# Why isn't anyone doing anything about North Korea?



## Isaac Brock (Sep 22, 2004)

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 (Sep 22, 2004)

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 (Sep 22, 2004)

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 23, 2004)

Maybe Canada can step up and take the lead.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Sep 23, 2004)

HGROKIT said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 23, 2004)

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 23, 2004)

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 (Sep 23, 2004)

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Sep 23, 2004)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 23, 2004)

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 (Sep 23, 2004)

-=d=- said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 23, 2004)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 23, 2004)

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 (Sep 23, 2004)

NATO AIR said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 23, 2004)

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 (Sep 23, 2004)

NATO AIR said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 23, 2004)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 23, 2004)

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 (Sep 23, 2004)

NATO AIR said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 23, 2004)

NATO AIR said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## dmp (Sep 23, 2004)

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> 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.




One .50 caliber round from .75 miles away is all it'd take to cure that problem


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 23, 2004)

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> 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.



Problem is that for pressure to be effective, EVERYONE has to actively support it. We saw how succesful that was in Iraq.


----------



## NATO AIR (Sep 23, 2004)

deep rooted suspicion... our intel on N. Korea is more broke than an Enron investor.


----------



## NATO AIR (Sep 23, 2004)

i believe it because if you read "the fifty year wound" you'll be shitting yourself with how many ultra elaborate underground facilities the Soviets built without us even having a clue.


----------



## Isaac Brock (Sep 23, 2004)

-=d=- said:
			
		

> One .50 caliber round from .75 miles away is all it'd take to cure that problem



With respect to NK, that may be all what it takes.  Apparently, he and his eldest son aren't on the greatest terms.  There is room for internal dissention.  I know state assasinations are against most international laws, but hey, the idea still floats.


----------



## Isaac Brock (Sep 23, 2004)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Problem is that for pressure to be effective, EVERYONE has to actively support it. We saw how succesful that was in Iraq.



No doubt.

However Iraq and North Korea are indeed different.  Iraq was suspected of WMD, though they never admitted it, and hasn't been found.  NK is suspected of WMD and admits it is actively developping them and has shown the willingness to use them.  Remember when they shot a new missile over Japan just to prove they had the capacity?


----------



## NATO AIR (Sep 23, 2004)

that certainly got japan's attention... they still talk about that


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 23, 2004)

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> With respect to NK, that may be all what it takes.  Apparently, he and his eldest son aren't on the greatest terms.  There is room for internal dissention.  I know state assasinations are against most international laws, but hey, the idea still floats.




Hopefully he hasn't stipulated that if he his killed certain "buttons" are to be pushed!


----------



## Isaac Brock (Sep 23, 2004)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Hopefully he hasn't stipulated that if he his killed certain "buttons" are to be pushed!



Oi vey, that'd be terrible, but the suggestion, unfortunately, is not that outlandish.


----------



## onedomino (Sep 23, 2004)

NATO AIR said:
			
		

> 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)



NATO is correct on this.

Attacking the DPRK would be horrible beyond comprehension. For those interested, here is a summary of DPRK military capability: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/. Intelligence services estimate that the pariah nation has at least five nuclear weapons. Some estimates I have read range as high as 100 devices (hopefully those guesses are wrong).

Here is the military reality: we cannot bet that we will be able to take out DPRK nukes before at least some of them are used. Moreover we cannot bet that these devices will not be used against Seoul (or Japan). If they were, there would be millions of casualties. Twelve million people live in Seoul. Clinton wasted the military option to destroy DPRK nuclear weapons capability in 1994. Even then, most would argue that the military option was not reasonable because of the huge number of conventional weaponry civilian deaths that would occur in Seoul.


----------



## Zhukov (Sep 23, 2004)

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> 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.




Saddam Hussein was an obvious threat to world stability (as he demostrated on a number of occasions) and obviously a criminal (as is well documented) and the world's democracies couldn't even agree to deal with _him_.  Not only could they not agree to deal with him, some actively tried to subvert the U.S. and it's allies in their efforts to rid the world of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, and are still trying to subvert their efforts to stabilize Iraq.

Why, in this sort of global environment, are you surprised that other problems are left to fester?


----------



## dmp (Sep 23, 2004)

onedomino said:
			
		

> NATO is correct on this.
> 
> Attacking the DPRK would be horrible beyond comprehension. For those interested, here is a summary of DPRK military capability: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/. Intelligence services estimate that the pariah nation has at least five nuclear weapons. Some estimates I have read range as high as 100 devices (hopefully those guesses are wrong).
> 
> Here is the military reality: we cannot bet that we will be able to take out DPRK nukes before at least some of them are used. Moreover we cannot bet that these devices will not be used against Seoul (or Japan). If they were, there would be millions of casualties. Twelve million people live in Seoul. Clinton wasted the military option to destroy DPRK nuclear weapons capability in 1994. Even then, most would argue that the military option was not reasonable because of the huge number of conventional weaponry civilian deaths that would occur in Seoul.




do you feel that intel is more, or less accurate than the intel we had on Iraq prior to the war?


----------



## onedomino (Sep 23, 2004)

-=d=- said:
			
		

> do you feel that intel is more, or less accurate than the intel we had on Iraq prior to the war?



-------

d -- that is a very good question. I have no way of knowing the answer.

But let's do this thought experiment: Imagine that you are the President of the US. The CIA comes to you and says, "Sir, we estimate that the DPRK has five nuclear weapons. We think three are mounted on land based ballistic missiles and two are loaded on sea lauched ballistic missiles. Sir, we have almost complete confidence that this is the entire DPRK nuclear arsenal. We know where these weapons are located. We have almost complete confidence that the weapons can be neutralized before they are launched. Sir, do we have your permission to proceed?" d -- as President, would you authorize the attack? My opinion is that we cannot know with _100 percent certainty _ that we will be able to preempt the use of DPRK nuclear weapons. Ethically, we cannot gamble with the lives of millions of Koreans living in Seoul.

As I said earlier, the horse has left the barn.

The Australian perspective on military action against the DPRK and some comparisons with Iraq: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2002-03/03rn29.htm

An analysis of military options to destroy DPRK nuclear weapons capabilities: http://cns.miis.edu/research/korea/dprkmil.htm


----------

