Originally posted by Major Either that, or you set up an agreement with verifiable compliance. Whatever happens, you're not going to get anywhere by shutting them out. They have nothing to lose - all it does is buy them time to produce weapons. The more they have, the better their position will be. Time is on their side, not ours in this situation. This is again why NK is in a very strong position. NK's economy has collapsed, it's people are starving. The only country that keeps it afloat, China, is none too happy about it's nuclear ambitions, nor it's threats to it huge trading partner. The NK regime cannot survive w/o substantial foreign support. You think only they have leverage? Publicly, no. Privately? Most probably - almost certainly with China. ... You have nothing better than your conjecture? That it makes sense to you, so there must be that unreported talks are occuring? Do you think it's quite possible that no talks are taking place, so the NK's released this info on nukes? Next time, it would be wise to add IMHO.
Not to nitpick, but do you mean the Washington Times? The Washington Post is owned by Berkshire Hathaway, a Warren Buffett's company. They are two fundamentally different newspapers. Sorry for the OT.
NK's economy has collapsed, it's people are starving. The only country that keeps it afloat, China, is none too happy about it's nuclear ambitions, nor it's threats to it huge trading partner. The NK regime cannot survive w/o substantial foreign support. You think only they have leverage? NK doesn't care about its people - never has, never will as long as the current leadership structure is in there. The more his people starve, the more control he maintains there. The leaders aren't starving, the military generally isn't starving - that's all that matters. China has no interest in NK nukes, but they haven't shown any indications of yanking support yet either. China also gets plenty of benefits from having the US needing them to help resolve this problem. It makes them a player on the international stage, which they crave. You have nothing better than your conjecture? That it makes sense to you, so there must be that unreported talks are occuring? Do you think it's quite possible that no talks are taking place, so the NK's released this info on nukes? Next time, it would be wise to add IMHO. I thought when I say "probably", that pretty much makes it clear that its an opinion. Unreported talks w/ North Korea are pretty standard - they do lots of stuff behind the scenes. I think its quite silly to think that because they walked away from public multi-lateral talks, they must not be in serious contact with anyone, least of all China, basically their only ally and their current source of life support. Far more almost always gets done behind the scenes as opposed to the "talks" anyways.
alot of interesting points here that deal with international theory. we look at things from several directions, options and questions. First, the problem, N. korea will be making nuclear weapons, they are realists, they want to survive, they believe the world is against them and they are in some ways right. Do we let them build but improve relations to the point that they dont need them or do we just plain out aggressively stop them from doing so? The question of debate and concessions comes up, can china, japan, skorea and japan give north korea enough things to make them happy and not build wmds? unlikely, again, the DPRK main perogative is to survive, keeping them economically happy but under our boot for a short time is only stalling the problem. plus as technology improves, it will be easier to make weapons. ok, so lets say that no matter what the DPRK will build weapons. they want power and evidenced through china, india and pakistan, you need to go nuclear to have power. what do we do? do we want to go in there and iraq the hell out of them? If we choose to attack there will be opposition from our asian allies. europe hates us enough now, they will not support, the aussies may, the DPRK has been pissing them off recently. South Korea will protest, they see the north as their poor misguided little brother and the DPRK is not a threat to them, believe it or not. China will protest, as a former third world country, they can relate with Nkorea, however they do not want them to have nuclear weapons, but even worse they do not want an American presence or american airbases within 1000 miles of Beijing. This would destroy US china relations, and they would 1) stop buying american debt and investment 2) increase trade costs, both which lead the US into a recession. Japan may support although they have a history of being a pacifist country. they may use as a way to increase their military power and drop many of their regulations. Some of their realists also want to go nuclear. Plus, going into N.korea will not be like afghanistan, iraq or even kosovo. It will be a bloody as hell war, they spend a ridiculous amount of cash on weapons, they are a primary purchaser on the modern weapons market and have a disciplined, ordered military. They have been preparing for this since the first korean war, the US may make a dent but it will make iraq look like playground tussle. War? hell no, there are some ramifications that could screw over our country and the world economic system. if we win, the losses may look like we have lost, and we will be alone. the result? there will be one less nuclear threat that may or may not have been a real threat to us. ok, lets look at the option of peaceful coexistance. we can let them build nukes but at the same time increase interaction. give them an economy, open them up to the world. this will not be instantaneous, it will take 20+ years. show them that they can be happier if the stop pointing guns. One thing they do know, if they become aggressive, they will be destroyed. they cannot invade s. korea without getting backlash, nor china nor japan. Again, their priority is security, they will not fire nukes unless fired upon. they know just the same that if they fire nukes they will recieve them. so we and china and japan go in there and give them things to do besides worry about war. introduce them to fashion, music, get their kids addicted to video games. basically adapt the policy against china when they went nuclear. be nice, courteous, respectful, and realize that a loss of pride is necessary. keep a hand on that holster and make it clear that we will be nice, but if you f*** with us, you will get f***ed. it is scary to believe that another crazy country will get nukes but we have to accept that you cant prevent everyone from getting something that is equivalent to power. Everyone wants power and the biggest gun is the most powerful, regardless if it is used or not. but if we do things right, they wont use it. as scary as the cold war was, china and russia did not use their nukes, north korea will not use them unless they have no choice. we should still continue to debate just incase they have a price to be bought out but i think this will only stall things. N korea will not feel equal until it has power. there is no ideal situation, but as far as the best bet to US security and the economy, we will have to accept that nuclear weapons are not only tools of the elite and as long as their is country sovereignty, there are few ways we can prevent a country from developing nukes if it has the capability of defending itself from those that dont want them to build. these are my opinions and predictions, with influence from many US and Chinese experts, some of whom are actually involved in the negotiations. i hope it helps some to understand the situation as well as the ramifications of our actions.
Originally posted by Major NK doesn't care about its people - never has, never will as long as the current leadership structure is in there. The more his people starve, the more control he maintains there. The leaders aren't starving, the military generally isn't starving - that's all that matters. China has no interest in NK nukes, but they haven't shown any indications of yanking support yet either. China also gets plenty of benefits from having the US needing them to help resolve this problem. It makes them a player on the international stage, which they crave. More conjecture. 'The military generally isn't starving'? Where did you get this? You have no idea what the halting of foreign aid would do to this nation. You claim the starving masses will only strengthen kim. History says the regime falls. None has ever survived long with collapsed economy and starving population. Add to that the resources required by their massive military. China has to be concerned about the growing backlash of the trade deficit with the US. The US will hold China accountable for their satellite. Also, China does NOT want a nuclear NK. It is the most potentially destabilizing factor for China. They certainly don't want NK selling nukes and don't want war on the Korean penninsula, they want the massive growth in their economy to continue. More so than using NK to be a player in the international stage. If you haven't noticed, they already are a player, and it's largely because of the growth and expected growth of their economy. I thought when I say "probably", that pretty much makes it clear that its an opinion. ... No, you said 'MOST probably', and I didn't request an 'IMO', it was an 'IMHO'.
More conjecture. Virtually everything we know about NK is conjecture - they have done a masterful job of creating a closed society. Doesn't mean we can't make educated guesses based on what we do know. 'The military generally isn't starving'? Where did you get this? Previous research for a project. NK takes care of their military. It's how the leadership ensures continued power. The people don't have the resources or energy to create a revolt - only the military does. So NK keeps the military decently happy (at least compared to the rest of the country). They get first access to food, etc. You have no idea what the halting of foreign aid would do to this nation. You claim the starving masses will only strengthen kim. They are already about as bad economically as you can get. Their primary exports are illegal drugs and weapons. Nukes will make a nice little new export business for them if it comes down to that. None has ever survived long with collapsed economy and starving population. Add to that the resources required by their massive military. Their troops aren't well trained, but they are kept relatively happy and they have been totally propagandazed to believe in their society. Its bizarre, but it has worked from all indications. Everyone predicted a coup with the death of the previous leader, but everything went very smoothly in transition. Will it fail eventually? Of course! Is it likely to in the near future? I doubt it. The near future is our concern because that's where the nuke issues are. China has to be concerned about the growing backlash of the trade deficit with the US. Why? The US will hold China accountable for their satellite. Also, China does NOT want a nuclear NK. It is the most potentially destabilizing factor for China. Of course it doesn't. It also doesn't want the US in its backyard. NK has played this all masterfully thus far. China can get a lot out of this too by playing on US fears of nukes going into terrorists' hands. Again, time is on their side, not ours. Ultimately, China is the only one with real influence over NK. If they can get something out of us too, though, they will. No, you said 'MOST probably', and I didn't request an 'IMO', it was an 'IMHO'. Well, that's too bad - you won't be getting that. It's not my humble opinion. It is my opinion based on my own research and contact with a professor very deeply involved with these topics in the past.
I think that everyone advocating negotiation should remember that the North Koreans have yet to adhere to anything they have ever promised to in any negotiation. They are incapable of keeping their word. The 1994 deal is a stark case in point; before the ink was even dry they ran home to accellerate their nuke program. They cannot be trusted. And anyone who trusts them to keep their word is a dangerous fool. And that includes George W. Bush if he tries to negotiate with them. I say shut them out. Don't give them a penny, a drop of oil, or a piece of rice. Bombard their troops with electronic and paper propaganda (truthful propaganda is all you'd need). Work to get China and Russia on our side in this (they already largely are on our side), and use exterior pressure to try to force internal change. Try to force a coup. Bowing to their demands is no solution, as they have proven that they will just break their side of the deal and then ask for more. Just as in Iraq, regime change is the only solution to this dilemma. Preferably, that regime change could come peacefully from within, because a regime change operation by the US military would, though it would likely succeed, be extremely messy for everyone involved.
Your post is right on the money. I still believe in the end right or wrong that N. Korea will come out of this with what they are after money, energy aid, etc. We will come out of the situation with what we want, which is a way to save face without having a massive war on the Korean peninsula.
in international relations, all countries are rational, as NKs main priority is security, nuclear weapons are the only way they think they can survive. besides, you sound just like a media report. madeline albright is the only major US diplomat to actually meet with the North koreans and she says that he is a rational dictator, just isolated. if you look at them as only being opposite to us there can only be war.
We do that, North Korea declares war. It's that simple. Is the principle of "no negotiation" more important than saving potentially millions of lives? No way.
OK. Let's say that we negotiate. They agree to get rid of their nukes, and we agree to pay them whatever they want. After the agreement, they commence production on the next batch of nukes, chuckling to themselves and counting their cash as they do it. What part of "They cannot be trusted to uphold their end of a deal" do you not understand? You cannot make deals with people who have broken every deal you've tried to make with them previously. The "Well, they fu*ked us last time, but maybe this time they'll be on the level..." tactic has a lousy track record throughout history. You cannot negotiate with these people in good faith anymore. Another tactic must be tried, because their possession of a nuclear arsenal cannot be tolerated. They are too irrational to be trusted with one. Ask the Japanese if they feel safe knowing that Kim's got a nuclear arsenal. Or the South Koreans perhaps? Even the Chinese hate the idea.
It didn't work? The 1994 agreement prevented *war* and kept nuclear weapons out of their hands for nine years. What more do you want? If we negotiate in earnest, and they decline, we pursue other means. That's what civilized countries do.
OK. Let's say that we negotiate. They agree to get rid of their nukes, and we agree to pay them whatever they want. After the agreement, they commence production on the next batch of nukes, chuckling to themselves and counting their cash as they do it. Then you made a dumb deal. You insist that they provide their current spent rods. You insist that there is full monitoring by live UN or IAEA personnel. You actually physically dismantle their bomb-making capacity - simultaneous with delivery of oil or food or whatever. You don't just give stuff - you give it over an extended period and you ensure there's always incentive for them not to abandon the agreement. There are LOTS of things that you can do besides your bizarre example. Essentially, you develop an agreement that keeps NK dependent on the international community. You also give them their damn non-agression treaty with conditions attached that its invalid if they reactivate any nuclear programs. That's their #1 concern because they have a bizarre, irrational fear of being attacked. There are plenty of ways to negotiate an agreement if we're interested. We should have learned from the last one how not to do it, but that doesn't mean its impossible. Or we can go with the alternative and have a nuclear North Korea, given that everyone knows that an attack on North Korea is not going to happen. The bluff doesn't work here. It sucks, but again, North Korea has played this out masterfully.
The cost of the Iraq war is somewhere around $200B so far, I believe (including the $87B that Bush wants) - plus about 300 American lives. The cost of a North Korean war would dwarf that - say $500B and tens of thousands of lives between us and South Korea. I guarantee that we could negotiate a solution that North Korea would accept in a heartbeat for far less than that, given that $500B is probably many, many years worth of NK's total annual GDP. If you wanted, you could freaking buy all their nukes and nuke-making capacity for a fraction of that cost (not that you'd want to do that). Containment can work - the entire cold war is a shining example of that. You contain them until they collapse from the inside, at which point they create a new government <I>on their own</I>, which is far more stable and accepted by the people than a government put in place by force.
What the hell are you talking about? It did *not* keep nuclear weapons out of their hands for nine years - they have had nyukes for at least three years. It took them several years to develop them. If the 1994 agreement had actually worked - and you are apparently saying that it did - then they would not have nuclear weapons right now, would they? You know, because they would have abandoned their program??? Been there, dun that. We negotiated in earnest. We made a deal. We kept up our side for about 8 years, they fu*ked us as soon as they left the table. Now we need to pursue other means. The liberal propensity for surrender and retreat never ceases to amaze me. You are proposing doing exactly the same thing - making exactly the same mistake (trusting them) - that we did in 1994. Amazing. Major: Agreed. That is exactly what happened in 1994. Too late. According to them, they have already been reprocessed. Did that in 1994. The North Koreans kicked them out of the country last year. Kinda hard when they maintain a secret bomb-making facility that you cannot pinpoint, and whose location (or existence) they refuse to reveal. Doubly hard after they've kicked out all monitors, too. Negative. That would be a dumb deal. You make them act first, or there is no deal. Besides, we have already proven that we will live up to our end; that is only in question in thier propaganda pieces, not at the table. That's the way it's supposed to work. But it only works if you can actually see what they're doing. We can't. You do understand that you just described the 1994 framework to a T, don't you? Your "example" is the very deal that failed us in the first place. Try the 1994 deal again? No thanks. Ah, and here we get to the rub: they already *are* dependent upon the international community. Totally. Without our aid, they will wither and die, and they know it. The problem is that they do not react to this reality as a rational regime would. Instead of coming to grips with it and trying to work with us, they try to extort us, at the same time stockpiling nuclear weapons. Note that this is only a rational course if they intend to actually one day use those weapons, as without them they could still extort us with conventional threats to get what they want. This regime is not rational. This one's fine. We have no interest in preemptively attacking them sans nukes anyway, and if they rolled on SK, then such a treaty is void anyway. No, their #1 concern is extorting us for whatever they can get from us. Their #2 concern is reuniting the peninsula under a Communist banner (they apparently really do believe their own propaganda). Fear of a preemptive attack is only valid if they have nukes, and they know it. Are you seeing the pattern here? There is no way to have any faith in them sticking to their end of the bargain. The alternative is to monitor everything, because they apparently do have hidden facilities. And they would never allow such a presence. So no, there is no way to have faith in them. And in any agreement you must have faith that the other party will abide by their end. It is impossible to trust them. It is also impossible to adequately monitor them, especially since they are apt to kick out monitors whenever they feel like it. Then we must also allow Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea to have nuclear weapons. Because they are sure as hell going to want them now. This is what you call "masterful"??? They've blundered and extorted their way to the brink of friggen nuclear war, and given themselves virtually no exit strategy. That's what you call "masterful"? Remind me never to hire you as a politico-military strategist.
You do understand that you just described the 1994 framework to a T, don't you? Your "example" is the very deal that failed us in the first place. Ummm, no. We didn't have the verifiable part of it in there - that's the key. Everything has to be verified by people on the ground with access. That's just one of many key failures of the 1994 agreement. This is what you call "masterful"??? They've blundered and extorted their way to the brink of friggen nuclear war, and given themselves virtually no exit strategy. If they are in such a bad position, why is the Bush administration absolutely lost on how to resolve this? North Korea has lost *nothing* but a year's worth of aid. They could, at any time, openly scrap their nukes program and get all the aid they were getting before and more. In other words, the end result of this will be better for them unless we call their bluff and invade - which we're not going to do. Yes, they played this out masterfully. I have yet to see a legit solution proposed by the anti-negotiation people. You can talk all you want about denying aid and closing them off more. They'll just expand their nuke program and sell their nukes for more money than they were getting from us in the first place.
