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=4557 I believe that the Ayatollahs are determined to attain nuke weapons at the greatest possible speed (probably within one year). Nuclear weapons in the hands of Islamic fanatics cannot be permitted. They will use the weaponry to: reduce the chance of US military reprisal while they continue their clandestine war against American forces in Iraq, directly threaten US forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Gulf, and threaten the Israelis with nuke weapon annihilation. Iran must be stopped before it is too late.

 

[Isaac Brock]

And the question certainly could be posed to Canada, that would be fair. I was certainly not singling out the US to be clear. In fact, the US is probably safest from NK due to its geograpy. Though If I was Japan, China, Russia or another local neighbour I'd certainly be concerned.

I could simply not see where multilateral opposition would come for? NK doesn't even provide relative local security to other pariah states. Though there is a matter of humanitarian concern, the real issue is strictly strategic.

I think North Korea is a lot more dangerous than 20 years ago. Its increasing desperation has sought it to develop self-pupotted WMD. If those new missile tests go ahead as has been mentionned by several news agencies, perhaps some renewed attention will be shown.

Missile test link
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/09/22/nkorea.missile.ap/index.html

 

[dilloduck]

And the question certainly could be posed to Canada, that would be fair. I was certainly not singling out the US to be clear. In fact, the US is probably safest from NK due to its geograpy. Though If I was Japan, China, Russia or another local neighbour I'd certainly be concerned.

I could simply not see where multilateral opposition would come for? NK doesn't even provide relative local security to other pariah states. Though there is a matter of humanitarian concern, the real issue is strictly strategic.

I think North Korea is a lot more dangerous than 20 years ago. Its increasing desperation has sought it to develop self-pupotted WMD. If those new missile tests go ahead as has been mentionned by several news agencies, perhaps some renewed attention will be shown.

Missile test link
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/09/22/nkorea.missile.ap/index.html

No one has the will AND the means to do anything about N.Korea except to try to talk to these crazy bastards. Russia and China certainly don't feel to be targets.

 

[Isaac Brock]

No one has the will AND the means to do anything about N.Korea except to try to talk to these crazy bastards. Russia and China certainly don't feel to be targets.

Then do you believe that it is inevitable that we, as a world community, not just the US, accept North Korea as a new member of the nuclear club? It just seems to me that, that opens a whole new bag of worms.

 

[dmp]

The reason 'not' to accept NK as 'just another Nuke Playa' is pretty big.


NK Can't afford to FEED most of it's population (or a large part). NK can barely afford to maintain the HUGE Army it has. Toss them Nukes, and now they do what Terror groups in Iraq do - hold somebody hostage to get what they want.

 

[dilloduck]

The reason 'not' to accept NK as 'just another Nuke Playa' is pretty big.


NK Can't afford to FEED most of it's population (or a large part). NK can barely afford to maintain the HUGE Army it has. Toss them Nukes, and now they do what Terror groups in Iraq do - hold somebody hostage to get what they want.

But would the American people support an attack which would most likely have to be nuclear?

 

[dmp]

But would the American people support an attack which would most likely have to be nuclear?

Why would it most-likely have to be nook-yoo-ler?

 

[NATO AIR]

because the N. Korean leadership knows an American attack would likely be the end of their reign and they feel they might as well get their revenge on s. korea and japan in the end.

 

[dmp]

because the N. Korean leadership knows an American attack would likely be the end of their reign and they feel they might as well get their revenge on s. korea and japan in the end.

So you feel NK would simply launch 'vengence' Nooks at both places?

 

[NATO AIR]

i believe so. they have a cultivated institutional /national hatred of the japanese and south koreans.

any government that willingly starves its people at such a level the North Koreans are is very dangerous and irrational.

 

[dmp]

i believe so. they have a cultivated institutional /national hatred of the japanese and south koreans.

any government that willingly starves its people at such a level the North Koreans are is very dangerous and irrational.

I dissagree. Especially concerning nuking SK. SK is land/resources NK WANTS. No matter the outcome of any War, NK cannot use SK's infrastructure if it's non-existant. I suspect, 'if' NK has nukes, we know +/- where they are, and would be able to eliminate them w/o too much trouble.

 

[Isaac Brock]

But would the American people support an attack which would most likely have to be nuclear?

Dillo, i think that's where I'm getting at. Right now, the attack does not necessarily have to be a nuclear exchange. Perhaps, force isn't even needed with international consensus to place economic and military pressure at or within, their borders.

However, without pressure, which let's face it, the international community is not doing at all, the situation will eventually build up so that it will be nuclear. North Korea, just has to be cut off.

The problem is timeline. North Korea could go nuclear within the next year and develop a relatively large arsenal subsequently after that.

 

[NATO AIR]

d, they've had 50 years to build elaborate underground facilities to put all sorts of things in (especially nukes and nuke launchers, along with what is probably now the world's largest active bio and chem arsenal)

 

[dmp]

d, they've had 50 years to build elaborate underground facilities to put all sorts of things in (especially nukes and nuke launchers, along with what is probably now the world's largest active bio and chem arsenal)

Speculation? or have you any sources?

 

[Isaac Brock]

because the N. Korean leadership knows an American attack would likely be the end of their reign and they feel they might as well get their revenge on s. korea and japan in the end.

I agree. North Korea is not a nation, it is Kim Jong Il alone, a personality cult. By all accounts he goes beyond dictator and believes he enters the realm of diety.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40505-2003May10?language=printer

If his realm is ending, he will in all likeliness, go down in flames with little regard for his people. Remember, he's a movie buff and his favorite movies are American actions movies.