North Korea Nuclear Test

[Teejay32]

It's a UN issue. I'm seeing people call for more diplomatic action on the part of the US, and I have no idea why, we're past that.

 

[DawnCt1]

It's a UN issue. I'm seeing people call for more diplomatic action on the part of the US, and I have no idea why, we're past that.

I think because the UN has shown itself to be an impotent, disengaged body for a long time. I think that the UN should impose a naval blockade but I won't hold my breath.

 

[Galahad]

It's a UN issue. I'm seeing people call for more diplomatic action on the part of the US, and I have no idea why, we're past that.

Well that's just it. We have been careful from the beginning to ensure this is dealt with in a regional and multi-lateral way. North Korea constantly demanded one-on-one talks with the US and we rejected that in favor of the UN and talks including Japan and China. Exactly what we should have been doing and exactly what our critics have said should be our approach to international crises.

 

[mickeyfan2]

Well that's just it. We have been careful from the beginning to ensure this is dealt with in a regional and multi-lateral way. North Korea constantly demanded one-on-one talks with the US and we rejected that in favor of the UN and talks including Japan and China. Exactly what we should have been doing and exactly what our critics have said should be our approach to international crises.

This is how we need to handle it and how I hope we continue to handle it.

 

[salmoneous]

Well that's just it. We have been careful from the beginning to ensure this is dealt with in a regional and multi-lateral way. North Korea constantly demanded one-on-one talks with the US and we rejected that in favor of the UN and talks including Japan and China. Exactly what we should have been doing and exactly what our critics have said should be our approach to international crises.

It's hard to look at what we've done the past 5 years and say, "that's exactly what we should have been doing." It just hasn't worked out that well, has it?

I don't know wha the answer is. But I'm sure it's not, "same people doing the same thing." Could one-on-one talks have gotten us somewhere worse than where we are today?

 

[LuvDuke]

"Some experts?" There is absolutely no evidence that any program was "frozen" because there was never any verification as part of the Albright/Carter/Clinton Agreement. Note the 2000 pix of Albright and the little doggy eater www.newsmax.com You can bet that business went on "as usual" as millions of people starved. There was no collection of spent rods from the reactors that arrived there in 1994.

I like this photo better.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

 

[DawnCt1]

It's hard to look at what we've done the past 5 years and say, "that's exactly what we should have been doing." It just hasn't worked out that well, has it?

I don't know wha the answer is. But I'm sure it's not, "same people doing the same thing." Could one-on-one talks have gotten us somewhere worse than where we are today?

Kim Jong Il is bent on letting the world know he is there. I haven't a doubt that China loves the distraction. He doesn't care if his people starve to death. One on one talks got him the nuclear reactors and the millions of dollars he has today.

 

[marybet]

If we had invaded North Korea, you do understand that their would be no South Korea now don't you. North Korea would have hit South Korea with everything they had and then some. China would have gotten involved and all hell would have broken out. You have to pick your battles sometimes...

As far as what the response will be: Look for Japan, South Korea, Tawain, and others in that region to go nuclear. And look for the countries that have nuclear weapons, to start testing a newer version of the weapons they already have. The race is on. Thank you Bill Clinton for all you didn't do.

I should have been clearer, I didn't mean that we should invade North Korea. My thought was because we invaded Iraq we are more limited in our response to North Korea. Didn't phrase it well.

I don't think we should invade any country, unless they invade us first.

 

[Galahad]

Could one-on-one talks have gotten us somewhere worse than where we are today?

Well yeah, it could have been worse. Lots of really bad things happen in the world that no amount of finesse can prevent. I hope we respond correctly now, but they were on this path for a long time.

 

[Teejay32]

Well that's just it. We have been careful from the beginning to ensure this is dealt with in a regional and multi-lateral way. North Korea constantly demanded one-on-one talks with the US and we rejected that in favor of the UN and talks including Japan and China. Exactly what we should have been doing and exactly what our critics have said should be our approach to international crises.

I agree w/you. There's no magic in one-on-one talks, so the insistence always bothered me.

 

[salmoneous]

One on one talks got him the nuclear reactors and the millions of dollars he has today.

First of all - you really should put a filter between yourself and newsmax/Sean/etc. Do a little check on their facts before you repeat them here (you can start with those reactors).

Second, it's unquestionable that the situation in NK is worse today than it was 5-years ago when we cut off talks with NK. "The current plan is making things worse - we should do something else." Why is that a universally accepted idea when it comes to the current administration.

 

[DawnCt1]

First of all - you really should put a filter between yourself and newsmax/Sean/etc. Do a little check on their facts before you repeat them here (you can start with those reactors).

Second, it's unquestionable that the situation in NK is worse today than it was 5-years ago when we cut off talks with NK. "The current plan is making things worse - we should do something else." Why is that a universally accepted idea when it comes to the current administration.

Changing the source doesn't change the facts; www.theconservativevoice.com/article/19154.html

 

[dcentity2000]

In the past few years, N. Korea has spiralled into decline. Dialogue is needed, not posturing or sparring.



Rich::

 

[disneyfan67]

It's hard to look at what we've done the past 5 years and say, "that's exactly what we should have been doing." It just hasn't worked out that well, has it?

I don't know wha the answer is. But I'm sure it's not, "same people doing the same thing." Could one-on-one talks have gotten us somewhere worse than where we are today?[/QUOTE]


One on one talks would be useless because China in the end, is going to have to be the deciding factor in all of this. China already is or rapidly becoming a World super power (depends on who you ask) They provide aid to NK, sell NK weapons, and came to the aid of NK during the Korean war when we had NK on the ropes during the early part of the war. When China entered into the picture in October 1950, everything had changed. That bloody war dragged on for another 3 years until the cease fire took affect. There's no way that the US is going to get involved with fighting NK on the ground, especially with China in the background. China is the bigger problem in all of this that no one wants to really talk about, but everyone is thinking about

It would be like Canada threatening France with a atomic weapon. You would hear howls of protest from other nations, but no one would take any action or invade because of fearing a war with America. It sounds silly but it's basicly the same thing in principle. China needs to be on board and give it's ok, before any real action is taken against NK.

 

[DawnCt1]

In the past few years, N. Korea has spiralled into decline. Dialogue is needed, not posturing or sparring.



Rich::

The military eats very well in North Korea. To have dialogue be effective, one has to have a leader who cares about its people. China is however the elephant in the room.

 

[salmoneous]

Changing the source doesn't change the facts; www.theconservativevoice.com/article/19154.html

Come on, Dawn, going to another sourse dedicated to saying bad things about Clinton (without any support mind you) isn't the same as checking your facts. Take this point:

"Although the equipment used by North Korea to affect Monday’s nuclear test was actually delivered to it by then President Clinton, with that administration’s Light Water Nuclear Reactors’ program,"

This statement is absurd on many different levels. The biggest of which - the point I suggested you check out - are those light water reactors.

 

[disneyfan67]

The military eats very well in North Korea. To have dialogue be effective, one has to have a leader who cares about its people. China is however the elephant in the room.

It has been proven by quite a few sources that the aid that goes to NK is used to feed it's army and stockpile it weapons. There was a photo taken from space that showed the difference in SK and NK at night. SK is modern society and is fully lit up, while NK is 50 years behind and left sitting in the dark. No one knows the true amount of North Koreans that have perished or starved to death in the last decade, due to the secrecy of the NK regime. Every intelligent, civil minded person in the world knows that the current leaders of NK are monsters and care nothing for their people. There's no rational way to defend what NK does to it's own people.

 

[TheDoctor]

Here are some more facts for dawnie to ignore. http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/10/the_bush_admini_2.php

Today, President Bush addressed North Korea’s announcement of their alleged nuclear test over the weekend. Over the last four years, the Bush Administration has outsourced our diplomacy with North Korea to other nations and failed to take the lead in making sure America remains safe and secure.

“Today's announcement is further evidence that President Bush has taken his eye off the ball, allowing a member of the so-called ‘axis of evil’ to allegedly test a nuclear weapon,” said Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. “First, President Bush aided and abetted the outsourcing of American jobs, and now he’s outsourced our diplomacy as well. This development on the Korean Peninsula is further proof that you can’t trust Republicans to keep America safe. Under the President's watch, North Korea has become more dangerous and Iran continues to threaten its neighbors and America. Democrats remain committed to a foreign policy that is both tough and smart.”

Experts Say Bush Administration Strategy Has Claimed Credit For Diplomatic Process But Failed to Take Any Responsibility for a Lack of Results. A report by the National Security Advisory Group issued in July of 2005 states that "Since 9/11, in the face of North Korea's runaway nuclear program, U.S. policymakers: did nothing as North Korea crossed redline after redline; claimed credit for diplomatic process (the Six-Party Talks) but have taken no responsibility for total lack of results; attempted to outsource the issue to China and then blame the failure on China; [and] tried to blame the Clinton administration, the administration that actually stopped plutonium production in North Korea." The report continues by saying that during the Clinton Administration, North Korea had no plutonium, but during the Bush Administration, North Korea has at least four to six nuclear weapons worth of plutonium. [Worst Weapons in Worst Hands, The National Security Advisory Group, July 2005]

North Korea Has Dramatically Increased Its Weapons Material Stockpile under the Bush Administration. When President Bush took office in 2000, Pyongyang had enough fissile material to manufacture 1-2 nuclear weapons. Today, experts believe that North Korea possesses material sufficient to build between 4 and 13 nuclear weapons and, unless an agreement is reached to stop the country's program, it is estimated that Pyongyang will have enough material to manufacture between 8 and 17 nuclear weapons by 2008. [Institute for Science and International Security, 6/26/06]

The facts are clear. Under Presdient Clinton, North Korea had very little weapons grade material and under bush, North Korea has a great deal more. These are facts.

 

[TheDoctor]

Well yeah, it could have been worse. Lots of really bad things happen in the world that no amount of finesse can prevent. I hope we respond correctly now, but they were on this path for a long time.

Do you really believe this? I and others disagree. http://agonist.org/sean_paul_kelley/20061008/massive_unmitigated_failure

I'll have more thoughts on this later, but basically, our unwillingness to engage the North Koreans bilaterally in the face of all regional powers wishing us to engage them, including China, Russia, South Korea and Japan, has made Northeast Asia more unstable and dangerous. For more on why North East Asia is a more dangerous and unstable place see my primer on North Korea. Will there be sanctions on North Korea now? I personally doubt it. Why? Why would the Chinese want to destabilize such a nation along its border? What will Japan do as well?

North Korea would not have gone nuclear had the Bush Administration not arrogantly brushed aside the previous agreement with North Korea and embraced a hardline against them upon assuming office in 2001. All of this was preventable. Since 2001 They have done nothing but ignore the North Koreans, ignored their nuclear program and ignored our interests in the region. That's all that needs to be said about this event. It could have been prevented and was not.

 

[TheDoctor]

Here is some nice analysis from Bush 41's National Security Advisor as to why bush's policy on bilateral talks is wrong. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/needtoknow/2006/10/bush_made_a_big_mistake.html

Second: Why won't the Bush administration talk bilaterally and substantively with NK, as the Brits (and eventually the US) did with Libya? Because the Bush administration sees diplomacy as something to be engaged in with another country as a reward for that country's good behavior. They seem not to see diplomacy as a tool to be used with antagonistic countries or parties, that might bring about an improvement in the behaviour of such entities, and a resolution to the issues that trouble us. Thus we do not talk to Iran, Syria, Hizballah or North Korea. We only talk to our friends -- a huge mistake.

Donald Gregg was a CIA official since 1951 and a liaison to President Carter's National Security Council and, National Security Advisor to Vice President George H.W. Bush and U.S. ambassador to South Korea from 1989 to 1993. He's now chairman of the board of the Korea Society