The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Deadly, dangerous and unpredictable > Comments

Deadly, dangerous and unpredictable : Comments

By Gary Brown, published 11/10/2006

The US and its allies may well use this narrow window of opportunity to strike down the North Korean regime before it can deploy enough weapons to make itself unassailable.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Well. Yeah.

There's not really anything you can argue with there, except the notion that the US might move to 'nip this in the bud' as it were.

Not likely. The North Korean military is far more formidable than anything the US have faced in the last few decades, and the US military is exhausted.

Fair enough you can argue that the real problem with the Iraq invasion wasn't the initial invasion, it was the occupation.
This wouldn't be a problem with North Korea, but that initial invasion wouldn't be the clean sweep the US has gotten used to.
Even an air invasion could simply make them take cover and wait it out. The north korean government hasn't exactly displayed an excessive amount of concern for the welfare of the people.

Kim Jong Il has been doing his damndest to ensure that he is seen as an aggressive paranoiac.
This isn't necesarily stupid, he's actually been quite a shrewd tactician. The rest of the world is wary of prodding him, and so they should be. His limits are unknown.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Wednesday, 11 October 2006 8:57:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think it an unlikely prospect also - as TRTL points out recent history suggests the US tends not to take on some one with as much fire power as it once might have - and there forces are fatigued -

Bush's position is also much weaker domestically so he will be unwillinging to risk opening another battle front.

It was interesting to hear a large number of talk backers (admittedly on the ABC) placed the blame for NKs intransigence at the feet of the US - for backing the little guys into a corner.
Posted by sneekeepete, Wednesday, 11 October 2006 9:41:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Howard is quite right to denounce North Korea’s nuclear ambitions.

But he’s quite wrong to weaken Australia’s existing controls on nuclear proliferation in the region.

North Korea only entered the nuclear club this week, but China, who share a border with Korea, began their weapons program under the guise of civilian power reactors over 50 years ago.

Since then, Australia has refused China access to any nuclear materials and technologies. But last week, a closed hearing of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties investigated new treaties designed to open up nuclear trade with China.

Compass Resources recently secured the funding of a surprise Chinese backer in their plans for the abandoned Rum Jungle Uranium Mine near Batchelor. If these treaties are enacted, we could see uranium from the NT sold to North Korea’s nuclear neighbour.

Rather than adding fuel to the fire, Australia, with our significant uranium reserves, has a particular responsibility to cut the problem off at its source, and close our uranium mines.
Posted by justin b., Wednesday, 11 October 2006 10:39:02 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If you look at the history of the conflict between the US and North Korea over the past 50 years, you will see that the North Korean response to George Bush's administration is quite logical and predictable. Unfortunately, GWB doesn't have enough brains in his head to realise that "Softly, softly, catchee monkey" actually does work. If you want to accuse someone of being irrational, then GWB is your man, not Kim Jong Il.
Posted by VK3AUU, Wednesday, 11 October 2006 10:52:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Do not rely on Howard to exercise restraint on marketing uranium - we will be sellin git to the Indians within the next two years - he's already started softening us up
Posted by sneekeepete, Wednesday, 11 October 2006 11:17:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not much time - just breaking in to pose a question?

If it is true from reports that she supplies almost two thirds of North Korea's economic needs, China should be the real key to closing down North Korea's nuclear mania.

Or has China got other plans, far more futuristic than GW Bush, or our Johnny Howard, who social scientists say may have the immediate political knack but not necessarily the one for the long term future?
Posted by bushbred, Wednesday, 11 October 2006 12:43:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gary

I think you may be underestimating the difficulty of bombing North Korea to eliminate all possible nuclear weapons.

As of February 2005 the US Defense Intelligence Agency analysts were reported to believe that North Korea may already have produced as many as 12 to 15 nuclear weapons. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/nuke.htm

The alleged nuclear test hence may under-represent what may be a more advanced state of North Korean nuclear weapons development.

As the weapons (even large ones) are portable they may have been hidden anywhere on North Korea's surface or buried in bunkers for later use.

An airstike is therefore dangerous (not because of North Korea's army, or weak air defences) but because there are too many possible targets (hiding places) for the US to be sure it has destroyed all the nukes. see this Targetting List http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/target.htm

Furthermore China and Russia would have strong reservations about the US destroying a close neighbour and so are unlikely to agree to an air attack.

While an airstike is a possibility I think it has only a 30% chance of occurring.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com
Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 11 October 2006 1:35:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
About blardy time Brushy :) your finally asking the right questions of China (and I hope of N.Korea and the Islamo radicals closer to home)

From this point on, my post is simply the cold hard brutal and honest voice of human common sense.

BUT
I saw no mention in the posts of this clear threat..

"Talk to us face to face....or we will put Nukes on Missiles"

Missiles ? aimed where ? clearly... AT THE PEOPLE YOU ARE THREATENING.

'WHY' ?... clearly.. to DESTROY THEM.

I take that to be "pay us money or we will begin the process of thermo nuclear war against you"

Which I interpret as an act of war, for which there can only be ONE answer.

*Take them out NOW, or.. face the 'long term' annihilation they are now promising*

It's not an issue of whether the USA can take them on..its a matter of a chain of command and some buttons being pressed. Pyong Yang would probably be sufficient, as it would take out not only Kim Jong IL, but also most of the N.Koreans who worship him.

Yes.. MASSIVE loss of life.. but not ours.

Wait..and the massive loss WILL be 'ours'.

Armageddon draweth nigh ? (not on the Korean peninsula, but in due course this could lead to a believable scenario)

6You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8All these are the beginning of birth pains. (Math 24)

Sobering words of our Lord:

"27For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man."

As Ripley says.."Believe it....or not"

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=24&version=31

(a read of the whole chapter might focus our minds somewhat.)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 11 October 2006 1:37:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DB,

“From this point on, my post is simply the cold hard brutal and honest voice of human common sense.”

LOL – Hardly!
Posted by relda, Wednesday, 11 October 2006 2:00:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wonder how many people are aware that Clinton made a promise to North Korea back in 1994 that if they halted their nuclear weapons programme, the USA would provide them with food,fuel and two lightwater reactors. This was known as "the Framework Agreement".

North Korea agreed but the US never delivered on their promise.

They had a good deal but they blew it.

Bush is now refusing to talk to Pyonyang and the only solution appears to be military or the imposition of economic sanctions, both of which would potentially aggravate China and cost a lot of human lives.

Perhaps some sort of trade agreement would be more suitable for all parties, before it's too late.
Posted by wobbles, Wednesday, 11 October 2006 2:56:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Gary for the interesting (and timely) analysis. The one problem with the thesis from my perspective was that the DPKR already possesses a fairly serious deterrent with its conventional weapons aimed at Soul. Surely these would be put into use if the US started bombing the country.
Posted by Mickey K, Wednesday, 11 October 2006 3:22:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A very difficult issue, but Boazy’s take them out now option is virtually impossible.

Nth Korea is not Iraq. It has the 4th largest army in the world and has been at war for 50 years. There has never been a ceasefire.
Any attempt to attack would result in Seoul being demolished within hours by conventional weapons.

What has happened over the past few years is a result of a change in US policy? The ‘axis of evil” speech is in many ways to blame.

The year after Bush's speech, North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Later in 2003, several right-wing political strategists (the neoconservatives, led by Richard Perle) favored by the Bush Administration called for military strikes in North Korea against its nuclear sites.

Given the threat by the US to bomb North Korea surely it is a natural response to find any means to prevent this.
Posted by Steve Madden, Wednesday, 11 October 2006 3:55:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz... a couple of points there I disagree with:

Firstly - I suppose it's fair to interpret the North Korean stance as 'Talk to us or we'll put bombs on weapons' I'll agree with you that that is what they wish to present.

How much of this is merely bluster is still open to question. We're still not entirely sure of the specifics of this bomb, and whether they can deliver it. I realise that your argument indicates that the west should attack before these capabilities can be realised, but I think it's a little more complex than that.

Evidently Kim Jong Il doesn't like to be slighted. Perhaps if he was given a little more respect on the world stage he wouldn't be trying to buy it with nuclear weapons (I'm not saying he deserves this respect, just he wants it).

I realise it's uncommon to speculate on world politics from the perspective of the whims of an individual rather than the ambitions of a state or militia. But Kim Jong isn't a standard politician, nor have the actions of North Korea been the actions of a normal state.

My interpretation of the 'talk to us or we'll put bombs on weapons' is actually 'talk to us, we're a force to be reckoned with. You ignore us at your peril.'

Which, actually, is true. Perhaps North Korea wants a more prominent position on the world stage and wants to negotiate from a position of strength.

As for the final few comments... I think the world would be a healthier place if some elements of the christian faith weren't convinced the apocalypse was just a step on the road to bliss.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Wednesday, 11 October 2006 4:21:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz, thanks mate, for the recognition that in the long run China may not prove as cooperative as we would hope. As history goes, it is not so long ago, that headed by Britain, China was made to pay reparations for having its Boxer Rebellion rebel against the principle of global free trade at the time. Probably it was only the Communist revolution that stopped them paying off the debt to Western free trade.

You never know, China might be doing what Karl Marx called new economics - join and learn from the bourgoise capitalists till we are better than them at their own game then take them over in the name of socialism.

We possibly need to now keep an eye on Putin of Russia as well.

Possibly old Henry Kissinger might understand the tactics, seeing that history has had him working for both sides.
Posted by bushbred, Wednesday, 11 October 2006 4:41:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I,m not a strategic expert;

but i question this ethos: 'Second, it shows that the DPRK is a true loose cannon.'

To my way of thinking, DPRK have exhibited phenomonal restraint and discipline. Modelled on Mao no doubt. So, to that end they have arrived at where they are at. As I said to ol mate the other day, whilst we are open societies, they can come in and take what they want. Yet we can't go and readily look at them.

This leaves us in two places, isolated and ignorant. Ala Afhanaistan (i think). I have then to ask:

What makes the DPRK act all paranoid and schitzophrenic (ala Cambodia during the potty era?) Are they really on the loose, or contained? And finally, to follow the thread herein, 'you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you'; is Uncle Mac the real threat to DPRK (and can it be rescinded), or should we just let throphic cascade take its course?

Rev: 17:13
Posted by Gadget, Wednesday, 11 October 2006 5:18:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Indirectly, though, Washington bears some of the responsibility."

I'd argue it bears a great deal more than 'some'. For 6 years Bush has goaded NK by nominating it as part of his axis of evil; by tossing out a Clinton agreement to supply reactor technology in return for NK dropping its nuclear program; by publicly stating he loathes Kim; and by saying NK can have either a nuclear bomb OR a future, but not both. Apart from this he still refuses to rule out invading NK were they to drop their nuclear program.

In any case they now have what they wanted, so thanks to the dimwit in charge of world diplomacy, they're safe.
Posted by bennie, Wednesday, 11 October 2006 5:26:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Gadget, that verse was probably one of the best you could have offered. Clearly you have some deep insights that I was not aware of :)
Well done.

TRTL I don't think it is bluster. Its only bluster if he is not pushed past the point of doing something drastic. He has clearly and unmistakebly said "If you do this or that, it is a declaration of war"...well.. so be it.
Call his bluff. but be ready to act (in a final/terminal way) if he is not bluffing.

NK is bound to China by 'treaty' so we would be possibly looking at ICBM threat to achieve this. Yes.. its a nightmare I know, but will it become less of a potential nightmare as time goes by ?
Personally, I think China would back down if push came to shove, their economy is too intertwined with the world.

Bennie.. that reactor technology was in fact 'extortion money' to keep the Korean thugs away from the clear path of Nuclear confrontation which we have now arrived at anyway.

Why did the US offer it ? "So NK would cease their Nuclear program."

Why did NK want a Nuclear program ? "So they can make Nuclear Weapons"

Why do they want Nuclear Weapons ? "So they can further blackmail the West in general and the USA in particular... to keep paying them the protection money they feel they deserve."

If they simply abandoned the Nuclear ambitions, and became good world citizens, the world would embrace them. but that.... THAT would threaten lil Kimmies private fiefdom... which he, the 'Great Leader' does not want. Well.. tough for him.

Does anyone truly think that Kim Jong Ill would even bother to think of human casualties in a war scenario ? Of course not. "I'll turn Seoul into a fire storm" or something.

This man and his army should be taken out, killed, executed, finished.

I've advised president Bush of this :) (and his office replied)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 12 October 2006 4:45:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One of Kim’s main goals in so aggressively displaying North Korea’s missile capacity is to compel the United States to deal directly with him, thereby making his otherwise weakening state seem stronger. And the stronger Pyongyang appears to be, the better off it is in its crucial dealings with Beijing, which are what really matter to Kim.

To Kim’s sure dismay, the American response to his recent missile tests was a shrug.

The long-term success of America’s basic policy on the peninsula hinges on the willingness of South Koreans to make a significant sacrifice, at some point, for the sake of freedom in the North. But sacrifice is not a word that voters in free and prosperous societies tend to like. If voters in Western-style democracies are good at anything, it’s rationalizing their own selfishness—and it may turn out that the authoritarian Chinese understand the voters of South Korea’s free and democratic society better than the Americans. The North’s demise may be carefully managed by Beijing in such a way that the country will go from being a rogue nation to a de facto satellite of the Middle Kingdom—but one with sufficient contact with the South that the Korean yearning for a measure of reunification will be satisfied.

Here’s the common sense option (much more sensible than the military strike option): Robert Collins, a retired Army master sergeant and now a civilian area expert for the American military in South Korea, outlined for me seven phases of collapse in the North (currently, were in phase 3).

Phase One: resource depletion;

Phase Two: the failure to maintain infrastructure around the country because of resource depletion;

Phase Three: the rise of independent fiefs informally controlled by local party apparatchiks or warlords, along with widespread corruption to circumvent a failing central government;

Phase Four: the attempted suppression of these fiefs by the KFR (Kim Family Regime) once it feels that they have become powerful enough;

Phase Five: active resistance against the central government;

Phase Six: the fracture of the regime; and

Phase Seven: the formation of new national leadership
Posted by relda, Thursday, 12 October 2006 5:55:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy