xTYBALTx

Please forgive me for leaving the "Democratic" off of the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea." That was my mistake.

It'd take a foolish Kim Jong Il indeed to use nuclear weapons in his current situation. You may think he's likely to, despite the fact that his personal annihilation would be assured, and that's your prerogitave, but it wouldn't make much sense. You'll counter that he's insane, in which case one wonders what the purpose of testing this weapon in the first place would be.

You only test a weapon such as this to show off your power. If you actually intend to use it, there is no point in testing it first - aside from ensuring that it actually works! - but even then, no sense in announcing said testing to the world beforehand. Better to leave them in the dark.

These weapons add another layer of protection from threats both internal and external to Kim Jon Il's security blanket. Using them would ensure his personal annihilation. All of his actions surrounding his nuclear weapons program indicate an intent to deter hostilities, not initiate them.

__________________
Current good song: Justice - Stress

TheFatKidDeath

You are avoiding the question. The Bush administration is making it worse. This hysterical rhetoric is going - predictably - to increase North Korean efforts to develop a nuclear deterrent. You threaten a country with destruction and they're not going to say. "Thank you, here is my throat, cut it." They are going to try to find some way to react. Nobody is going to fight the U.S. military. The U.S. spends about as much on the military as the rest of the world combined. It's technologically far more advanced - our enormous destructive capacity - that nobody is going to fight a war with us, which leaves a nuclear weapon as a deterrent. Which goes back to my original question - Why wouldn't they want to develop a nuclear weapon?

I mean it's about a basic point as one can find. The world's largest superpower who has a stockpile of perhaps 10,000 nuclear warheads calls another isloated country part of a "Axis of evil" and what do you expect that country to do? What would you do?

__________________
|TG-9th| TheFatKidDeath
"Born to Party, Forced to Work."
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/55640 - Check me out on The Onion
http://www.theonion.com/content/vide...ssfully_avoids - I'm on the local news!

Vulcan

We haven't helped the situation either. Diplomacy was in place with N. Korea and it's now gone. It's a 0 trust situation. N. Korea won't ever use a Nuclear Bomb besides testing and to defend as everyone has put it. It does however give everyone else the ability to act because of it, which will prove to be more troublesome.

There are 2 ways you can negotiate, with a fist or a hand shake.

__________________

Kerostasis

And when you are negotiating with someone who wants you dead, the fist usually works better.

__________________

Switchcraft

I'm not trying to avoid the question so much as state that the question is based on a fantasy version of the facts not supported by any historical perspective.

North Korea has been on a war footing with regards to us, and their southern counterpart, for the better part of a century. Acting like somehow Bush sparked a change in that dynamic is facile at best. I mean, consider how many times North Korea has called us the root of all evil in the world, and threatened to kill us all, and wipe our country off the map? I'll give you a hint, it's happened about once a week for the last 50 years. That being the case, maybe our president calling them evil isn't exactly the big deal you make it out to be.

They are the aggressors in that region, and they are the ones who have never called an end to the conflict. So if you think that a country with a powerful military calling another country evil is such a big deal, why do you not protest all of the things North Korea says and has ever said about us in the last half century? By your logic, all of our massive destructive power, including our arsenal of nuclear weapons, is completely justified by the angry rantings of the North Korean government, yes?

And as far as it being such a "basic point," I ask you this: if they were developing the weapons a decade before Bush made those remarks, what do those remarks have to do with the weapons? The answer is nothing, and your question makes no sense.

TheFatKidDeath

The Bush administration crisis-mongering about North Korea is no more believable than its intelligence on Iraq. The North Korean reactor at Yongbyon is based on fifty-year-old designs and, incredibly, still uses vacuum tubes. North Korea spends $20 a year per soldier, whereas South Korea, whose economy is 26 times larger, spends $163,000 per soldier. North Korea is an isloated nation that relies on outside assistance to feed it's population and keep the lights turned on. This latest "test", based on current reports, may not even been a nuclear device.

I'll state it again, which was put in the form of a question. North Korea wants a nuclear weapon to defend itself against an invasion or attack by the United States. Kim Jong Il may be a brutal dictator, but he is not stupid. He is not going to sit around and let the US remove him from power.

To think North Korea is a threat to the United States is hyperbole and the claim is made by those with out evidence. Why would they commit suicide by attacking the United States or South Korea with a nuclear weapon? It doesn't make sense. Even less believable is this James Bond fantasy that somehow they would turn over a nuclear weapon to Al Qadia. The regime of North Korea is interested in it's own self-preservation and see the acquiring of a nuclear as a defending itself against the Bush Administration who have labeled it part of the "Axis of Evil".

President Bush did not spark a change in the dynamic? Really? Facile? Making a major speech stating that North Korea was part of the "Axis of Evil" seems like a change in dynamic and when North Korea said that it won't deal with U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton because he described communist leader Kim Jong Il as a "tyrannical dictator" also seems like a change in dynamic from previous administrations.

__________________
|TG-9th| TheFatKidDeath
"Born to Party, Forced to Work."
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/55640 - Check me out on The Onion
http://www.theonion.com/content/vide...ssfully_avoids - I'm on the local news!

Switchcraft

Okay, see? Now we agree. They want a nuclear weapon for reasons other than "Bush called them evil," which was my point. I can think of many reasons North Korea would want nukes besides defensive posturing, but all I was trying to say was that they had been working on it for years before the quote you cited.

Also, could you cite some sources for the North Korean military expenditures? They have, what, a million people in their army? That would amount to 26 million dollars a year by your count? I can't find a source that says North Korea spends less than 5 billion a year on military expenditures. And since you'd like to compare them to South Korea, the World Factbook says South Korea has 20 times the economy, but spends only 4 times the amount on their military...about 2.6% of their GDP, compared with North Korea's 12.5% or so.

AMosely

You can't place any significant blame for the North Korea situation on Bush. He certainly didn't start it, and he is relatively powerless to diffuse it.

North Korea's nuclear gamble started well before Bush was even in office, and I seriously doubt that there's anything Bush's administration could have done to truly relax the threat. That's not to say that Bush's 'axis of evil' statements have helped the situation at all, in fact they have only served to validate Kim Jong Il's passion for military readiness through persuit of nuclear weaponry.

Now, the here and now. I don't appreciate all the blantant hypocricy coming from the White House regarding North Korea - calling this supposed test a "provocative act, in defiance of the will of the international community." What, then, was the Iraq war? Does that not count because the 'liberation' of Iraq was so obviously in everyone's best interests, it's just that everyone didn't know it? The U.S. may have had the support of several other large countries, but Bush clearly defied the mandate of the 'international community' in 2003. I understand some of the contempt for the U.N. and general international community - it moves at the pace of a sea turtle on land - sometimes not moving at all. However, when a superpower like the U.S. goes to war without the support of the U.N., it clearly weakens global respect for international rules. So, three years later, to claim to be outraged that another country is defying the will of the international community is blatant hipocracy. So why even use this language (defiance of the international community)? Why not simply state that this supposed test is against the wishes of the U.S.? Why act as though we are all of a sudden backing the interests of the international community? Maybe because that's an easy response, that it somehow builds credit for our tarnished international reputation. If so, that's beyond weak.

By no means am I accusing Bush's administration of doing anything new here either. Shifting positions, fair weather friendship and general abuse of the concept of the U.N. (who's the real boss) has been a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy for decades - democrats and republicans alike have always asserted America's role as the sole superpower of the earth.

Back to the issue at hand, I think North Korea is bluffing on this one. I think the U.S. knows this. I think they are putting on an act because proving the test a hoax would only provoke the situation further. Showing restraint is better late than never.

SmokingTarpan

Because the US is the international community, and plays by its own rules. We have told and will continue to tell the world not to do X, Y and Z- all while going ahead and doing X, Y and Z ourselves. We're a prime example of "Do as I say, not as I do."

__________________

[squadl]
"I am the prettiest african-american, vietnamese..cong..person." -SugarNCamo

Atomic Dog

Now they're threatening to fire a nuclear missile if the U.S. doesn't sit down for face-to-face talks. Thoughts?

__________________

Steeler

Whether the blast is a hoax, a failure, or a small success is not very relevant to the diplomatic scene. The likelihood of the DPRK actually using a nuke in combat (first strike or retaliatory) is very slim, partly because of their own technical limitations and partly because they really do face a Mutually Assured Destruction scenario. The likelihood that they would sell fissile material or an actual working weapon is very low, since these things tend to be considered artifacts of supreme value to a state. If the state collapsed, such as happened in the Soviet Union, then you might worry about stuff going missing. But so long as Kim Jumg Il is firmly in power I doubt any dangerous equipment is going to leave the hands of those in power.

So real or not, the test simply opens a new belligerent chapter in North Korea's ongoing sabre-rattling campaign. They want everyone to know they are playing with fire in an effort to extract concessions from the rest of the world. They do it because they know from experience it is effective. We talk a good game, but at the end of the day we're not in a position to do anything about it, particularly not with our armed forces stretched thin. Bush caved on inspections during the last round of talks. China, even when they get miffed, choose to support their own sphere of influence over Washington and drop fuel and food into Korea eventually.

We'll see if this round is any different. Maybe China will join the sanctions block. Maybe Japan and SK will take up the arms race. Maybe we'll redeploy more forces to the DMZ, or be forced to withdraw to shore up Iraq and Afghanistan.

__________________

leejo

This will end shortly after SK evacuates Seoul. But not before. They have got to be just about over this nonsense. Living next door to a phychotic mini-me with a nuke? No thanks.

xTYBALTx

Certainly a real possibility.

__________________
Current good song: Justice - Stress

xTYBALTx

Actually, the DPRK doesn't face a mutually assured destruction scenario: the DPRK is utterly incapable of assuring anyone's destruction but their own. There would most assuredly be utter destruction, but it would not be mutual.

__________________
Current good song: Justice - Stress

leejo

Exactly. They could pound Seoul with arty for a few hours, that's about it.

Or they could nuke it if we all sit around twiddling while they figure out how. I can't believe that SK will stick their heads in the sand long enough for that to happen, but I'm learning not to overestimate peoples' survival instinct and sense.

In any case, they can get one good punch in before the hammer comes down.