More from Korea

[Bikewer]

Various news agencies report this morning that N. Korea "possibly" fired a short-range missile into the sea of Japan this morning.
"Possibly?" You can't tell me that we havn't got a whole fistfull of intelligence "assets" watching the whole country like a hawk.

Naughty words too, calling Bush a "hooligan" and a "half-baked man":

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=au03ZapgszPY

Upping both rhetoric and actions. Meanwhile, more intelligence indicates they may be preparing for an underground test of a nuclear (oops...newcular) device.

Good thing we've got Iraq all democratized.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Good thing we've got Iraq all democratized.

I'll admit I'm a bit slow this afternooon. So I'm not immediately following this at the end of your post.

Is it your contention that if we had only not gone into Iraq that N. Korea would not be seeking nuclear weapons and ballistic delivery systems? If so, could you kind of flesh out the thinking behind that? If not, what did that have to do with the news story?

N/A

 

[gnome]

So... this proves North Korea's missile systems COULD hit water if they fell out of a f**king boat

 

[Hutch]

So... this proves North Korea's missile systems COULD hit water if they fell out of a f**king boat

Ain't the water I'm worried about--note the words "Sea of Japan"

That test wasn't aimed to intimidate us; it was squarely aimed to keep the Government in Tokyo nervous. IMHO of course.

Calling Bush a 'hooligan' and 'half-baked man'? Geez, N. Korea needs a new insult generator.

 

[Bikewer]

My reference was, of course, to the administration's rather unendingly upbeat reports of progress from Iraq, with the inference that before long we'll be able to devote proper attention to some of the more troubling "other" trouble spots in the world.

North Korea was, and is, far more dangerous than Iraq ever was.

 

[Hutch]

North Korea was, and is, far more dangerous than Iraq ever was.

In that, we are in total agreement.

 

[BPSCG]

North Korea was, and is, far more dangerous than Iraq ever was.

So, do you think:

1) We should have invaded North Korea instead of Iraq?

2) We should have invaded North Korea in addition to Iraq?

3) We should have invaded Iraq, anyway, but not North Korea?

4) We should have invaded neither?

I think that covers all the possibilities.

 

[Zep]

So, do you think:

1) We should have invaded North Korea instead of Iraq?

2) We should have invaded North Korea in addition to Iraq?

3) We should have invaded Iraq, anyway, but not North Korea?

4) We should have invaded neither?

I think that covers all the possibilities.

I'll take...number 4, please! Oh no, just a sec - can I phone a friend?

Indeed, I agree - Nth Korea is far more "dangerous" than Iraq ever was, nuclear-missile-wise. However I'm wondering what's behind all this shouting-out-rude-names business out of Pyong Yang. Clearly it's ongoing provocation aimed at the USA, but why? Well, to get a hostile response, obviously, but again the question why.

Given that Nth Korea is really a one-family state (not one party), it's hardly better or easier to deal with in terms of foreign affairs than any tinpot crackpot dictatorship elsewhere in the world. And I wouldn't be expecting sensible negotiating attitudes from them, because it's a matter of face to the folks back home now to not bend in the face of the mighty USA. That both destitute Russia and burgeoning capitalist China would be hardly likely to back such a hardline Stalinist state again in a conflict like they did in 1950-53 doesn't seem to have sunk in yet.

So instead, the face-saving approach is to be truculent, to strut your stuff with a sneer. David and Goliath approach. And as such I would suggest that the worst way to respond would be to take up the gauntlet equally beligerently, because then they would be honour-bound (if that's the right term for Nth Korea!) to "come out fighting". That would be bad news, especially for Japan...

Instead, as has been mentioned elsewhere, the best approach is to give your opponent room to move while retaining face, but in the direction you want them to go. And that takes some time and diplomatic skill - so let's hope the current US secretary for Foreign Affairs has those diplomatic skills and the patience.

 

[Hutch]

*sigh* so many strawman, so little time....

Look, all bikewer (and I in concurrence) said was:

North Korea was, and is, far more dangerous than Iraq ever was.

We never even brought up the topic of what is the proper action, that is for another thread or discussion, he/she (bikewer's avatar always confuses me) simply stated an opinion, which i concurred with.

North Korea has nukes, missile technology that is continuing to grow, a million man army, and enough artillery to devastate a major city of millions of people, not to mention the 37,000 or so US troops and undoubted thousands of US civilians in the county at any one time. They have a proven track record of selling missile technology to governments we oppose and may (note, may) sell nuclear technology to the same.

Iraq, for all the bad it did, did not have have nukes, had no missile technology, had a devasted and demoralized army, had no US troops (save the no-fly zone pilots) within range of it's weapons, and no solid evidence that it sold any technology that it had to other hostile powers (albeit it's technology was probably little better than it's prospective customers)

I think, and still think, the basic premise stands. Your strawmen are fair questions, but have been discussed before and are not inferred by the statement.

Posting on Monday before your first cup of coffee, BPSCG?

 

[BPSCG]

We never even brought up the topic of what is the proper action, that is for another thread or discussion, he/she (bikewer's avatar always confuses me) simply stated an opinion, which i concurred with.

North Korea has nukes, missile technology that is continuing to grow, a million man army, and enough artillery to devastate a major city of millions of people, not to mention the 37,000 or so US troops and undoubted thousands of US civilians in the county at any one time. They have a proven track record of selling missile technology to governments we oppose and may (note, may) sell nuclear technology to the same.

Iraq, for all the bad it did, did not have have nukes, had no missile technology, had a devasted and demoralized army, had no US troops (save the no-fly zone pilots) within range of it's weapons, and no solid evidence that it sold any technology that it had to other hostile powers (albeit it's technology was probably little better than it's prospective customers)

I think, and still think, the basic premise stands. Your strawmen are fair questions, but have been discussed before and are not inferred by the statement.

Posting on Monday before your first cup of coffee, BPSCG?

Hardly.

From bikewer:

My reference was, of course, to the administration's rather unendingly upbeat reports of progress from Iraq, with the inference that before long we'll be able to devote proper attention to some of the more troubling "other" trouble spots in the world.

North Korea was, and is, far more dangerous than Iraq ever was.

Now, if that isn't an invitation to discuss "what should we do about them?" then please tell me what would be.

I'll agree, bikewer hasn't actually asked what we should do about them pesky North Koreans; she barely asks any question at all. But her little anti-U.S. rant certainly invites the question. Or are the rest of us supposed to simply nod our heads in agreement while we go get our second cuppa? Evidently, even Zep doesn't think so, since he went to the trouble of writing a (silly) response.

So I'll ask it again, this time to you, Hutch:

Do you think:

1) We should have invaded North Korea instead of Iraq?

2) We should have invaded North Korea in addition to Iraq?

3) We should have invaded Iraq, anyway, but not North Korea?

4) We should have invaded neither?

Again, I believe I've covered all the possibilities; what do you think would be the best one? Feel free to elaborate on your reasons, if you wish.

 

[BPSCG]

And I wouldn't be expecting sensible negotiating attitudes from them, because it's a matter of face to the folks back home now to not bend in the face of the mighty USA.

For once I agree with you.

Instead, as has been mentioned elsewhere, the best approach is to give your opponent room to move while retaining face, but in the direction you want them to go. And that takes some time and diplomatic skill - so let's hope the current US secretary for Foreign Affairs has those diplomatic skills and the patience.

So let me see if I understand you correctly:

You don't expect sensible negotiating attitudes from North Korea (first paragraph), but we should use our diplomacy and patience on them (second paragraph).

Me confused. Please explain.

I love your proposed solution about how we should give them "room to move"..."in the direction you want them to go."

What on Earth makes you believe they have the slightest desire to move "in the direction you want them to go"? Has Pyongynag ever "moved in the direction you want them to go"?

Are you suggesting we just let them do whatever they want and make nice soothing noises to them and they'll eventually realize, like that little 5-year-old girl who was smacking her teachers around while they tried to make sure she didn't hurt anyone, that it would be best if they stop being such a bad little country?

Oh, wait, they finally had to call the cops on the little girl and put her in handcuffs. What makes you think NK is any different?

Are you seriously suggesting that if we make nice soothing noises to them, they'll stop calling the U.S. all kinds of strange ugly names and will stop developing their missiles and stop developing nuclear weapons and stop shipping weapons parts to terrorist countries?

If so, can I get a prescription for whatever hallucinogens you're taking? They sound wonderful.

 

[Bikewer]

In order to clear up any possible confusion: I am a crotchety 58-year old male police officer, with disturbingly liberal tendencies. My avatar is a pic of my true (but alas, platonic) love, Sarah Michelle Gellar.

There was no particular point to my origianal post, other than pointing out the increasingly disturbing actions of the N. Koreans. The comment about Iraq was tongue-in-cheek; the public pronouncements of the administration seem to indicate little knowledge of the situation.

As to "what to do?" about the Korean problem....I dunno. Our diplomatic efforts appear (again, from what's released on major news outlets) to be through proxies; trying to convince the Chinese and Japanese that it's in their best interests to intervene.
The Chinese seem to enjoy making us squirm a bit, though.

The N. Koreans have always been truculent, belligerant negotiators, going back to the Korean War. This tactic has stood them in good stead, as it appears that concessions have been promised on many occasions.

The Bush administration has referred to the N. Korean government as "stable", with the implied notion that they will not be launching nukes willy-nilly anytime soon.
Still, many observers point to truly dreadful conditions inside the country, and are rather skeptical of Kim's "stability".
Even without nukes, the N. Koreans have thousands of artillery units on the border, and the military types indicate that they could, if they desired, devastate Seoul in a very short time without ever crossing the border.
The only way I can think of to prevent such an action militarily would be a massive preemptive strike, possibly with nuclear weapons.
The South Korean stance is that increased diplomacy will eventually provide a tipping point wherin the North will realize that it would be in it's best interests to open up the closed society and reap some of the benefits common in the South, ala E. Germany.
Perhaps they are right, but the increased saber-rattling is making everyone in the vicinity rather nervous.

 

[Hutch]

So I'll ask it again, this time to you, Hutch:

Do you think:

1) We should have invaded North Korea instead of Iraq?

2) We should have invaded North Korea in addition to Iraq?

3) We should have invaded Iraq, anyway, but not North Korea?

4) We should have invaded neither?

Again, I believe I've covered all the possibilities; what do you think would be the best one? Feel free to elaborate on your reasons, if you wish.

Well, since you asked ME...


1) Of course not. No credible justification has been presented to the US population for such an invasion. At least Iraq required some justification (a lot of it discredited upon examination on the ground).

2) Negative. The military myth of "two minor wars" capability the US DOD has been spouting for quite awhile now is based on allies and bombing the crud out of the enemy, rather than putting boots on the ground in two places (at least without a draft). totally impractical--and the US knows it.

3) Still open for debate. At least with Iraq we went through the process of open debate and hearings and inspections to present the evidence (flimsy as it now appears to be) for invasion. That has yet to happen for N. Korea. Given the still uncertain outcome in Iraq, the question is moot--IMHO.

4) Hmmmmm. well, to speculate, if we hadn't, Saddam would probably be still in power (not a good thing), the Shiites and Kurds would still be oppressed (a bad thing for them individually, I grant you, but in the goepolitical sense.....), Iraq would still be weakly armed and subject to inspections for items we now know did not exist, about 1,600 Americans and thousands of Iraqis would still be alive (albeit you would have to subtract those Saddam would have killed on the average year), Iran and Turkey would be less interested/involved in what is going on in Iraq than now, the US wouldn't be an additional $300B in debt (the meter is still running), and relations with much of Europe and the Middle East might be a bit better.

Oh yeah, some of that money, time and troops might actually have helped get the dirty #!@@#$% that started all this....who is still running around at last report.

IMHO, of course.

 

[Grammatron]

If I were a conspiracy theory sort-of guy, I would say that with a recent tentions between China and Japan this missile launch was if not ordered than pushed for by China to keep Japan on its toes. Especially since Japan is trying to get the permanent seat on the UN councel. I would also say more is yet to come...However, since I am not that kind of person, I'm not going to say that. No sir.

 

[gnome]

For once I agree with you.
So let me see if I understand you correctly:

You don't expect sensible negotiating attitudes from North Korea (first paragraph), but we should use our diplomacy and patience on them (second paragraph).

Me confused. Please explain.

I love your proposed solution about how we should give them "room to move"..."in the direction you want them to go."

I think I can reconcile this nicely.

To me, it is the aggressive approach that improperly assumes that North Korea will negotiate sensibly. It is foolish to get into a military conflict with the US... therefore, were North Korea's leadership sensible, a few credible warnings from us and they'd be off our back.

It is precisely because the leadership is NOT particularly rational that we need good diplomacy... that is part of the job of a diplomat, to handle an unstable person on the other end of the table. A skill a good diplomat is more likely to have than a good general. The purpose is not to "make nice" with them and hope they'll do what we want. The purpose is to maneuver them into a path that is acceptable to us by being aware of their tendencies and what they value, and using that information in negotiation.

 

[c0rbin]

We could bomb N. Korea with food.

 

[Hutch]

It is precisely because the leadership is NOT particularly rational that we need good diplomacy... that is part of the job of a diplomat, to handle an unstable person on the other end of the table. A skill a good diplomat is more likely to have than a good general. The purpose is not to "make nice" with them and hope they'll do what we want. The purpose is to maneuver them into a path that is acceptable to us by being aware of their tendencies and what they value, and using that information in negotiation.

Nicely said--or as the old definition goes, Diplomancy is saying "Nice Doggie" while reaching for a stick....

 

[Grammatron]

We could bomb N. Korea with food.

I am sure the NK military would be greateful for that contribution.

 

[BPSCG]

In order to clear up any possible confusion: I am a crotchety 58-year old male police officer, with disturbingly liberal tendencies.

Well, I'm, glad that's cleared up, anyway.

My avatar is a pic of my true (but alas, platonic) love, Sarah Michelle Gellar.

I never was a Buffy viewer...

As to "what to do?" about the Korean problem....I dunno.

(...snip...)

The N. Koreans have always been truculent, belligerant negotiators, going back to the Korean War. This tactic has stood them in good stead, as it appears that concessions have been promised on many occasions.

This is exactly why you don't negotiate with tyrants. Tyrants do not negotiate in good faith. They'll come to the negotiating table when they can get concessions that way, and leave when the concessions stop. They resume whatever bad behavior they were engaging in before they came to the negotiating table (if they had, in fact ever stopped their bad behavior - viz NK's nuclear program) and the democracies then cast about for ways to get them back to the negotiating table. Invariably, this involves making more concessions and the vicious cycle resumes.

Can you point to any instance where any tyranny ever stopped being tyrannical as the result of negotiating and diplomacy?

What do you think of applying the Sharansky solution to NK?

 

[Grammatron]

What do you think of applying the Sharansky solution to NK?

Pardon my intrusion into the question that was not directed to me, but can you describe what Sharansky's solution is to us who are not in the know?