[Pat Buchanan] It's begun: An Asian nuclear arms race

Not to agree with Buchanan (chill) but maybe it's time to let S Korea and Japan nuclearize. See how China likes them apples (but not the offensive to Islam cube kind of apples).

 

I'm not presuming anything. I am suggesting it may be the best alternative to the current situation. As it is Japan is realistically only a few weeks away from making a bomb if they so chose. If our interests are not aligned at some point in the future they can go nuclear anyway. A nuclear S. Korea is not a realistic threat to the US nor to Japan. Further, China - the proverbial bull in the China shop (ha ha) is very likely to keep our interests aligned with Japan and S Korea, and the three on equal standing should maintain a balance of power.

 

I understand your point. It's the same with a nuclear India and a nuclear Pakistan. If they both have nukes, they equal each other out. If only Pakistan had them, there would be more international concern. I don't necessarily agree, and really think that if Russia and China don't balance the nuclear power of N. Korea, it won't be balanced. (This is possible, because obviously President Kim has no concern of the welfare of his country.)

 

You can't deter a nut like Kim Jong Il. Deterrence and MAD assume rational actors which Kim clearly is not. Not to mention, it definitely is in our interest that South Korea and Japan don't build nuclear weapons. As it stands now, they fall under the American nuclear umbrella so if North Korea did anything to SK or Japan, we'd blow the **** out of them. The current system gives us more influence over both countries and a large degree of latitude regarding military operations in East Asia.

Allowing SK and Japan to reneg on these agreements means that our influence declines substantially and I think most people here would probably say that's a bad thing. More nuclear weapons anywhere is a bad thing.

 

I agree that more nuclear weapons is bad. But I'm not sure about your other points. It appears like you're arguing that the US nuclear umbrella is protecting SK and Japan, but also arguing that deterrence doesn't work with NK. Those don't go together. I don't think we need bases in Japan or SK to power project, so I'm not sure what influences you envision decreasing. OTOH a US withdraw wouldn't preclude our intervention if we felt it was warranted.

 

I think that mobility in Asia is fundamental and we have a diminishing amount of countries to work with. Deterrence doesn't work but the point is that the addition of Japanese and Korean nuclear weapons wouldn't help. Now our nuclear umbrella may not work but what it does do is give us strategic influence in the region.

To say it straight, deterrence doesn't work but our umbrella at least gives us influence in the region. I can't think of a reason NOT to have strategic deployment of troops in the region and influence over those two nations. The addition of new nuclear weapons could make the security situation worse and prompt greater production of weapons by China and North korea while weakening American influence. There's nothing good that could come out of new nuclear states in the region.

 

I agree with moving out of our bases. Our current power projection is unsustainable, and it leaves us highly vulnerable to security threats. It's not our servicemen's duty to be first responders to a foreign issue.

Both Japan and S. Korea are living off our dime without at least spending dollar to dollar on defense. The situation as it is now reminds me of vassal kingdoms powerful countries pay to keep in line.

Like you said, we should instead see eye to eye on common interests such as diminishing the power projection of China. As it is now, Japanese and S. Koreans are divided on whether they see us as a threat. Further down the line, we will be blamed for the larger crisises instead of being viewed as protectors if we react in helping our allies....

 

Never give a knife to someone you just stabbed. It's not within the US interest for Japan to own atomic bombs.

 

thats absurd. personally i'd have no problem with japan having nukes. they are the second leading economy (china will take care of that soon) and have genuine security concerns. WWII was almost 60 years ago.

however i do think yall are under-estimating the potential of china co-opting our position in east asia and becoming a lot more influential even in security matters for south korea and japan regardless of historical concerns.

i do not think its reasonable for south korea to have nuclear weapons. also south korea's military would be heavily dependent on the united states which would give it significant leverage. instead of us having 40,000 troops there we can essentially make it israel-esque interms of heavy military armament. basically what i think buchanan would propose.

taiwan wouldn't go nuclear. on that possibility buchanan is smoking.

 

October 11, 2006


Chinese Must Pluck Kim From Nuke Perch
by Ted Galen Carpenter

Ted Galen Carpenter is the vice president for defense and foreign policy studies and the co-author of The Korean Conundrum: America's Troubled Relations with North and South Korea" (Palgrave/Macmillan, 2004).


North Korea has now barged into the nuclear-weapons club by conducting a nuclear test. In the weeks to come, there will be much discussion about how the United States should respond. The best option is encouraging China to oust Kim Jong Il. That is not to suggest that China should invade and occupy North Korea. Rather, it should pursue more subtle subversion, and it is ideally positioned to do so, since China provides a major portion of North Korea's food and energy supplies.

The prospect of a nuclear North Korea is almost as unappealing to China as it is to the United States. The move stands to push an already aggressive Japan into remilitarizing, reasserting itself in East Asia and perhaps also building nuclear weapons.

Until now, Beijing has been reluctant to put any serious economic pressure on Pyongyang. China worries that, if it undermines Kim Jong Il's regime, the North Korean state will unravel.

Such a development could have a number of unpleasant consequences for China, including a united Korea allied to the United States, and the presence of U.S. troops on the Chinese border.

The United States can allay those fears. Washington should assure Beijing that, if China subverts Kim's government, the United States will withdraw its forces and end its alliance with South Korea. That alliance is a wasting asset. Increasingly, Seoul aligns its foreign policy with that of Beijing rather than Washington, so it is long past time for an amicable divorce.

None of the alternatives is so enticing, and some, including the military option, are positively rash. Some hawks, including Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), have previously suggested air strikes against North Korea's nuclear installations and missile sites. Pyongyang might well retaliate against South Korea and Japan, triggering a general war.

Proposals to impose a blockade are almost as reckless. Under international law, a blockade is an act of war, and North Korea's leaders may consider it a prelude to the real thing.

If all else fails, America should rely on deterrence and containment. As unpleasant as a nuclear North Korea might be, the United States has deterred other unsavory and volatile regimes in the past, notably Stalinist Russia and Maoist China.

Indeed, China acquired its nuclear capability on the eve of the Cultural Revolution in the 1960s. That spasm of fanaticism made China as weird a place as North Korea is today. With an arsenal of thousands of nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them with accuracy, the U.S. should be able to deter North Korea.

But the possibility of pushing Kim out without firing a shot is better. The offer of an American withdrawal from the Korean peninsula would be tempting - perhaps irresistible - to Chinese leaders, because it would make China the most influential power on the peninsula.

Chinese officials must already be pondering whether it is worth preserving the North Korean regime.

Kim ignored their warnings not to conduct new missile tests, and he has now ignored even stronger warnings that he not test a nuclear bomb.

So the Chinese may well be ready to eliminate their troublesome client - if the United States makes it worth their while. It would be a relatively painless way to end the North Korean threat for good, so we should at least explore the option.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6721

 

The problem is that neither China nor S. Korea are particularly keen on having the govt. of N. Korea collapse.

They are worried about a flood of uneducated mal nourished refugees coming into their countries and draining their resources.

 

Refugees are more preferrable to a nuclear North Korea.

 

I agree. But we already have a nuclear N. Korea. I don't think anyone is happy with a N. Korea having nukes.