# Options



## Comrade (Jul 29, 2004)

What options exists with respect to North Korea?


1.  Cut off all aid and witness a breakdown in their society.

#1 Ensures a complete collapse of NK society.  Mass starvation and suffering and eventual anarchy outside of Pyongyang.  But the leaders will remain in power and their army will continue to be favorably supplied, above all else.  Before that goes, the only option left would be war, or the credible threat of it.  More likely, they'll find a backdoor and stay afloat long enough to drive home the fact it's our actions that punish their subjects while they remain in power and suffer no pain.  That's a really bad idea but not insane.  It's reversable.



2.  Declare war and attempt to quickly depose the regime.

#2 Guarantees a massive loss of life in both countries, and among their eight nukes some will likely kill millions in S.K., US, or Japan.  UNLESS we bring the missle defense program online this is a bad option.  Seoul will be a smoldering ash heap in any case.  And being the aggressor, China panics and maybe comes in against the attack to protect their borders and this buffer state.  South Korea would never agree to Seoul being destroyed, under immediate fire from tens of thousands of artillery shells.   The WORST option of all is this one.


3.  Assasinate "dear leader" and other key government officials.

#3 Assumes the next piece of shit who rises in his place is going to throw away his life goal and let his family and future die on the vine for some reform.  Or he tries to do so and is killed by others who are just happy to be elite in the party structure.   And if we try and fail to kill Kim Il the little pissant will probably retaliate.   So that plan doesn't offer much possibility either way.  This option is not too risky but offers no reward.


4.  Nuke the whole site from orbit.

#4 This is a nasty and murderous kind of thing to do.  China will react, and Seoul is toasted, and the world is pissed off.

And even then a few nukes may get through to us and millions die in the US or Japan.

Still, in my opinion, a surpise attack, knowing in advance the locations of the launch sites, and hitting the leadership alongside in tandem, that's probably our best shot at some kind of "win" in the following years.  We wait longer than that, and more nukes and longer ranged missiles end this option.

But if it succeed, were still left with some toxic nationa full of dead and dying North Koreans.  That's wrong.  

And of course, Seoul is a heap of smoldering ash.  


5.  Wait and see.

#5  Is the status-quo now, of course.  

We give them enough oil and subsidy so that Kim has enough to stay in power and maintain his army, without getting nervous about how he can still keep his regime going.

He's also looking at options 1-4 as well, and notes that every one leave him dead.

Kim prefers #5 but talks alot about 1-4 so we can get back to #5 and more money for his regime.

And some day, he'll pop off and up goes the third portrait on the walls of every home and office.   We'll probably fund that as well.  

And several hundred Mirved ICBM's can reach the continents and we'll have to basically fold to more demands and perhaps even face their nukes at the hands of those terrorist groups they sponsor.   Unless the missle defence tech kicks into high gear and outpaces their own missile tech we need to nuke them right now, to get out from under this losing battle.  


BUT....


6.  Be a creative genuis


All the conventional options suck, so brainstorm.

I like the idea of loading up a high altitude aircraft service with stacks of literature, small and cheap two-way radios ($10 each now!), and dishes for tv.  Sure, many will go to waste but many will fall into the hands of those who dare to discover the outside world.  

Anyone have more ideas?


----------



## Annie (Jul 29, 2004)

Military strategy not one of my strengths, but sometimes the best way to figure something out, is to start with where the enemy seems to be going. I think this might be a good place to start:

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/parameters/03spring/hodge.htm

I found a few more interesting reads, (well if you're interested in this kind of thing):

http://www.army.mil/professionalwriting/volumes/volume2/july_2004/7_04_1.html

for a bit of sabre rattling:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3099.htm

and somewhat the same type of questions:

http://cns.miis.edu/research/korea/rethink.htm


----------



## DKSuddeth (Jul 29, 2004)

start feeding and supplying a young group. get them a taste of what real freedom is. help them start a rebellion. supply a coup. provide enough political instability to rally the people. Not leave them hanging like bush sr did to the iraqis.


----------



## Annie (Jul 29, 2004)

DKSuddeth said:
			
		

> start feeding and supplying a young group. get them a taste of what real freedom is. help them start a rebellion. supply a coup. provide enough political instability to rally the people. Not leave them hanging like bush sr did to the iraqis.



Dk, doesn't seem the people have enough food to stage a rebellion. This country makes Iran look like a first world nation.


----------



## DKSuddeth (Jul 29, 2004)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Dk, doesn't seem the people have enough food to stage a rebellion. This country makes Iran look like a first world nation.



they will if we supply them. Don't supply the country, supply the people. thats where it begins and ends.


----------



## Annie (Jul 29, 2004)

DKSuddeth said:
			
		

> they will if we supply them. Don't supply the country, supply the people. thats where it begins and ends.



How? Seriously! The country is as close to walled off as possible, though I suppose the massive flights with literature would help. However, the people are totally dependent on Kim and seem completely brainwashed about US attacking them.


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 29, 2004)

Bush should ask the Democrats for suggestions.


----------



## Annie (Jul 29, 2004)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Bush should ask the Democrats for suggestions.



Damn, why didn't I think of that?


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 29, 2004)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Damn, why didn't I think of that?



Seriously--the democrats have been sitting back and criticizing everything Bush has done in terms of foriegn policy. Since this is an issue that the democrats have been pointing to as a priority (more dangereous than Iraq), I'm sure they have devised ways of dealing with the situations. If I were Bush I would ask for input immediately !!!!!!  Win Win situation.


----------



## Annie (Jul 29, 2004)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Seriously--the democrats have been sitting back and criticizing everything Bush has done in terms of foriegn policy. Since this is an issue that the democrats have been pointing to as a priority (more dangereous than Iraq), I'm sure they have devised ways of dealing with the situations. If I were Bush I would ask for input immediately !!!!!!  Win Win situation.



There may be a place for you in politics!


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 29, 2004)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> There may be a place for you in politics!



    Could I just put on my floaties and relax in some think tank?


----------



## Annie (Jul 29, 2004)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Could I just put on my floaties and relax in some think tank?



That's my 'dream job'!  :funnyface


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 29, 2004)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> That's my 'dream job'!  :funnyface



Hell  lets make our own and charge big time for our "brilliance" !


----------



## Annie (Jul 29, 2004)

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Hell  lets make our own and charge big time for our "brilliance" !




Now there's a plan! Hey those two guys together remind me of the Blues Brothers, all they need are the fedoras!


----------



## Zhukov (Jul 30, 2004)

Has anyone bothered to condemn them in the UN for human right's violations?  I know that's basically useless, but it's the _proper_ first step.

Demand better conditions and more politcal freedom for the North Korean people.

Insist on inspections of suspected WMD installations.  

Demand they relinquish or dismantle any WMD they have.

Threaten to forcibly cut off all aid.

Get China on our side, or else good-bye 'Favored Nation Status'.

Conduct massive naval exercises around Japan.

Conduct beach invasion exercises in South Korea.

Speed up, if possible, ABM technology development.  

Publically deploy our latest ABM efforts in South Korea, Japan, and the western U.S.

Build nuclear bunker busters, and make it public.

Task additional satellites to monitor North Korea to create the most exhaustive list of likely targets possible.



If North Korea is found to be actively conspiring with terrorists, attack them, whatever the consequences.


----------



## HGROKIT (Jul 30, 2004)

Zhukov said:
			
		

> Has anyone bothered to condemn them in the UN for human right's violations?  I know that's basically useless, but it's the _proper_ first step.
> 
> Demand better conditions and more politcal freedom for the North Korean people.
> 
> ...



Here is the deal - It is an integrated approach of #1 in Comrade's post, in concert with DK's supply and foster a resistence based on their tasting freedom/democracy (remember, allot of them have relatives still in the south), and a good majority of what Zhukov proposed above (comment and emphasis added). There is no ONE strategy - but a well orchestrated SET of strategies.


----------



## Comrade (Jul 31, 2004)

DKSuddeth said:
			
		

> start feeding and supplying a young group. get them a taste of what real freedom is. help them start a rebellion. supply a coup. provide enough political instability to rally the people. Not leave them hanging like bush sr did to the iraqis.



I like the idea of a sponsored rebellion.  I wanted to think about two way radios just for this intent.  

There's a streak of fear and innate propaganda and I know what Kathianne is talking about from the travelogue we both read.   A great link of what to expect in the coutryside is based on collected stories of refugees here.

http://nkhumanrights.or.kr/NKHR_new/index_eng_new.htm

It does sound like they'll risk much just for food.  

The question is, would Kim fight us for feeding a rebellion, or could they overcome their own fear and repressive government with words alone???


----------



## Annie (Jul 31, 2004)

Comrade said:
			
		

> I like the idea of a sponsored rebellion.  I wanted to think about two way radios just for this intent.
> 
> There's a streak of fear and innate propaganda and I know what Kathianne is talking about from the travelogue we both read.   A great link of what to expect in the coutryside is based on collected stories of refugees here.
> 
> ...




So are we speaking towards something like a Berlin airlift? Think Kim would allow such? CIA operatives smuggling in food? Perhaps I don't understand the logistics?


----------



## Comrade (Jul 31, 2004)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> So are we speaking towards something like a Berlin airlift? Think Kim would allow such? CIA operatives smuggling in food? Perhaps I don't understand the logistics?



I was thinking high altitidue drops with select regions in the country side targeted for two way radios, at first.  They'd be stashed and hidden and very rarely used at first.  I'm still thinking through the food issue.


----------



## Comrade (Jul 31, 2004)

Comrade said:
			
		

> I was thinking high altitidue drops with select regions in the country side targeted for two way radios, at first.  They'd be stashed and hidden and very rarely used at first.  I'm still thinking through the food issue.



I got it... hydrogen balloons.  Undetectale if rigged up correctly, and capable of altitude and loads of some significance.

Electromagnetic cannons will be ready in 2010 from the new destroyer class to be fielded.  Range reaches most of N.K. from international waters, and radar invisibility and accuracy would be acceptable.  The only hard part is ensuring the package stays together on final approach.  Very doable, I think.


----------



## Annie (Jul 31, 2004)

Comrade said:
			
		

> I was thinking high altitidue drops with select regions in the country side targeted for two way radios, at first.  They'd be stashed and hidden and very rarely used at first.  I'm still thinking through the food issue.



I am just shy of clueless when it comes to strategic matters. However, I believe it's been speculated that NK is close to or has developed missiles capable of hitting, (sorry Comrade), the west coast of the US. If this is the case, why would they not have, to my mind at least, the more simple detection equipment and missiles to hit a high altitude plane? 

Again, I may be 'off', but how much food, I assume with parachutes attached, can be dropped from a plane flying at very high altitudes? I thought that was like the fighter jets? Wouldn't we need to use cargo planes?


----------



## Comrade (Jul 31, 2004)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> I am just shy of clueless when it comes to strategic matters. However, I believe it's been speculated that NK is close to or has developed missiles capable of hitting, (sorry Comrade), the west coast of the US. If this is the case, why would they not have, to my mind at least, the more simple detection equipment and missiles to hit a high altitude plane?
> 
> Again, I may be 'off', but how much food, I assume with parachutes attached, can be dropped from a plane flying at very high altitudes? I thought that was like the fighter jets? Wouldn't we need to use cargo planes?




I have to catch up on the EM gun tech for a second... that sounds much more doable.  Link coming...

As for what to launch, blocks of soy encased in a cellophane shell, and attached with a deployed parachute of (very strong) fiber, because terminal impact would otherwise be at Mach 5.  This would be undetectable and bio-degradable.

And only one-way radios perhaps... until two way encoded and laser directed sat-phones could be specifically targeted to prevent detection of our communications.


----------



## Annie (Jul 31, 2004)

Comrade said:
			
		

> I have to catch up on the EM gun tech for a second... that sounds much more doable.  Link coming...
> 
> As for what to launch, block of soy encased in a cellophane shell, and attached with a deployed parachute of (very strong) fiber, becuase terminal impact would otherwise be at Mach 5.
> 
> And only one-way radios... until two way encoded and laser directed sat-phones could be specifically targeted.



 :shocked:   Ummm, English please?


----------



## Comrade (Jul 31, 2004)

Hehe, one more second to finalize, and then I'll link and talk about the tech.

These need to enclosed in a metal sabot to actually get shot.  The sabot is an encasement of metal around a payload, that drops away as it leaves the cannon.

You need the metal to attract to the magnets which switch on/off during the launch through the tube, but can drop the metal away so the payload won't reflect radar waves to NK recievers.


----------



## Annie (Jul 31, 2004)

Comrade said:
			
		

> Hehe, one more second to finalize, and then I'll link and talk about the tech.
> 
> These need to enclosed in a metal sabot to actually get shot.  The sabot is an encasement of metal around a payload, that drops away as it leaves the cannon.
> 
> You need the metal to attract to the magnets which switch on/off during the launch through the tube, but can drop the metal away so the payload won't reflect radar waves to NK recievers.




Now I can picture something that looks like those new storage at your door containers, but metal with magnets? Shot from a cannon, meaning some huge gun? And if it's being sent by air, why a gun? *I AM SO CONFUSED!!!
*


----------



## Comrade (Jul 31, 2004)

Link to the navy EM gun program:

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/article.cfm?Id=1541


----------



## Annie (Jul 31, 2004)

Comrade said:
			
		

> Link to the navy EM gun program:
> 
> http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/article.cfm?Id=1541



That Helped! Of course the gun looks like my mind pic of the package, but at least we're getting closer. So this would be delivered from a ship? And the NK Navy would be doing what? (dang it, those cards at that festival are going through my head!)


----------



## Comrade (Jul 31, 2004)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Now I can picture something that looks like those new storage at your door containers, but metal with magnets? Shot from a cannon, meaning some huge gun? And if it's being sent by air, why a gun? *I AM SO CONFUSED!!!
> *



We could start drops by high altitude ballons of radar absorbant material at first.


The EM gun option is expected to be available later.

The thing about both, is that they are undetectable by NK radar.


Sure, they'll find a few packages and probably get us on the two ways, but it won't be enough to cause a war or international incident.  We're not actually voilating their airspace or threatining more than information and later food.

We'll feel it out and make the call when and where to start serious backing.  And definately keep each contact cellular, so no one knows of each other.

Until then, it gives us a backdoor.


----------



## Annie (Jul 31, 2004)

Comrade said:
			
		

> We could start drops by high altitude ballons of radar absorbant material at first.
> 
> 
> The EM gun option is expected to be available later.
> ...



Interesting. Seems I remember something during WWII or Korean War where we dropped 'foil' to mess up what little radar Germany had. Maybe it was with the Brits? Hmmm


----------



## Comrade (Jul 31, 2004)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> That Helped! Of course the gun looks like my mind pic of the package, but at least we're getting closer. So this would be delivered from a ship? And the NK Navy would be doing what? (dang it, those cards at that festival are going through my head!)



Actually forget the ship, lol.  We'll station these in S.K.

The payload flies and lands w/o the N.K. tracking it.  They won't know more than they luck out on.


----------



## Annie (Jul 31, 2004)

Comrade said:
			
		

> Actually forget the ship, lol.  We'll station these in S.K.
> 
> The payload flies and lands w/o the N.K. tracking it.  They won't know more than they luck out on.



OK, this is making some sense to my non-tech, non-weapons mind! Perhaps Dillos right, we should start a think tank!


----------



## Comrade (Jul 31, 2004)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Interesting. Seems I remember something during WWII or Korean War where we dropped 'foil' to mess up what little radar Germany had. Maybe it was with the Brits? Hmmm



The thing about the foil was it created huge blips on the radar screen.

The tech today is to encase the payload in non-metal material, so that radar registers nothing at all.


----------



## Annie (Jul 31, 2004)

Comrade said:
			
		

> The thing about the foil was it created huge blips on the radar screen.
> 
> The tech today is to encase the payload in non-metal material, so that radar registers nothing at all.



Yup, that's what it did, created big blips!   Now I am seeing that scene in 'Twister' with the pop can stuff flying around. I think I should retire for the night??? :


----------



## Comrade (Jul 31, 2004)

I also think the foil had to be cut to specific lengths to jam the WWII sets based on their frequency.

Anyway the whole point of this program is total stealth.  And unaccoutability.  Leave them guessing who is behind the drops, if they luck out on a package.  It's highly covert.  Definately a program for the CIA and used to seek out spies at first.


----------



## Comrade (Jul 31, 2004)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Yup, that's what it did, created big blips!   Now I am seeing that scene in 'Twister' with the pop can stuff flying around. I think I should retire for the night??? :



That's pretty much what it did, lol.


----------



## Zhukov (Jul 31, 2004)

The only problem I have with fostering internal rebellion is if/when the North Koreans find where our supplies have landed they'll have no compunction about eradicating entire villages.

We may only succeed in getting a lot of otherwise innocent people killed.

I suppose it all depends on how much _real_ control the government has over rural areas.  It would be extremely helpful if we could get some idea of that control before attempting anything.

Of course, how do we do that?


----------



## Annie (Jul 31, 2004)

Zhukov said:
			
		

> The only problem I have with fostering internal rebellion is if/when the North Koreans find where our supplies have landed they'll have no compunction about eradicating entire villages.
> 
> We may only succeed in getting a lot of otherwise innocent people killed.
> 
> ...



And thus we return full circle to before we started on this again. My fears too!


----------



## Comrade (Aug 2, 2004)

Zhukov said:
			
		

> The only problem I have with fostering internal rebellion is if/when the North Koreans find where our supplies have landed they'll have no compunction about eradicating entire villages.
> 
> We may only succeed in getting a lot of otherwise innocent people killed.
> 
> ...



I get the disctinct impression that N.K. troops are overstretched at the S.K.  border, the Chinese border, and in the capital.   Some 700,000, or 70% of their troops, are deployed along the S.K. border and the bulk of rest are either prison guards along the Chinese border or fortressed around Seoul.  It's possible to overstretch them, I think.  With a rebellion in the countryside food will run out to feed them quickly, I think.

But it's not without risk of provoking Kim Il to first blackmail and then provoke a war with the West, in the death of his regime.   

It's a big gamble, probably as risky as JFK with the Cuban Missile Crisis.

But waiting makes it worse, every day he goes on with his missile program.

Are we back to #5 (Wait it out)... come on peeps give me more creativity and brilliance!


----------



## Annie (Aug 2, 2004)

State Department facts on NK military:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2792.htm



> DEFENSE AND MILITARY ISSUES
> North Korea now has the fourth-largest army in the world. It has an estimated 1.2 million armed personnel, compared to about 650,000 in the South. Military spending equals 20%-25% of GNP, with about 20% of men ages 17-54 in the regular armed forces. North Korean forces have a substantial numerical advantage over the South (approximately 2 or 3 to 1) in several key categories of offensive weapons--tanks, long-range artillery, and armored personnel carriers.
> 
> The North has perhaps the world's second-largest special operations force, designed for insertion behind the lines in wartime. While the North has a relatively impressive fleet of submarines, its surface fleet has a very limited capability. Its air force has twice the number of aircraft as the South, but, except for a few advanced fighters, the North's air force is obsolete. The North deploys the bulk of its forces well forward, along the DMZ. Several North Korean military tunnels under the DMZ were discovered in the 1970s.
> ...


----------



## Annie (Aug 2, 2004)

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/kn.html



> The CIA factbook puts the military numbers in better focus:
> 
> Military branches:
> Korean People's Army (includes Army, Navy, Air Force), Civil Security Forces
> ...



Perhaps the most pragmatic way to go about this, though it would certainly hurt the people, is to find ways to cause an increase in the spending. They are already over 20% invested in military spending. Looking at the roads, shrines, make that memorials to the leaders, that's got to eat up a bit too. Their economy is definately not in good shape. I'd say they are past the 'tipping point?'


----------



## Comrade (Aug 2, 2004)

My link anyhow:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/army.htm


So is it too risky to provoke a revolution from within now or is the future risk worth aggressive action in Bush's second term (oh yeah!).   Who is for serious action in the next term or who is willing to wait?


----------



## Annie (Aug 2, 2004)

Comrade said:
			
		

> My link anyhow:
> 
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/army.htm
> 
> ...



That was interesting, to say the least. I'm assuming written late '90's? Even then, an excercise 'surprised' the West with their unanticipated training. We know how surprised we were regarding the nuclear potential, very recently.

Time does not seem to be our friend here. But, there is always one, we too have a problem with 'stretched troops.' There is also the wee problem of China, not to mention the French led UN. 

My job here is to look for the 'holes', admitted up front that 'planning' was not my specialty. Right now, I'm waiting to see what you strategy guys come up with, then I can offer more 'constructive criticism'.


----------



## Comrade (Aug 2, 2004)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> State Department facts on NK military:
> 
> http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2792.htm



S.K. spending on it's military is fraction of N.K. as a % of overall GNP.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2034.html

Korea, North  22.9% (2003)  
Korea, South  2.7% (FY03)  

And yet it invests in a force almost three times more valuable in real dollars:

Korea, North  $5,217.4 million (FY02)  
Korea, South  $14.522 billion (FY03)  

Including the U.S. and even perhaps elements from Japan and Taiwan alongside UK and Australian support there is no doubt North Korea will fall, but not without some kind of pyrrhic victory.  

And China could really escalate the situation if it get's involved.

But back to the two-way radio sets.   Could this establish an intelligence network?  What do you think of my delivery systems?


----------



## Annie (Aug 2, 2004)

Comrade said:
			
		

> S.K. spending on it's military is fraction of N.K. as a % of overall GNP.
> 
> http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2034.html
> 
> ...



Illustrating once again the success of captialism, SK has a much better economy! (understatement). As far as radios, hey I'm clueless, now if we could get DK or -=d=- to step in....

I do see your point however, regarding being able to afford a war better. That would be assuming however no nukes, or SK would not be in good shape.


----------



## Comrade (Aug 2, 2004)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Illustrating once again the success of captialism, SK has a much better economy! (understatement). As far as radios, hey I'm clueless, now if we could get DK or -=d=- to step in....
> 
> I do see your point however, regarding being able to afford a war better. That would be assuming however no nukes, or SK would not be in good shape.




ABM tech is the critical component of victory against North Korea.  If we perfect this technology and manage to mass produce the platforms we could intercept all nuclear threats and perhaps most of the conventional threats from mid-ranged artillery.

Some 20,000 gun tubes on the DMZ would do some serious damage on the cities and inflict losses on those forces in the region, but also be taken out quickly and intercepted with selective prioritization.  I can't say how much, or how fast they'd be taken out of operations.  But such a prospect has to happen in the next two years, or we're left with ICBM's and nuclear Mirvs and zero options.


I think Bush in 2004-2008 will subdue N.K. by some means, but what it's worth and what's the risk of letting them continue on their program?


----------



## Comrade (Aug 2, 2004)

Before any of this becomes an option, we need to contact the dissident elements of those who have escaped from the countryside.  They surely do exist in the thousands.

The first step would be to contact an expatriate willing to be "captured" by Chinese immigration and sent back to N.K., one of several thousands every year who are indeed sent back.


We can arrange this quite easily and with considerable screening.


----------



## Annie (Aug 2, 2004)

Comrade said:
			
		

> ABM tech is the critical component of victory against North Korea. If we perfect this technology and manage to mass produce the platforms we could intercept all nuclear threats and perhaps most of the conventional threats from mid-ranged artillery.



This is what is behind "Star Wars" program? 



			
				Comrade said:
			
		

> Some 20,000 gun tubes on the DMZ would do some serious damage on the cities and inflict losses on those forces in the region, but also be taken out quickly and intercepted with selective prioritization. I can't say how much, or how fast they'd be taken out of operations. But such a prospect has to happen in the next two years, or we're left with ICBM's and nuclear Mirvs and zero options.
> 
> 
> I think Bush in 2004-2008 will subdue N.K. by some means, but what it's worth and what's the risk of letting them continue on their program?



I guess my unworthy question would have to be, would it be worth it? I'm going to fess up, at this point I think something will have to be done shortly. Time is running out.


----------



## Comrade (Aug 2, 2004)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> This is what is behind "Star Wars" program?
> 
> Much better than star wars, 30 years ahead.
> 
> ...


----------



## Annie (Aug 2, 2004)

Comrade said:
			
		

> Absolutely.  The offensive capability in N.K. will exceed our capacity for defence as they attain modern deployment and greater range and numbers, even nuclear subs, while our defense tech is very difficult and slow going.
> 
> We have to hit them once our ABM defense is still good enough and their development remains primitive.
> 
> ...




Assuming all that, and that you check your email, which agents? CIA? SK? Chinese? Sp. Ops?


----------



## Comrade (Aug 2, 2004)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Assuming all that, and that you check your email, which agents? CIA? SK? Chinese? Sp. Ops?




We need ony a score among the several thousand N.K. refugees who entered into South Korea from China to return to the border region, and be captured, processed (naturally also appearing to Chinese immigration as if they never left to S.K.), and then sent back to N.K. for sentence in their camps for a period from 3 months to several years.


The key aspect of this plan is that China and nor does N.K. have any record of S.K. immigration, and that punishment for emmgration remains light, especially among those first offendors or influential families among those who willingly escaped to S.K. and now volunteer for real action to free their own people from within.

This is the first class of recruits.  It makes complete sense.   We can prepare them for future drops or specific training and insert them back into the repatriation process without N.K. being aware of anything but the most extreme breaches of secrecy in our recruitment chain of command.

Again, I feel S.K. should only know of a plan at a high level and yet remain completely unaware of the operational deatails, given their infilatration by N.K. agents.  It's a CIA operation, heavily funded and at the highest levels.


----------



## Annie (Aug 2, 2004)

Comrade said:
			
		

> We need ony a score among the several thousand N.K. refugees who entered into South Korea from China to return to the border region, and be captured, processed (naturally also appearing to Chinese immigration as if they never left to S.K.), and then sent back to N.K. for sentence in their camps for a period from 3 months to several years.
> 
> 
> The key aspect of this plan is that China and nor does N.K. have any record of S.K. immigration, and that punishment for emmgration remains light, especially among those first offendors or influential families among those who willingly escaped to S.K. and now volunteer for real action to free their own people from within.
> ...




From that, I'll assume CIA, as you say in last paragraph! As long as we could get this or similar program off, without nukes, I think you would have the backing of the American citizenry. 

Now WITH nukes, an all too real scenario. It would most definately come down to, 'they had the capability of reaching us', but didn't.


----------



## Comrade (Aug 2, 2004)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> From that, I'll assume CIA, as you say in last paragraph! As long as we could get this or similar program off, without nukes, I think you would have the backing of the American citizenry.
> 
> Now WITH nukes, an all too real scenario. It would most definately come down to, 'they had the capability of reaching us', but didn't.



Browse the witness accounts from this link:

http://nkhumanrights.or.kr/NKHR_new/index_eng_new.htm

There's a very digruntled and ambitious core of people from the countryside who seem to cross over almost three or four times before they find their way into the West.


I honestly feel these would be the perfect agents, sent back into China and without any sign of contact.  And either return back into N.K. discreetly or allow themselves to be deported.

A few would die in prison but many more would make it back into their established homes and villiages and be able to recieve two-way transmitters at a pre-established time and place, agreed upon by sattlelight photos of his native region.

That's the start.


----------



## Zhukov (Aug 3, 2004)

More than anything else, with respect to North Korea, our theme must be 'threaten'.  We must hold the metaphorical gun to Kim's head.


Unfortunately, I think, that can't be adequately accomplished until a.) we have achieved a sufficient level of stability in Iraq that we are capable of extricating the bulk of our forces from that country, and b.) deal forcibly and finally with the belligerent terrorist state Iran, which is in my opinion a much more dangerous and immediate threat than North Korea to our short- and long-term security.

Whatever can be done in North Korea meanwhile without diluting our efforts elsewhere would of course be desirable but considering the poor state of affairs globally we find ourselves in a position where we must assiduously arrange our priorities.

Bottom line, and regrettably, a concerted effort in North Korea may ultimately have to wait.  We must threaten as much as possible, but rely on containment and hope to slow North Koreas development of offensive nuclear weapons technology.


----------



## Comrade (Aug 3, 2004)

Zhukov said:
			
		

> More than anything else, with respect to North Korea, our theme must be 'threaten'.  We must hold the metaphorical gun to Kim's head.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, I think, that can't be adequately accomplished until a.) we have achieved a sufficient level of stability in Iraq that we are capable of extricating the bulk of our forces from that country, and b.) deal forcibly and finally with the belligerent terrorist state Iran, which is in my opinion a much more dangerous and immediate threat than North Korea to our short- and long-term security.
> ...



We can't slow them, we can't trust them, we can't even check up on them with certainty.

I agree this a long term effort, until 2010 heralds the EM gun and we can make secret, pinpoint deliveries.

But we need to start creating a spy network right now, we have thousands of N.K. refugees who were brave and capable enough to reach S.K. and if we can get a score to return to their homes and prepare for this now, we should.  This is a good idea we can act on, right now.  Agree?


----------



## Zhukov (Aug 16, 2004)

Comrade said:
			
		

> But we need to start creating a spy network right now, we have thousands of N.K. refugees who were brave and capable enough to reach S.K. and if we can get a score to return to their homes and prepare for this now, we should.  This is a good idea we can act on, right now.  Agree?



It _is_ a good idea, and I would hope that to some degree it is something we are currently working on.  Hopefully our intelligence services haven't become as risk-adverse as it lately seems that they have.




> We can't slow them, we can't trust them,



No, we certainly can't trust them, but in the event that there exists any raw materials or technological know-how which they might need to strengthen their nuclear posture it is certainly possible that we can deny them that in and so doing, slow them.  Of course, that would be impossible without Bejing's assistance.


----------



## NATO AIR (Aug 18, 2004)

i'd say what zhukov's first post listed is our best option.  i have a sinking feeling my service here in Japan will be headlined by a war with China or North Korea or both.  The war with China we can win for sure, and the cost to them will likely be so great it could unleash the democratic revolution or at least a lot more reform than what is happening now.  the north korean war on the other hand will be apocalyptic for residents in japan, south korea and north korea.

the best we can do is let china know we will revoke most favored nation status unless they start leaning on north korea.  we have to tie north korea's behavior to china, otherwise we will not make ANY progress with north korea at all.  china gives them all their fuel, and the best we could hope for would be for north korea to do something so stupid or over the edge that china would cut that fuel off.  north korea has tons of bio and chem weapons with the missiles to shoot them off, not to mention the nukes they have or will have soon.  millions will die unless we get smart and stop giving china a free ride on north korea.

the only good news is japan is scared shitless of the north koreans and is revamping its military as we speak to focus on containing, stopping or destroying the north korean threat. though this makes china nervous, its good news for us and makes a good ally a great one in dark times.

and considering my carrier is target no.1 for the chinese or north koreans.... i really wish the japanese good luck with the advanced THEATER missile defence technology they're developing (which is more feasible and can be more successful than an elaborate missile defense system that's all over the place)


----------



## wade (Aug 29, 2004)

Comrade said:
			
		

> What options exists with respect to North Korea?
> 
> 
> 1.  Cut off all aid and witness a breakdown in their society.
> ...



How about resuming talks with NK, accepting their offer of 2000 to stop their nuclear weapons program, stop their long range missile program, agree not to export any missile or nuclear tech, allow international inspection and 24/7 access, etc... all for gradual normalization of relations over a period of years and some kind of re-unification talks with SK in the future (this last one was non-specific)?

At the best, it works.  At the worst, we are no worse off than we are, and NK probably does not advance it's tech or export it for at least a few years.

Asside:  This kim guy is a nut.  I bet if he were offered some kind of movie studio and a goodly yearly buget, he'd leave NK to become a film maker!  He seems quite obsessed with film making.

Wade.


----------



## wade (Aug 30, 2004)

Comrade said:
			
		

> Absolutely.  The offensive capability in N.K. will exceed our capacity for defence as they attain modern deployment and greater range and numbers, even nuclear subs, while our defense tech is very difficult and slow going.
> 
> We have to hit them once our ABM defense is still good enough and their development remains primitive.
> 
> ...


----------



## freeandfun1 (Aug 30, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> How about resuming talks with NK, accepting their offer of 2000 to stop their nuclear weapons program, stop their long range missile program, agree not to export any missile or nuclear tech, allow international inspection and 24/7 access, etc... all for gradual normalization of relations over a period of years and some kind of re-unification talks with SK in the future (this last one was non-specific)?
> 
> At the best, it works.  At the worst, we are no worse off than we are, and NK probably does not advance it's tech or export it for at least a few years.
> 
> ...



He didn't like the 1994 agreement so he decided he wanted to change it.  You cannot keep renegotiating deals every time they (the NK's) want to change something.

Look at the history of Panmunjom and how many times the NK's would change what they wanted.  It is part of their culture.  The SK's are much the same way in business.  They will place an order with you, take delivery and then try to renegotiate the price.

That is exactly what Kim was doing.  He agreed to the 1994 agreement and then admitted he NEVER abided by it and wanted us to renegotiate a new deal with him.  He has proven time and time again that he cannot be trusted.  The Japanese, Chinese and South Koreans understand that as does Bush.  However, due to your obvious lack of international experience, in Asia at least, YOU don't.


----------



## CSM (Aug 30, 2004)

Also, the assumption is that NK will abide by the results of the negotiation and their recent history shows that they will not. The premise also is that NK will negotiate in good faith, which again, recent history shows they will not.


----------



## Zhukov (Aug 30, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> We probably could not stop them from destroying.....Peking.





......


Yeah....I don't think we have to worry about North Korea detroying Peking.......or even Beijing for that matter.


----------



## wade (Aug 30, 2004)

freeandfun1 said:
			
		

> He didn't like the 1994 agreement so he decided he wanted to change it.  You cannot keep renegotiating deals every time they (the NK's) want to change something.
> 
> Look at the history of Panmunjom and how many times the NK's would change what they wanted.  It is part of their culture.  The SK's are much the same way in business.  They will place an order with you, take delivery and then try to renegotiate the price.
> 
> That is exactly what Kim was doing.  He agreed to the 1994 agreement and then admitted he NEVER abided by it and wanted us to renegotiate a new deal with him.  He has proven time and time again that he cannot be trusted.  The Japanese, Chinese and South Koreans understand that as does Bush.  However, due to your obvious lack of international experience, in Asia at least, YOU don't.



No, you are wrong.  It was the USA that decided to back out of the 1994 agreement, negotiated in the previous two years.  In 1994 the Congress went Republican, and the new Congress didn't like the terms of the deal.

Besides, you are offering no reasonable alternative.  Should we just continue to do nothing and let NK become more and more dangerous?  I agree it needs to be done carefully, but Albright went to the confrence with 17 items of contention and Kim acceeded to all of them, including inspections.  It seems to me that, since we could always back out if we were unsatisfied with his compliance, it makes sense to take him up on the "deal" which means NK's immeadate cessation of nuclear weapons development, scuttling of it's missiles with a range greater than 300 miles, halting all weapons exports and technology transfers, and 7/24 inspection privlidges, in exchange for a gradual normalization of relations, starting with food and probably oil for NK.

I don't see the down side, again, if they don't comply, we can always back out.

Is what you are saying that there is no diplomatic solution, the only option is war no matter what terms are offered by NK?  If so, then NK is pursuing the right course, as only nuclear and bio weapons can ensure their future.

BTW:  I hate NK and Kim, it's a depraved regime.  But it would be stupid to contiue the current policies.

Wade.


----------



## wade (Aug 30, 2004)

Zhukov said:
			
		

> ......
> 
> 
> Yeah....I don't think we have to worry about North Korea detroying Peking.......or even Beijing for that matter.




Grrr... I was reading Chinesse history last night and goofed.  Big deal.  You know what I mean.  Go ahead and pick at nits.


----------



## Comrade (Sep 1, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> How about resuming talks with NK, accepting their offer of 2000 to stop their nuclear weapons program, stop their long range missile program, agree not to export any missile or nuclear tech, allow international inspection and 24/7 access, etc... all for gradual normalization of relations over a period of years and some kind of re-unification talks with SK in the future (this last one was non-specific)?
> 
> At the best, it works.  At the worst, we are no worse off than we are, and NK probably does not advance it's tech or export it for at least a few years.
> 
> ...



With NK in a position of even more leverage now, than when the Clinton admin. first agreed upon the US providing his regime regular oil-nuke-food supplies in return for his promise to not develop nuclear arms... and all along, while giving his regime the means to survive and function... Kim took a gigantic shit on the agreement.


http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd68/68ddnr02.htm



> North Korea Crisis Escalates Amid Consternation and Confusion
> As reported in the last issue, on October 16 the US State Department made public an admission it claimed to have received from North Korea during a visit to Pyongyang by Assistant Secretary of State James A. Kelly two weeks earlier (October 3-5). Kelly's visit was the highest-level contact between the two sides since President Bush took office, raising hopes - particularly in the context of rapidly improving relations between Pyongyang and both South Korea and Japan - that concerns over North Korea's nuclear and missile programmes might soon be satisfactorily addressed as part of a general movement towards durable peace and security in the region. Those hopes were seemingly dashed by the State Department's revelations:
> 
> "Earlier this month, senior US officials traveled to North Korea to begin talks on a wide range of issues. During those talks, Assistant Secretary James A. Kelly and his delegation advised the North Koreans that we had recently acquired information that indicates that North Korea has a program to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons in violation of the Agreed Framework and other agreements. North Korean officials acknowledged that they have such a program. The North Koreans attempted to blame the United States and said that they considered the Agreed Framework nullified. ... Over the summer, President Bush - in consultation with our allies and friends - had developed a bold approach to improve relations with North Korea. The United States was prepared to offer economic and political steps to improve the lives of the North Korean people, provided the North were dramatically to alter its behavior across a range of issues, including its weapons of mass destruction programs, development and export of ballistic missiles, threats to its neighbors, support for terrorism, and the deplorable treatment of the North Korean people. In light of our concerns about the North's nuclear weapons program, however, we are unable to pursue this approach. North Korea's secret nuclear weapons program is a serious violation of North Korea's commitments under the Agreed Framework as well as under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), its International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards agreement, and the Joint North-South Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. ... The United States and our allies call on North Korea to comply with its commitments under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and to eliminate its nuclear weapons program in a verifiable manner. We seek a peaceful resolution of this situation. Everyone in the region has a stake in this issue and no peaceful nation wants to see a nuclear-armed North Korea."
> ...


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Sep 1, 2004)

IS it me or does wade seem like a well educated appeaser who throws around a lot of security info, but really doesn't have a clue?  I'd like some other opinions to more fully inform my opinion.


----------



## Comrade (Sep 1, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Comrade said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## CSM (Sep 1, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> IS it me or does wade seem like a well educated appeaser who throws around a lot of security info, but really doesn't have a clue?  I'd like some other opinions to more fully inform my opinion.



 I do think that Wade is well educated. I am not so sure about the "appeaser" part. As for the security info, I have not seen anything he has posted that cannot be found on public access internet. Despite the little spat he and I have had within the past few days, I think he has expressed his opinion rather well, though I do not agree with a lot of it. I do think his supporting evidence is sometimes weak and that his logic often leaves something to be desired, but overall, he does raise some good issues for debate.


----------



## freeandfun1 (Sep 1, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> IS it me or does wade seem like a well educated appeaser who throws around a lot of security info, but really doesn't have a clue?  I'd like some other opinions to more fully inform my opinion.



I think you are right.  He seems to have a lot of BOOK knowledge, but not much else.  And even then, his BOOK knowledge is gained from books which HE selects and therefore, most likely already support his predisposed positions.

If there is ONE area in this world I can claim I have a lot of knowledge about, it is Korea.  I was stationed there in the military for three years and I spent my 1.5 years as a liaison between 3rd BDE, 2 ID and the 1st ROKA Division in Paju-gun.  That was many years ago yes, but since then, I have kept close ties with the country and the politics.  I know MANY Koreans that have been to NK as part of political delegations, I know reporters living in Seoul and Hong Kong that have written extensive stories on NK after having visited there and I myseflf have met with a NK business delegation in Beijing as part of a US BXA promotion as we tried to induce NK with business instead of bombs.  Further, I own a business in SK, my wife owns property in Korea and I represent US companies that manufacture products for the defense industry into Korea.  As part of my business I have a LOT of meetings with Ministry of National Defense personnel as well as USFK Military Liaisons to the Korean MND.  I know a LOT about Korea, its military, etc.  and I consider Korea my second home.

Yet for some reason, Wade seems to think he has an exclusive on knowing HOW to deal with Korea and Koreans.

Wade is smart, I have to give him that.  But for some reason, when I think of what Wade might look like, I envision some kid sitting in a wheel chair, reading books all day and living vicariously through USMB......

I hope I am wrong cuz if I am not, some might think that is mean.


----------



## Comrade (Sep 1, 2004)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> IS it me or does wade seem like a well educated appeaser who throws around a lot of security info, but really doesn't have a clue?  I'd like some other opinions to more fully inform my opinion.



Well sure, but it's only the lack of our 'hi-tech background' that keeps us from seeing how N.K. will attack Peking, China, along with a conflict with the wealthy Asian Democracies, in a future missile exchange.


----------



## wade (Sep 1, 2004)

Comrade - the article you reference is 2 years after Pres. Bush dropped the ball.

-----

My point is we should have taken Kim up on his offer.  This would have at least slowed their nuke progress, and more importantly, it would have given us access to NK that we do not have.  Yes it would have meant oil/food for NK, but lack of these things does not effect their nuke progress.  7/24 inspection access would have done wonders for our intelligence about NK.  And finally, as it is turning out, NK is gaining what it needs from the Euro's, which defeats our intrests in that they are not gaining the intel we need, they didn't/couldn't bargain for it.

If we didn't think we were getting what we needed from any deal with NK, we could have backed out at any time.

Appeasers give more than they get.  I never suggested we take such a course, not even close.

Wade.


----------



## Zhukov (Sep 1, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Grrr... I was reading Chinesse history last night and goofed.  Big deal.  You know what I mean.  Go ahead and pick at nits.



The Peking/Beijing comment was an after-thought.  The main point is I seriously doubt NK is going to attack China.  The very idea is absurd.


----------



## wade (Sep 1, 2004)

Zhukov said:
			
		

> The Peking/Beijing comment was an after-thought.  The main point is I seriously doubt NK is going to attack China.  The very idea is absurd.



Hmmm... as an agressor no.  But I think it is quite possible that if pressed to war, they would do so, or at least threaten to do so, to make sure China had a stake in it.  Basically, I think if they had the capacity, they would hit every major target within their range.  Remember who we're dealing with.

Wade.


----------



## CSM (Sep 1, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Hmmm... as an agressor no.  But I think it is quite possible that if pressed to war, they would do so, or at least threaten to do so, to make sure China had a stake in it.  Basically, I think if they had the capacity, they would hit every major target within their range.  Remember who we're dealing with.
> 
> Wade.



It doesn't make any sense either from a strategic view or tactical view for Nk to attack China. The repercussions would be too catastrophic for NK. Japan on the other hand makes for a very lucrative target in the sense that NK does not avctually have to attack japan but merely demonstrate the capability to do so. Once they have done that convincingly, I am willing to bet that the NK blackmail attempts will begin in earnest.


----------



## Comrade (Sep 1, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Comrade - the article you reference is 2 years after Pres. Bush dropped the ball.
> 
> -----



You have to ask yourself, really, why you seem to give every benefit of doubt to the Kim Il Jong regime on the subject.

Consider you would seem to be so generous that the actual date o violation is in fact on the date of Kims' admission of such... Oct, 2001.  Still a few months shy of two full years.


But more accurately, the violation of the agreement was in fact a proven fact well before that, even prior to the "Axis of Evil" speech, a speech not relevant at all in those agreed upon provisions, rather, a reaction provoked by Kims' utter disregard for those provisions.

http://www.npec-web.org/opeds/dilemma2.htm


> Still, the deal required North Korea in time to come in line: Pyongyang was supposed to allow comprehensive IAEA inspections to be completed by the time the promised reactor project was half-built. North Korea was also obligated to implement the 1992 North-South denuclearization declaration, which forbade possession or production of nuclear explosives, including facilities for enriching uranium for bombs, and remain a party to the nonproliferation treaty.
> 
> The IAEA inspections, though, never started when they were supposed to -- by May 2002, according to the reactor construction schedule. With North Korea stiffing the IAEA and attacking the agency as a "tool" of a hostile U.S. policy, it became evident that Pyongyang was never going to permit IAEA inspectors to discover that the illicit plutonium was now in bombs.



Clear, undeniable violations of the original Clinton pact is now in fact dated a year since Bush took office.

So while you can choose to ignore a clear violation well before the 'two years' until their admission, you'd also have to assume under that same logic, that if no admission by North Koreas was made at all, then they'd not be in violation at all.

But as a reasonale person, I'd assume May, 2001, was also a time well after the few years necessary in lead time up to their operational nuclear capability afterwards.   

Even in 1999, indications of such a program were threatened to become open policy instead of a covert program.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/1994 U.S.-North Korea nuclear pact 



> There were increasing disagreement between North Korea and U.S. on the scope and implementation of the treaty. When by 1999 economic sanctions had not been lifted and full diplomatic relations between U.S. and North Korea had not been established, North Korea warned that they would resume nuclear research unless the U.S. kept up its end of the bargain. U.S. has repeatedly stated that further implementation would be stalled as long as suspicions remained that the North Korean nuclear weapons research program continued covertly.







> My point is we should have taken Kim up on his offer.



What offer?  A 1994 hudna?  Or just some rehash of this same kind of smoke up our ass made in 2002?



> This would have at least slowed their nuke progress, and more importantly, it would have given us access to NK that we do not have.



Since when?  They never granted free access to any foriegn inspection, ever, period.


[/Quote]
Yes it would have meant oil/food for NK, but lack of these things does not effect their nuke progress.


> I bet it hurts a bit.  And I also bet a bounty of oil/food is helpfull in all aspects, including nuclear research.  Why not?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## wade (Sep 1, 2004)

Comrade said:
			
		

> You have to ask yourself, really, why you seem to give every benefit of doubt to the Kim Il Jong regime on the subject.
> 
> Consider you would seem to be so generous that the actual date o violation is in fact on the date of Kims' admission of such... Oct, 2001.  Still a few months shy of two full years.



Okay, about 18 months.  By this time the "agreement" was already finished, as Pres. Bush had already refused to finish it.



			
				Comrade said:
			
		

> But more accurately, the violation of the agreement was in fact a proven fact well before that, even prior to the "Axis of Evil" speech, a speech not relevant at all in those agreed upon provisions, rather, a reaction provoked by Kims' utter disregard for those provisions.
> 
> http://www.npec-web.org/opeds/dilemma2.htm
> 
> ...



How can you point to "violations" of an agreement that was never consumated?  Bush chose to let this opportunity go, and had made it clear this was his intent more than a year before the dates you're referencing.



			
				Comrade said:
			
		

> But as a reasonale person, I'd assume May, 2001, was also a time well after the few years necessary in lead time up to their operational nuclear capability afterwards.
> 
> Even in 1999, indications of such a program were threatened to become open policy instead of a covert program.
> 
> ...



Yes it would have meant oil/food for NK, but lack of these things does not effect their nuke progress.



			
				Comrade said:
			
		

> I bet it hurts a bit.  And I also bet a bounty of oil/food is helpfull in all aspects, including nuclear research.  Why not?



Becuase nuclear R&D was already fully funded.  More oil and food was not going to change that priority.



			
				Comrade said:
			
		

> Never heard of such an offer nor would it be granted without restriction to any locale.  That's insane.  Link to the offer, and then convince us it's a genuine act of Kim and his open policy of peace.



I already did give you links to the Madiline Albright mission to NK.  Notice she went with 17 points of contention and Kim acceeded to all of them.



			
				Comrade said:
			
		

> Well you're probably right about that.   Euro's care little for sanctions, nuclear non-proliferation treaties, and humanitarian policy, given a purely anti-American regime to trade with.



So you agree that effectively NK got improved relations with the west for nothing right?



			
				Comrade said:
			
		

> So they violated it, and Bush challenged Kim Il to adhere to it, and then after so much bullshit from him we cut him off.   And it's nothing you seem to disapprove.



Bush challenged Kim to adhere to what?  An agreement Bush had already scrapped in 2000?



			
				Comrade said:
			
		

> Kim Il wiped his ass with the treaty under Clinton already, and developed nuclear weapons well in advance of 2002.   So any ideas how to repay him giving us less than nothing?



Again, I point to the FACT that President G.W. Bush had already scrapped the 2000 deal set down by Albright under Clintion.  Why in the world would you expect Kilm to abide by the deal when Bush had already said "no deal", way back in early/mid 2000?  The day that Bush rebuked Powell, the deal was over.

Wade.


----------



## wade (Sep 1, 2004)

CSM said:
			
		

> It doesn't make any sense either from a strategic view or tactical view for Nk to attack China. The repercussions would be too catastrophic for NK. Japan on the other hand makes for a very lucrative target in the sense that NK does not avctually have to attack japan but merely demonstrate the capability to do so. Once they have done that convincingly, I am willing to bet that the NK blackmail attempts will begin in earnest.



Hmmm... how do I explain this.. 

What happens is NK makes it clear it will go wild and hit everything in reach if the USA takes miltiary action against it.  This makes China say.. "hey, USA you better not do anything that gets China nuked or else".  Basically, NK is a threat draw China into any conflict, regaurdless of consequences, in order to ensure that China is not neutral about the issue.

I agree, the consequences of NK obtaining long range nuclear capability, either through long range missiles or sub launched missiles, is a very serious concern.  The question is, what can we do about it?

Wade.


----------



## CSM (Sep 1, 2004)

You are assuming that will be China's response. The Chinese could just as easily decide that the NK regime has indeed gone completely insane and, in an effort to protect themselves from future blackmail/threats, decide to eliminate the dangerous, uncontrollable paria themselves or in concert with a coalition of forces from around that part of the world.

As to what to do about it, well, that is the question isn't it. Military force (including blockade) is an option, but a risky one for a lot of reasons. Sanctions against an already devestated country is an option, but only works if the rest of the world abides by that. Negotiations will only work if both sides are negotiating in good faith, which is doubtful, given NK's past history.

It is a dilemma.


----------



## Comrade (Sep 1, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Okay, about 18 months.  By this time the "agreement" was already finished, as Pres. Bush had already refused to finish it.



That would be four months actually, when it was obvious beyond all reason that N.K. violated the terms.

You think they developed nukes in a few months as a result of Bush who cut them off.  You need to prove it that N.K. not only developed them without the years all regimes, especially one so isolated as N.K. need.   But also convince us the actions is due to Bush and his actions, as opposed what is clearly Bush's challenge and revelation of Kims' violations.




> How can you point to "violations" of an agreement that was never consumated?  Bush chose to let this opportunity go, and had made it clear this was his intent more than a year before the dates you're referencing.



Take May 2001, and go back one year.  Do you even know who was President then?  May 2000?

Clinton.      



> Yes it would have meant oil/food for NK, but lack of these things does not effect their nuke progress.



Sure it does.  I wonder if you want to explain it, or should I?



> Becuase nuclear R&D was already fully funded.  More oil and food was not going to change that priority.



Assuming all state projects are supposed to operate without support from such oil and food, that might be right.  But you're wrong.



> I already did give you links to the Madiline Albright mission to NK.  Notice she went with 17 points of contention and Kim acceeded to all of them.



Well of course he did.  How did we ever doubt Dear Leader from his word?

Did you know what she gave him as a gift?  Look!:

http://www.1stopkorea.com/?nk-trip1.htm~mainframe



> After that we were taken to see the gifts to Kim Jong-il. This was actually more interesting than his dad's place, mainly because everything was more recent (Kim Jr. having taking over only in the mid-90s). The first room we were taken contained gifts presented by prominent South Korean industrialists during their visits in the late 90s. Sitting side-by-side were top-of-the-line LG, Samsung and Hyundai entertainment systems, complete with large screen TVs, stereos, VCRs and plenty of speakers. Some of the same equipment you might have sitting in your living room, here sitting in a museum showing off the glorious gifts received by the Dear Leader.
> 
> The next room contained more gifts from the South, including a Hyundai Grandeur donated by the former chairman of Hyundai (whose family is originally from the North). Mr. Huk asked me if I had ever seen one of these cars during my time in the South. When I said, "sure, my neighbor has one just like it," he gave me another one of his 'you have to be lying' looks. How could such a great gift, a gift implying so much respect, belong to some normal person like my neighbor? This was obviously a car reserved for the elite, capitalist oppressors, not some common car for the masses. When I told him I wished the chairman had given away a lot more so there'd be less traffic in the South he got fed up with my obvious lies, gave me a disgusted look and moved on to talk to someone else.
> 
> ...






> So you agree that effectively NK got improved relations with the west for nothing right?




I think I'm trying to point out that after 10 years under a Clinton policy of nuclear tech, oil, and food in return for no agreement to follow through with inspections whatsoever (note the rods in the reactor were inspected by a SINGLE WEBCAM), we are total idiots for trusting Kim Il and keeping his state strong enough to continue with our subsidy, while finding ourselves not just facing a conventional power but now a nuclear one as well... a project developed for years before Bush ever took power.   Now you say we should do  it again...    



> Bush challenged Kim to adhere to what?  An agreement Bush had already scrapped in 2000?



Link?



> Again, I point to the FACT that President G.W. Bush had already scrapped the 2000 deal set down by Albright under Clintion.  Why in the world would you expect Kilm to abide by the deal when Bush had already said "no deal", way back in early/mid 2000?  The day that Bush rebuked Powell, the deal was over.
> 
> Wade.



You are fuggin high dude.  Bush in 2000.. think...


----------



## wade (Sep 2, 2004)

I typed 2000 near the end where I meant to type 2001.  Ooops... my bad for replying late at night.

The point I keep trying to get through to you is THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT TO BE BROKEN!  The deal on the table when Bush took office in 2001 was never consumated, so why would you expect NK's nuclear program would not have proceeded?

Why do you deny that this was an opportunity lost?  At worst, Kim would have broken the deal and that would have been that.  At best, he would have honored at least enough of it to justify our continuing the deal.  If we had gotten inspections as promised, it would have been worth contuinuing, and if not, we would simply have backed out having gained tremeondous intel through the exercise.

Personally, I think Kim could be bought.  Make the right offer and he'd be out of Korea making dirty movies and living the playboy life.

Wade.


----------



## wade (Sep 2, 2004)

Comrade said:
			
		

> You are fuggin high dude....



I don't get it.  Is the word "Fuck" not allowed on this board?

I really don't see how this can be the case...   

????

LOL

Wade


----------



## Comrade (Sep 2, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> I typed 2000 near the end where I meant to type 2001.  Ooops... my bad for replying late at night.
> 
> The point I keep trying to get through to you is THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT TO BE BROKEN!  *The deal on the table when Bush took office in 2001 was never consumated*, so why would you expect NK's nuclear program would not have proceeded?



Wrong, it's something you didn't research with a minute of time like I did:


http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/n...Bush-Cuts.Off.Oil.To.North.Korea-323853.shtml



> Published: Thursday, November 14, 2002
> 
> WASHINGTONPresident Bush decided Wednesday to cut off U.S. oil shipments to North Korea after one more delivery unless the Communist regime dismantles its nuclear weapons program, administration officials said.







> Why do you deny that this was an opportunity lost?  At worst, Kim would have broken the deal and that would have been that.  At best, he would have honored at least enough of it to justify our continuing the deal.  If we had gotten inspections as promised, it would have been worth contuinuing, and if not, we would simply have backed out having gained tremeondous intel through the exercise.




Assuming the timeline was as you say, which it is not.   So I'll let you rephrase that in terms of how violation preceded a cutoff by what is now a year and a half.  

Get the dates in order, please, or else you don't make sense.




> Personally, I think Kim could be bought.  Make the right offer and he'd be out of Korea making dirty movies and living the playboy life.
> Wade.



He's not just a nobody outside of his isolated, murderious little Kimland but also subject to justice by his people, eventually, and a dead man, like Saddam.  He'd hang for what he has done, and he deserves it.


----------



## wade (Sep 2, 2004)

If you read the rest of my posts, you will see that I meant 2001.  Obviously Bush could not have taken action in 2000, since he didn't take power until 2001.

The oil deal that was going on was not part of the 2000 Albright deal, it pre-dates that.  And yes he did violate that agreement, but given the "axis of evil" statements and other things done by the Bush administration, what else would you expect but a resumption of NK's WMD program.  Without WMD's the current NK regime is doomed.


He will pay like Marcos did?  Lots of despots have been deposed and lived out their lives in exile.  I agree it would be best if Kim and many of his regime were made to pay for their crimes, but it would be worth it to resolve things now rather than later, even if they didn't pay.

Wade.


----------



## Comrade (Sep 2, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> If you read the rest of my posts, you will see that I meant 2001.  Obviously Bush could not have taken action in 2000, since he didn't take power until 2001.
> 
> The oil deal that was going on was not part of the 2000 Albright deal, it pre-dates that.  And yes he did violate that agreement, but given the "axis of evil" statements and other things done by the Bush administration, what else would you expect but a resumption of NK's WMD program.  Without WMD's the current NK regime is doomed.



Yes, since 1994 I think, but I was diverging about basketball now proundly on display in the shrine of Kim.... you can have fun with that link to that comment and start from the beginning... a great read.

So we know the oil deal continued from 1994 to 2003 then, agreed?

It's not about being right, I just want want you to take more care with these claims.  

You are definately wrong that Bush never consummated that agreement, and wrong again when he was to have cut it off prior to the admission from N.K.  I want you to be making claims that you can prove when challenged, because I think credibility is key.  I don't think it's usefull for me to do the work anymore, you should first be sure what you claim is accurate.   It's just contructive criticism and not like I am harping on you.




> And yes he did violate that agreement, but given the "axis of evil" statements and other things done by the Bush administration, what else would you expect but a resumption of NK's WMD program.



The cause and effect you describe is reversed.  Intelligence from this brief here is instructive.

http://www.fas.org/irp/nic/nk_conference.html



> August 1998:  The Beginning of the End of the Framework?
> 
> August 1998 was a pivotal month for North Korea policy, particularly from the US perspective.  That month, The New York Times first reported on the suspect site at Kumchang-ri.  Then, in late August, North Korea shocked the world by successfully testing a long-range missile.  That missile was fired over Japanese territory, sending an unmistakable military warning to Japan and its closest military ally, the US.  Within the space of a few weeks, US attitudes toward North Korea were shaken to their core.  First, there was dramatic new evidence that the North not only posed a missile threat to the South and Japan but also to US territory.  Second, the Kumchang-ri incident, coming four years after the North had pledged to keep its nuclear program frozen, solidified the opinion of many that Pyongyang never had any such intention.





Bush called out Kim Il's regime as the liar and cheater the intelligence already pointed out, among a long list of direct violations Clinton chose to ignore in his term.

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron.asp

And the details from the above same brief were confirmed by direct admission from North Korea in 2001 as I earlier linked.

The cummulative *effect* of these violations *caused* Bush to proclaim them as what they were all along.  Clinton was just too gutless to cut them off when it would have made a difference.   So we owe a nuclear armed North Korea to him, not Bush.  I can't be more clear than that.



> Without WMD's the current NK regime is doomed.



We could have accepted the loss of Seoul (artillery) and large casualties in the early 90's instead of what we face today, a much larger problem.   But even then, such action was beyond reason.   It's only going to be worse as the arsenal grows.



> He will pay like Marcos did?  Lots of despots have been deposed and lived out their lives in exile.  I agree it would be best if Kim and many of his regime were made to pay for their crimes, but it would be worth it to resolve things now rather than later, even if they didn't pay.
> 
> Wade.



I imagine Kim wouldn't trust any such promise for those same reasons, too.   So we're probably stuck with him and unless we can knock the missiles from the sky via ABM, which is promising, we're stuck with the bastard for now.


----------



## freeandfun1 (Sep 2, 2004)

Comrade:

As a Korea watcher myself, I have a question for you (sorry to stray the thread, we can start a new one if we need to).  Who do you see as the "up and comers" in NK?  I have been looking, and I don't see much.  Other than Kim himself, most of the leadership of NK is getting really, really, really old.  Kim can't be bought, but I wonder if targeted assassinations of the hierarchy followed by bribes to senior level military officials would be a possible solution?


----------



## Comrade (Sep 2, 2004)

freeandfun1 said:
			
		

> Comrade:
> 
> As a Korea watcher myself, I have a question for you (sorry to stray the thread, we can start a new one if we need to).  Who do you see as the "up and comers" in NK?  I have been looking, and I don't see much.  Other than Kim himself, most of the leadership of NK is getting really, really, really old.  Kim can't be bought, but I wonder if targeted assassinations of the hierarchy followed by bribes to senior level military officials would be a possible solution?




It's definately a family business, running the country.  As of this year, he's been grooming his second born son (via father's now current concubine), Kim Jong Chul, for succession.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong-chul_(political_figure)

Chul is backed by the army and educated in France like all commies like, among Ho Chi Minh and Pol Pot.  He's da man.

Tragically for Kim Sr. and his elder son, Kim Jong-chul (via another concubine), his arrest in Tokyo in 2001 left him out of favour and without the support from the army.  He's been rumoured to live in China since 2003.

And all because he was out for a little Jap nookie, the horny slimeball.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong-nam



> According to the Japanese newspaper Shukan Shincho Kim had made three previous clandestine visits to Japan, and had spent most of his time consorting with prostitutes in expensive bath-houses in Tokyo's Yoshiwara district.



Ha ha ha!  All his kingdom lost for the sake of getting laid by a geisha girl.  I mean how pathetic is that?  

I'm sure the whole family is similarly pathetic but he really got screwed out of the whole throne.   Haha!

Still, Kim Sr is getting more nutty and bizzare about things as he loses his mind in old age.

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/dictators/kim-jong-il/



> Kim also adores children's cartoons, especially Daffy Duck. (Evidently, the Dear Leader has amassed the world's largest collection of Daffy cartoons.) And he's a giant Michael Jackson fan.



BWaaahaha!



> He also loves pornography. In addition, according to rumor, Kim also keeps a harem of beautiful women for the purpose of fucking. The dictator is regularly serviced by a nubile "Pleasure Squad," a stable of babes composed primarily of young Asians and Europeans.



Well sure.  No King would do otherwise.



> In his free time Kim wrote six operas, over a span of only two years. This he could accomplish because he's a goddamned genius. As one North Korean diplomat expressed his nation's gratitude during Kim's 61st birthday celebration: "We're able to face the U.S. superpower and the hostile U.S. policies because of our brilliant commander, Chairman Kim Jong Il. He is a thinker on a par with Marx and Lenin."



So he's a dumbass.



> But of course, none of this is why he gets paid the big bucks. His job security is based on convincing the world that his regime is extremely dangerous and unpredictable. In playing chicken with the global superpowers, Kim's primary objectives are twofold:
> 
> Make North Korea a credible nuclear power.
> Most analysts believe the DPRK is pretty close to having nuclear-tipped ICBMs, unless they already do. The fact is, nobody knows for sure. They've intentionally kept things under wraps to keep us guessing. Are they working on their fifth warhead? Their fiftieth? Their first? Fuck if we know.



LOL!  




> Pretend to be completely, utterly, bugfuck crazy.
> Nuclear weapons are useless as a deterrent unless your enemy believes you're crazy enough to actually use them. And if you're a small country, you can make up for a small stockpile by pretending to have a hair trigger.
> 
> Unfortunately, despite Kim's best efforts, nobody really believes he's nuts these days. He screwed his carefully-cultivated image by inviting Secretary of State Madeline Albright to Pyongyang in October 2000. Afterwards, she said:
> ...



Medeline gave him a basketball signed by Jordan, too.  It sits along with the mugs from CNN in the temple of Kim. 



> Of course, even if he does everything right, nothing lasts forever. It will eventually end for Kim Jong Il, just as it ended for his father before him. Kim Il Sung died in July 1994. Incidentally, rumor has it that he suffered a massive heart attack during an animated argument with his son.



I bet he was screwing instead.



> Kim is probably doomed to the same eventual fate as billionaire Howard Hughes, ultimately succumbing to crippling paranoid delusions. But for the time being, he's only about halfway there -- utterly obsessed with secrecy and his physical security, but not afraid to touch doorknobs yet. In planning for this eventuality, Kim is grooming one of his sons, Kim Jong Chul, to take over the family business. He will have quite a legacy to live up to.



And will also have to put out millions of portraits for every room in N.K. too.  Plus thousands of statues.  Tough work!



> But this plan may all go to shit. For some reason, Kim Jong Il believes he will be replaced by a triplet, and none of his children were triplets. So, like King Herod before him, Kim is covering his bets. He has ordered all triplets born in North Korea be rounded up and raised in state orphanages, where the government can keep an especially close eye on them. We are not making this up. According to a March 2003 story in the Herald Sun:
> 
> All triplets in North Korea are being forcibly removed from parents after their birth and dumped in bleak orphanages. The policy is carried out on the orders of Stalinist dictator Kim Jong-il, who has an irrational belief that a triplet could one day topple his regime.



Well that's nutty as hell.  I think he misunderstood triplet idea... it's obviously the triad of the US Army, Navy, and Marines who will take him down.


----------



## onedomino (Sep 20, 2004)

Zhukov said:
			
		

> Has anyone bothered to condemn them in the UN for human right's violations?  I know that's basically useless, but it's the _proper_ first step.
> 
> Demand better conditions and more politcal freedom for the North Korean people.
> 
> ...



In addition, develop multiple NK leadership decapitation senarios and, in case of conflict, enact them all simultaneously. Let "Dear Leader" know that if military action against NK is required, our number one priority will be to destroy him, his family, and everyone they have affiliation with. And that we will not rest, ever, until that is accomplished.


----------



## Comrade (Sep 20, 2004)

onedomino said:
			
		

> In addition, develop multiple NK leadership decapitation senarios and, in case of conflict, enact them all simultaneously. Let "Dear Leader" know that if military action against NK is required, our number one priority will be to destroy him, his family, and everyone they have affiliation with. And that we will not rest, ever, until that is accomplished.



He has to assume this as a fact already, pretty much left unsaid but duly expected.

As for Zhukov's suggestions they are all good, but what can be more pro-active aside from 'insisting', 'demanding', and 'threatening'?


----------



## freeandfun1 (Sep 27, 2004)

Earlier in another thread I posted an essay that was prepared by a friend of mine.  Today he sent to me via email a 'draft' dissertation that he has presented to NDU Press for publication.  He has not yet heard back from them on if they are going to publish it or not.

For those of you interested in the situation in Korea and possible solutions, I highly recommend reading his dissertation.  It is long (135 pages including end-notes, bibliography, etc.) but well worth reading (the body is 111 pages).  In it, he covers his thoughts on the re-deployment of US troops in Korea, the mistakes of the past 51 years (including mistakes made by the Bush admin), recommendation on how to handle the NK "problem", etc.

It is a great read, so if you have the time, please read it and let me know what you think.

I am trying to get him to join USMB, but based on his position on active duty, if he does, I am sure he will not expose himself here as who he is.  Currently, he is serving as Chief of Staff at the Special Operations Command Korea (SOCKOR).

Since the MS Word document is so large, I had to use a file sharing site to allow you to read it.  You can log-in HERE using the USERID "northkoreasolutions" and the password, "USMB1".

Please note that I signed up for a free trial so the link will expire in less than five (5) days.

Happy reading.


----------



## wade (Sep 28, 2004)

Free,

I get a "Bad username or password" error.

Why is it posted here?  Is it huge?  If it's text that should easily fit on a normal webspace.

Wade.


----------



## freeandfun1 (Sep 28, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Free,
> 
> I get a "Bad username or password" error.
> 
> ...



It is 327.5 KB which is too big to post here.  Make sure you are using the right username and password.  I tried from two different computers and it works okay for me.

Username:  northkoreasolutions
Password:  USMB1

As I said, it is 135 pages in length.


----------



## wade (Sep 28, 2004)

Server won't even open now.

Less than half a meg?  Send it to me via Email at wwbic@cox.net and I'll put it on my cox webspace and post the link.  That way it'll be easy for everyone to access and there will be no time limit (I'll leave it up for at least a month or two, longer if you wish).

Make sure the author is okay with it first though.

Wade.


----------



## freeandfun1 (Sep 28, 2004)

wade said:
			
		

> Server won't even open now.
> 
> Less than half a meg?  Send it to me via Email at wwbic@cox.net and I'll put it on my cox webspace and post the link.  That way it'll be easy for everyone to access and there will be no time limit (I'll leave it up for at least a month or two, longer if you wish).
> 
> ...



Done.  I have had on again off again problems with accessing the site.  Maybe because it is a "free-trial".


----------



## freeandfun1 (Sep 28, 2004)

An exerpt..... don't blast the grammar.  It is a "draft" and has not yet been edited for grammar, etc.

*Beyond the Nuclear Crisis:  
A Strategy for the Korean Peninsula*
*
COL David S. Maxwell, USA*
Research Fellowship

Committee 5
Dr. Michael Mazarr
Dr. Marvin Ott

ADVISOR
COL Robert G. Louis​
*
The opinions expressed in this paper are the authors and do not represent National Defense University, Department of Defense or U.S. Government positions.​*



> *CHAPTER 5​**A Strategic Framework for Korea*​
> 
> 
> > _*Either [North Korea] is going to invade the Southor it will collapse internally, or implode because of the incredible economic problems the country faces; or third, it will over time lead to some peaceful resolution with the South.*_John Deutch
> ...


----------



## freeandfun1 (Sep 28, 2004)

EDITED, REPOSTED, ETC.

Thanks to Wade, I am now able to provide this in a link HERE that does not require a password, etc. 

A quick note, this dissertation has not been edited.  It is a 'draft' that has been presented to the National Defense University Press for publication, but it has NOT yet been published.

I know the entire document is loooooooong, but if you can find the time and you are interested in the "North Korean problem", I highly suggest you read it as you can.  It is an excellent piece of work and has a lot of insight to offer.

Again, thanks Wade.



> Earlier in another thread I posted an essay that was prepared by a friend of mine.  Today he sent to me via email a 'draft' dissertation that he has presented to NDU Press for publication.  He has not yet heard back from them on if they are going to publish it or not.
> 
> For those of you interested in the situation in Korea and possible solutions, I highly recommend reading his dissertation.  It is long (135 pages including end-notes, bibliography, etc.) but well worth reading (the body is 111 pages).  In it, he covers his thoughts on the re-deployment of US troops in Korea, the mistakes of the past 51 years (including mistakes made by the Bush admin), recommendation on how to handle the NK "problem", etc.
> 
> ...


----------

