North Korea celebrates the fourth

[Uncle Larry]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- North Korea launched a long-range Taepodong-2 missile early Wednesday in an apparently unsuccessful test that failed in flight, a senior State Department official said. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/07/04/korea.missile/index.html)

[Charles]

Maybe they were just very big fireworks in honor of the US?

[mandarin]

Or maybe the tests weren't a failure after all. Here's some congressional record from a guy talking about EMPs: http://cryptome.org/bartlett-060905.txt

Key quote in reference to missile tests:


Iran has conducted tests with its Shahab-3 missile that have been described as failures by the Western media because the missiles did not complete their ballistic trajectories, but were deliberately exploded at high altitude. This, of course, would be exactly what you would want to do if you were going to use an EMP weapon.
Food for thought!

[Uncle Larry]

Or maybe we shot it down with our magic microwave cannon. WHO KNOWS.

The real story is that the test even happened. What a bunch of dicks, these North Koreans.

[Destarius]

Just participated in a poll at CNN to see what reader response was like to a question posed by CNN on the best way to handle the crisis caused by NK's missile test.

Of 1421 votes at the time of my results, 19% voted for ignoring Pyong Yang, 6% to give them money, 35% sanctions/embargoes, and 40% military action.

Let's just say that I'm more than a little surprised that the majority response is some sort of military strike.

edit: link (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/07/05/korea.missile/index.html)

[Theodore Rex DX]

So what do we do?

[Brad Grenz]

Look, we've spent 473 Billion dollars off the books building the Omega 3 Doomsday Laser on the north pole of the Moon. It's about time we use it for something other than whitening teeth.

[foogla]

Nuke The Site From Orbit (with the Military Shuttle).

[Glenn]

Is there any reason to actually care? The Soviets fired off missiles constantly throughout the Cold War. In addition to the fact that it doesn't actually do anything, it's a great way to learn all about how their technology is progressing.

[TheWombat]

Heh, if it goes like most of the stuff goes with North Korea, there'll be all sorts of teeth gnashing, Pyongyang will fire off a few more squibs, folks will jabber behind closed doors, a deal will be struck wherein the North Koreans stop shooting off crappy missiles in return for more talks, which will put us...right back where we were before the 4th, stalled on the nuclear issue.

Really, what else can you do? Pyongyang's policy, if you can call it that, seems to be to use the fear they inspire (in the South Koreans, the Japanese, and the Americans) of a rogue regime capable of frying millions in Seoul, to get whatever concessions or supplies they need to get by with their weird Stalinist fairyland society. Military options range from bad to worse, and there seems to be no usuable "stick" to force them into doing things our way, and little in the way of "carrots" that they won't get eventually via blackmail.

[Glenn]

Of 1421 votes at the time of my results, 19% voted for ignoring Pyong Yang, 6% to give them money, 35% sanctions/embargoes, and 40% military action.
Excellent idea. Because Pyongyang would be so upset if we cut off food aid and their populace started starving.

[MikeSofaer]

The new missile can reach Tokyo. Right now the Japanese high command is dusting off the plans for their first nuclear weapon.

[Brian Rucker]

Live chat with N. Korea expert at the Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/07/05/DI2006070500570.html

[Uncle Larry]

Nuke The Site From Orbit (with the Military Shuttle).

http://www.tema.ru/travel/choson-1/_MG_0350.jpg
http://www.tema.ru/travel/choson-4/__MG_0005.jpg

Would they even notice?

[Brian Rucker]

Clearly, we have to do something. I suggest we invade Iraq to make a point that we won't tolerate rogue states creating weapons of mass destruction. Hey, while we're at it we'll help them create a democracy. That will burn the Axis of Evil something fierce! I'll bet we'll see a freely elected Palestinian government in no time that wants to play ball too.

...

[Uncle Larry]

Clearly, we have to do something. I suggest we invade Iraq to make a point that we won't tolerate rogue states creating weapons of mass destruction. Hey, while we're at it we'll help them create a democracy. That will burn the Axis of Evil something fierce! I'll bet we'll see a freely elected Palestinian government in no time that wants to play ball too.

...

Who are you replying to? Also, from your expert guy:


Anonymous: Isn't the Korean War still going on? Did the North ever sign the treaty?

Michael O'Hanlon: Yes it is ongoing

No the North did not sign any treaty on peace (though it did sign 3 on nuclear weapons that it has since violated)

[Brian Rucker]

Oh, I was just rambling with irony and bitterness.

Got a question of mine answered too:

Richmond, Va.: Do we really have a functional missile defense system? I seem to remember professionals back in the 80s thinking Reagan's "Star Wars" was more of a meal ticket for contractors rather than something that could work.

Is what we have today any more substantive?

Michael O'Hanlon: $100 billion later, yes it is better, but in tests the type we'd need to use here only has a 50-50 track record--and that's for tests in which we know the trajectory of the missile in advance.

[Charles]

http://www.tema.ru/travel/choson-1/_MG_0350.jpg
http://www.tema.ru/travel/choson-4/__MG_0005.jpg


Those are Chernobyl pictures, aren't they?

They always manage to give me the creeps.

[Linoleum]

No, that's the capital of North Korea.

During the day.

[instant0]

Does'nt North Korea have some of the best city environments in terms of pollution and also a lush wildlife & wilderness due to the fact that so few people have cars and other polluting appliances?

Somehow when I see all these Nkorea pictures I want to play Mercenaries. :-)

[shift6]

Since we're basically ignoring international law and such, why not use this time to assassinate the fucker. Give me a mouse/keyboard interface and a clone of 47 and they'll find that bitch with strangle marks (probably caused by a fiber wire) in the morning.

[ElGuapo]

Does'nt North Korea have some of the best city environments in terms of pollution and also a lush wildlife & wilderness due to the fact that so few people have cars and other polluting appliances?

Somehow when I see all these Nkorea pictures I want to play Mercenaries. :-)


/I think the exact. same. thing.

Muhahahahah, I'm such a gamer.

[Charles]

No, that's the capital of North Korea.

During the day.


Holy fucking crap. Looking closer at the pictures I see people but... holy fucking creepy batman.

[Brian Rucker]

You guys aren't alone. I hear NK and I think Mercenaries. Check out the transcript of the live chat. Seems the North Koreans really are that into tunnels and underground fortifications.

[bigdruid]

Let's just say that I'm more than a little surprised that the majority response is some sort of military strike.


Yeah, I was surprised when out of the blue my Darling Wife was advocating pre-emptive strikes against the DPRK. You can thank the alarmist articles on Yahoo, I guess.

[Toddy]

Just participated in a poll at CNN to see what reader response was like to a question posed by CNN on the best way to handle the crisis caused by NK's missile test.

Of 1421 votes at the time of my results, 19% voted for ignoring Pyong Yang, 6% to give them money, 35% sanctions/embargoes, and 40% military action.

Let's just say that I'm more than a little surprised that the majority response is some sort of military strike.

edit: link (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/07/05/korea.missile/index.html)

Why? Too many people are shrugging like this was some kind of harmless test. Uh, you guys do realize that North Korea essentially fired these missiles in the general direction of Japan, with no real idea where they would actually land, right?

The guys who pushed the button must have known that they didn't have a clue where their missiles would come down. But hey, Sea of Japan, Tokyo, San Francisco -- it's all good! Bush made Kim do this with his Axis of Evil speech! He wasn't given a choice!

[Unicorn McGriddle]

Attention Brett Todd: North Korea is not Islamic.

You may now stand down from red alert.

[Destarius]

Why? Too many people are shrugging like this was some kind of harmless test. Uh, you guys do realize that North Korea essentially fired these missiles in the general direction of Japan, with no real idea where they would actually land, right?

Well, I would even add that one of their earlier tests took their missile OVER Japan, right?

I'm actually commenting on the numbers, I thought that after Iraq, people would have been a little less eager on the military option. Any military option just absolutely has to neutralise Kim, otherwise he'll probably go apeshit and cross the 38th.

[deccan]

Just participated in a poll at CNN to see what reader response was like to a question posed by CNN on the best way to handle the crisis caused by NK's missile test.

Of 1421 votes at the time of my results, 19% voted for ignoring Pyong Yang, 6% to give them money, 35% sanctions/embargoes, and 40% military action.

Let's just say that I'm more than a little surprised that the majority response is some sort of military strike.

edit: link (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/07/05/korea.missile/index.html)

What? No "strongly worded letter" option?

[bago]

How many of the US's rocket exploded before orbit at the beginning of our space program? The North Koreans are learning that rocket science is hard, and anyone smart enough to do it has already skipped the country.

[JeffL]

The scary thing today is that, during the Cold War, the leaders with nukes might have been "bad guys" but they were sane. Now we've got total nut jobs like this guy in North Korea that is certifiably cuckoo's nest crazy, and wacko's like the Iranian leaders. I've been to North Korea, and even under the constant, watchful eye of your "keepers" 24 hours a day, you can still see how spooky the place is. You can't even find a bug, because people are so starving they eat anything that moves. Their god-leader, who says and believes he came to earth on the wings of some birds, is completely disassociated with reality and might believe dropping a big missile on Japan will make him king of the world. I don't have a clue how you deal with a guy like that, who's killing millions of his own people via starvation and tossing missiles around, but if there was ever a time for some world leader to have an "accident", this is the time and guy.

[Uncle Larry]

how the hell did I do that? Double post!

[Uncle Larry]

Japanese newspaper says long-range missile was aimed at Hawaii. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10390199)

No one else is carrying this story just yet, although it's not like it's a really far-fetched scenario.

The country's "exercise of its legitimate right as a sovereign state is neither bound to any international law nor to bilateral or multilateral agreements," a Foreign Ministry spokesman said, according to the state-run news agency KCNA. "The (Korean People's Army) will go on with missile launch exercises as part of its efforts to bolster deterrent for self-defense in the future, too."

Pyongyang also warned countries against interference.

North Korea "will have no option but to take stronger physical actions of other forms, should any other country dare take issue with the exercises and put pressure upon it," the spokesman said in Pyongyang's first official comment since test-firing the missiles on Wednesday. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/07/06/korea.missile.us/index.html)

THEY SEEM LIKE REASONABLE PEOPLE.

Chinese President Hu Jintao said in a phone conversation with Bush that he is opposed to any action "that would threaten peace and stability" on the Korean peninsula, White House press secretary Tony Snow told reporters.

Any action? Does "firing missiles at my country" count? I need a ruling here, mister China!

[Andrew Mayer]

There is a total foreign policy collapse in this administration.

Even the conservatives are noticing (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/05/AR2006070501634.html):

North Korea is firing missiles. Iran is going nuclear. Somalia is controlled by radical Islamists. Iraq isn't getting better, and Afghanistan is getting worse," said William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and a leading conservative commentator. "I give the president a lot of credit for hanging tough on Iraq. But I am worried that it has made them too passive in confronting the other threats

I'd also argue that "hanging tough on Iraq" is the cause of a great deal of these problems, but why pick nits when the whole thing is falling apart?

[Jason McCullough]

The scary thing today is that, during the Cold War, the leaders with nukes might have been "bad guys" but they were sane. Now we've got total nut jobs like this guy in North Korea that is certifiably cuckoo's nest crazy, and wacko's like the Iranian leaders. I've been to North Korea, and even under the constant, watchful eye of your "keepers" 24 hours a day, you can still see how spooky the place is. You can't even find a bug, because people are so starving they eat anything that moves. Their god-leader, who says and believes he came to earth on the wings of some birds, is completely disassociated with reality and might believe dropping a big missile on Japan will make him king of the world. I don't have a clue how you deal with a guy like that, who's killing millions of his own people via starvation and tossing missiles around, but if there was ever a time for some world leader to have an "accident", this is the time and guy.

It's got to be convenient that every single fucking time we find a new enemy, they're crazy! Not like the last guy, who we said was totally batshit crazy at the time, but actually turned out to be deterable rational! The USSR, Korea, China, North Vietnam, Iraq, Iran, North Korea.....

[Uncle Larry]

Is KJI not crazy, Jason? It's not like admitting that will turn you into Bill Bennett or anything. Every "new" enemy (NK: only recently at odds with the US?) doesn't have nuclear weapons and isn't currently testing delivery vehicles for said weapons (allegedly) at our country.

[Andrew Mayer]

Was he crazy last year, or the year before? Or is he just crazy now?

Was he crazy when we decided to fuck up the deterrance that was working and start pretending it wasn't?

Were we crazy when we decided to alienate the allies who could deal with him?

I'm so confused.

[Toddy]

Who said the Soviets were crazy? Funny, I remember a lot of fear and a lot of laughing at the Soviet claims that they invented everything, but no comments that they were certifiable. Most people credited the Soviets with enough sanity not to push the button or send the tanks into Western Europe. Same deal with the Chinese, the Vietnamese, etc. Dangerous, sure. Nuts? Well, not so much.

North Korea, OTOH, is ruled by a guy who is starving his citizens to fire missiles at the sea. Yet this thread immediately degenerated into more blaming the Bush administration for this and every other problem on the globe. I mean, some of these posts are hilarious. NK fires a bunch of missiles in the general direction of Japan and we get an Andrew Mayer bleat about how the foreign policy in Washington sucks and a standard piece of McCullough stupidity apparently claiming that NK is just suffering from bad PR or something.

Jesus. What a forum this is.

[Destarius]

North Korea, OTOH, is ruled by a guy who is starving his citizens to fire missiles at the sea. Yet this thread immediately degenerated into more blaming the Bush administration for this and every other problem on the globe. I mean, some of these posts are hilarious. NK fires a bunch of missiles in the general direction of Japan and we get an Andrew Mayer bleat about how the foreign policy in Washington sucks and a standard piece of McCullough stupidity apparently claiming that NK is just suffering from bad PR or something.

Yes, it sure does look that way, doesn't it?

NK's foreign policy has always been one of brinksmanship and irrational attention-seeking. They can test missiles, but choosing to test missiles over or towards someone else's country is just intentionally raising tensions. I don't see things being any different whether Bush, Gore or Michael Moore were POTUS.

[Toddy]

Was he crazy last year, or the year before? Or is he just crazy now?

Was he crazy when we decided to fuck up the deterrance that was working and start pretending it wasn't?

Were we crazy when we decided to alienate the allies who could deal with him?

I'm so confused.

Who in the sweet fucking fuck could EVER deal with North Korea? The nation has been a pariah for over 50 years. There are no "allies" to deal with him. With this latest bit of lunacy, Kim is even ignoring his pals in Beijing. And what fucking deterrence? The North Koreans illegally worked on building nukes through the entire 1990s. They're not interested in making any deals; they're interested in fleecing suckers like you, who want appeasement at all costs, and then doing whatever the hell they want behind closed doors until they're ready to deploy the missiles. Just like Iran.

You got the confusion part right, though.

[Andrew Mayer]

But how is no plan a plan?

We had the crazy fucker under some kind of containment, and then a bunch of idiots who have no fucking clue decide to go look for their lost content lens over in Iraq where the light is brighter.

And we've handed Somalia over to the religious extremists while we were at it.

And the bleat goes on baby...

[Jason McCullough]

Is KJI not crazy, Jason? It's not like admitting that will turn you into Bill Bennett or anything. Every "new" enemy (NK: only recently at odds with the US?) doesn't have nuclear weapons and isn't currently testing delivery vehicles for said weapons (allegedly) at our country.

I have no idea whether he's crazy, but I've learned not to trust the movement conversatives who say he is. They've gotten all of our past enemies wrong. None of them were crazy enough to commit suicide by nuking us. Lots of them either had or were getting nukes. If, say, Brent Scrowcroft says they're crazy, I'll believe they're crazy.

Who said the Soviets were crazy?

In the specific context under discussion here - "is North Korea too crazy a state to be deterrable through the normal rules of nuclear weapons possession" - the movement conservatives (Birchers, goldwater, etc.) from the 1940s literally until the end of the cold war didn't really think the USSR was deterrable.

Who in the sweet fucking fuck could EVER deal with North Korea?

China? They've continually dealt with them since the Korean war and apparently can get what they want. China's not stopping them because they don't want to; at the moment it's to their advantage.

.....a standard piece of McCullough stupidity apparently claiming that NK is just suffering from bad PR or something.

As someone who's actually a US citizen who could die over this, either through nuclear detonation or getting drafted: Fuck you. United States foreign policy doesn't exist to slaughter people for your knee-jerk irrational fears and hand waving about CRAZY!!!!!

[Destarius]

The only problem is, Jason, that inaction can cost lives as well. The question is always about when is a good time to intervene, and unfortunately, you can never demonstrably prove that you did, in fact, pick a good time i.e. if you militarily intervene to prevent event A, you may never be able to satisfactorily establish to your critics that event A would have happened. What then is the criteria for intervention?

If there is a 10% chance that Kim will use nukes as soon as he will get them, would you invade? Keep in mind if he does get nukes, invasion is no longer a viable option, and people are just going to die by the millions. How reliable does intel have to be before you will move? How much risk is acceptable? How about a 1% chance? It's a morbid weighing of more or less signing the death warrants of brave soldiers to prevent a greater evil. Some will be more reserved (like you, I would presume) before making the decision to commit troops. JFK made a great decision during the missile crisis not to escalate to remove what appeared to be an imminent threat, but had Chamberlain decided on active military support in Europe, would WWII have happened?

I'm not really taking sides, just want to put up some food for thought. The same reasoning applies to just about any other dictator or crisis. No one has perfect intel except until after the fact. The mushroom cloud over Seoul, for example, would be perfect intel that Kim had nukes and desire to use them.

To me, Kim is eccentric and entirely unpredictable. You can see that from the way he runs his country, and the way the internal propaganda machine is built. People are starving and he's feeding his military machine and launching missiles against no real military threats. There's absolutely no serious threat against NK at all, he's just making it all up, and he continues to do so.

Here's something which was in really bad taste, but I just felt morbidly compelled to share: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar96ZHL0eaQ&mode=related&search=jong-il

[extarbags]

Why? Too many people are shrugging like this was some kind of harmless test. Uh, you guys do realize that North Korea essentially fired these missiles in the general direction of Japan, with no real idea where they would actually land, right?

The guys who pushed the button must have known that they didn't have a clue where their missiles would come down. But hey, Sea of Japan, Tokyo, San Francisco -- it's all good! Bush made Kim do this with his Axis of Evil speech! He wasn't given a choice!

You're a lunatic. There are plenty of reasons to be concerned about this, but "shit what if their test missile accidentally hit somebody" is not one of them.

[JeffL]

It's got to be convenient that every single fucking time we find a new enemy, they're crazy! Not like the last guy, who we said was totally batshit crazy at the time, but actually turned out to be deterable rational! The USSR, Korea, China, North Vietnam, Iraq, Iran, North Korea.....

Jason, no one every said that Ho Chi Minh, Kruschev, Mao, Saddam etc. were literally crazy. Maybe really bad people, but not literally crazy. C'mon, go do your own research: this guy in North Korea is certifiable.

[Brian Rucker]

Here's my problem and I think it's a problem alot of people share with me.

We get that North Korea is a surreal dictatorship, possessing nukes, run by someone who certainly likes to be seen as an unpredictable madman, and very much a potential threat to at least Japan and South Korea. (Although many South Koreans actually are more wary and resentful of us than them, especially younger Koreans).

What we have a problem with is our leadership. Look, we have a track record of incompetence and dishonesty from these guys. That's inarguable. Their policies are demonstrably not working. Krystol may want to hang all the blame on Rumsfeld's technical execution but the real problem is the whole ideology. We've got most of the world looking at us as the biggest threat to international stability. Not Iran. Not North Korea. How the fuck did that happen?

We're stuck with these morons for another two years. And for the next two years we're going to have all the weasels in the world rushing to exploit our international impotence. Obviously, the public isn't going to support another unilateral preemptive action like Iraq and the generals in the Pentagon would probably start dropping bombs on the White House and Capitol themselves. So military action isn't going to be seen as a credible option.

You don't get the sense that Iran or North Korea is even slightly worried about it. They look at Iraq (and increasingly Afghanistan) and chuckle.

But long term, yes, because of our new willful belligerence they're going to try had make sure they do have the nukes Iraq didn't to deter us and, worse in the case of North Korea, blackmail us. And Japan for that matter.

So I'm stuck here wondering how to deal with North Korea. I tend to agree that China, by and large, isn't going to mess much with them. They don't want an economic collapse there and a destabilized border situation. A flood of refugees. Yes, also, it gives China a bargaining chip with the U.S. At the same time China doesn't want to give the U.S. an excuse to invade which would essentially create the same problem or worse.

So the six-part talks are fucked. Two-party talks seem to be out (and given the blackmail angle here that doesn't seem entirely unreasonable but knowedgable experts say different things about this). And because Doofus McGee thinks the phrase "slam dunk" is a substitute for his own good judgement a thorough military option is very unlikely as is any serious international solidary that would include China or Russia.

All I can say is two years can't pass quickly enough. And I hope to god this country can produce a leader good enough to dig us out of this insanely deep hole we're getting outselves in.

[MikeJ]

Jason, no one every said that Ho Chi Minh, Kruschev, Mao, Saddam etc. were literally crazy. Maybe really bad people, but not literally crazy. C'mon, go do your own research: this guy in North Korea is certifiable.

Now I definitely remember the phrase "Insane Hussein" popping up on CNN at some point. Even here, I'm sure there was talk about how Saddam was so delusional about his military capabilities that he couldn't be deterred.

[TheWombat]

I would say that, by "first world" standards, the North Korean regime has but a tenuous grasp on reality, and in the vernacular, yeah, is crazy. I'm not sure that everyone everywhere feels quite the same way, as many folks are pretty strong believers that nations should be free to pretty much order their affairs as they see fit--though admittedly, North Korea is a very hard sell on any level.

But Kim isn't crazy in one respect--his policies work for <i>him</i>. He's been in power for years, and there's no domestic threat to his control. His cult of personality (or whatever you want to call it) has ensured his continued hold on power, and who knows, maybe that's all he really cares about? It's inhuman, and it's disturbing, but it's weirdly rational from a very evil, very selfish perspective. And despite the amazingly awful rhetoric coming out of the North on a fairly regular basis, they've restricted themselves to mostly verbal sorties from their fortress land--they play to the brink, but not over it.

We're very right, though, to be concerned because Pyongyang has demonstrated what we can fairly call instability in its foreign policy, and its brinksmanship always carries with it the danger of falling over the edge. We are limited though in our options. Military action is, in my opinion, pretty much a non-starter unless absolutely forced by North Korean actions of such severity that they leave us no other option--such as an attack on the South, or an actual warshot against someone in the region. Pre-emptive attacks don't strike me as much of an option. North Korea is a very hard target.

North Korea has a big military (of unknown and admittedly suspect effectiveness), very good fortifications and bunkers, a ruthless and unpredictable leadership, and rugged terrain. We don't have the men to take them on without South Korea doing much of the grunt work, and that's rather unlikely to happen in a first-strike situation. Airpower can't do the job--it would only make them pretty certain to retaliate. We might be able to find and hit some of the nuclear facilities, and the missile sites, but not all, and not with total effectiveness. And that would still leave the hundreds of thousands of regular troops to deal with. Maybe they'd be fodder for the US and ROK forces but not before many, many civilians in the South (and North) would die.

Doing nothing carries many risks, that's true. But doing "something" just for the sake of doing something is perhaps even riskier. No one yet has come up with what I consider a rational play to "do" something, other than continue talking. Kill Kim? In the current situation, that could either spark a war, an internal collapse which would probably kill off hundreds of thousands, or maybe create the chance for a real change--the odds are pretty scary for that kind of bet (not to mention the fallout with the Chinese if we managed to nail the North Korean leadership). Attack the North? With what, against what targets? How do you handle the response--artillery pounding into Seoul would do a lot of political, economic, and physical damage before you could stop it, for instance.

Seems to me that the policy of getting the regional powers and the UN involved to progressively isolate NK even more, while holding out ways for them to avoid the last stages of desperation, might be the only way to gradually ease this situation down until divine providence pushes Kim down a flight of stairs or something.

[JeffL]

Here's my problem and I think it's a problem alot of people share with me.

We get that North Korea is a surreal dictatorship, possessing nukes, run by someone who certainly likes to be seen as an unpredictable madman, and very much a potential threat to at least Japan and South Korea. (Although many South Koreans actually are more wary and resentful of us than them, especially younger Koreans).

What we have a problem with is our leadership. Look, we have a track record of incompetence and dishonesty from these guys. That's inarguable. Their policies are demonstrably not working. Krystol may want to hang all the blame on Rumsfeld's technical execution but the real problem is the whole ideology. We've got most of the world looking at us as the biggest threat to international stability. Not Iran. Not North Korea. How the fuck did that happen?



Brian, I don't know what the right answer is either. But seriously, do you think the leader of North Korea was worried about what the U.S. would do militarily when Clinton was in office?

Personally, I'd take the approach of taking advantage of how horrible their economy is, the millions starving to death, and show how we could make him an internation hero by turning his economy around and feeding his people. Show him how he could have a legacy of the man that saved his country, show him how we could help him be a shining example for the rest of the world, how he could be someone on the cover of magazines as "The Man Who Saved A Country", etc. Feed that ego in a way that focuses on his economy, with a substantial, sustainable multi-year plan. Clinton made a half-assed stab at it by sending Carter over and signing agreements where we said we'd send money for food if he'd quit building nukes and intercontinental missiles, but we know how well that worked. But perhaps some plan that he believes will make him more famous and well loved, etc. with some meat behind it, for example let us send over economic experts and leaders who've shown they know how to build businesses and economies.

[Brian Rucker]

Man, that Clinton guy was so insane he'd go to war over human rights and had the stones to say it was about human rights. Look at Kosovo or, less successfully, Somalia. No oil there, folks. And I'd press that line of thought further but for Rwanda. So, Clinton doesn't get the "walks the talk" award either.

Look, Clinton did get North Korea to stop doing its most efficient and dangerous enrichment programs. Yes, they cheated and found another way to do something similiar. Still, seems to me at least that Presidency was proactively engaged and trying to get a productive result. This one, hell, they hired Yosemite Sam as their UN representative. That's fucking brilliant. Like the world wasn't already inclined to give us the finger.

So what kind of pressure can we level on North Korea with the world looking on us increasingly as a power out of control ourselves? Ask Russia and China to puhlease do something about the situation? Yeah, read the headlines. That's going to work.

Say what you will about Clinton but I don't think he'd have landed us in Iraq and Iraq is really the problem here. As long as we're in there and the crew who got us into this mess and executed it as poorly as they did are running this country and this military, nobody in the world is going to rush to offer us more than lip service for any action. Iran, North Korea - the plan of our allies is going to be to stall until someone else is behind the wheel of the United States and our enemies will just keep taunting and using Bush as a recruiting poster for their own causes.

[JeffL]

Brian, I edited my message while you posted - I'll add that I don't agree that Iraq is the problem. And Clinton was impressive enough that he convinced Bin Ladin that all we would do in response to a major attack was run away.

And another edit - don't mistake me, I am not a fan of Bush and think complex issues like this are really beyond his simplistic view of the world. I just see North Korea as a problem that has been brewing for many years, and we've done nothing substantial nor effective during that time.

[TheWombat]

Personally, I'd take the approach of taking advantage of how horrible their economy is, the millions starving to death, and show how we could make him an internation hero by turning his economy around and feeding his people. Show him how he could have a legacy of the man that saved his country, show him how we could help him be a shining example for the rest of the world, how he could be someone on the cover of magazines as "The Man Who Saved A Country", etc. Feed that ego in a way that focuses on his economy, with a substantial, sustainable multi-year plan. Clinton made a half-assed stab at it by sending Carter over and signing agreements where we said we'd send money for food if he'd quit building nukes and intercontinental missiles, but we know how well that worked. But perhaps some plan that he believes will make him more famous and well loved, etc. with some meat behind it, for example let us send over economic experts and leaders who've shown they know how to build businesses and economies.

Not a bad approach, if we could get over having to, gulp, deal with this guy we've labled a madman. He's probably a loon, true, by most standards, but I'd agree it's better to (if possible) deal with a loon than fight him.

[Jason McCullough]

Jason, no one every said that Ho Chi Minh, Kruschev, Mao, Saddam etc. were literally crazy. Maybe really bad people, but not literally crazy. C'mon, go do your own research: this guy in North Korea is certifiable.

Not literally crazy, no, but as I pointed out above "bloodthirsty, doesn't care about human life at all, undeterrable" diagnoses were all the rage. I'm not buying it from the crowd in charge, or relying on the clusterfuck media.

People are starving and he's feeding his military machine and launching missiles against no real military threats. There's absolutely no serious threat against NK at all, he's just making it all up, and he continues to do so.

The president of the United States has announced North Korea is in the Axis of Evil. He's explictly said he has "a visceral dislike" of Kim, has openly called for his overthrow, and keeps leaking stories to the press about military options against North Korea. He's already invaded another country in the list.

It doesn't excuse anything the bastards do, but strawman arguments about how the world just wants to love Kim if only he'd stop starving people are ridiculous.

[Ben]

Rucker- We went into Somalia under Bush I.

[Lum]

But how is no plan a plan?

We had the crazy fucker under some kind of containment, and then a bunch of idiots who have no fucking clue decide to go look for their lost content lens over in Iraq where the light is brighter.

And we've handed Somalia over to the religious extremists while we were at it.

And the bleat goes on baby...

Wrong on both counts.

We never had North Korea "contained". North Korea has done their own thing ever since 1950 when they invaded the south without letting their Chinese buddies in on it. The only state that has remotely any leverage on them at all is China, and China is terrified that if North Korea collapses into anarchy Manchuria will be flooded with hungry Korean refugees.

Clinton's policy of negotiation was well-intentioned, but assumed that North Korea was a rational state that would honor its own treaties. This has been disproven many times over. "Oh, yeah, we were actually working on nuclear weapons production the entire time. Our bad. Give us more money and we'll stop. Maybe."

Even if you don't take into account the undisputed fact that North Korea is the most murderous, insane and out-and-out evil government on earth and has been since Pol Pot got chased into the jungle, expecting diplomacy to have any effect at all on North Korea is batty. Unfortunately, any other options are about as ineffective; military strikes would have little effect save provoking the destruction of Seoul by artillery fire, and economic blockades, while probably more effective, would be undermined by China in the interest of preventing a DPRK collapse.

As for Somalia - we didn't exactly "hand it over" to anyone. You assume that anyone owned the place to "hand over" in the first place. The "religious extremists" took over Mogadishu because the residents got really, really tired of living in sub-feudal anarchy for a decade. The CIA made some really dopey calls in who to hand out guns to, but that just hasted the inevitable end. Ironically, the same scenario is also what brought about the Taliban in Afghanistan. Yay for history repeating itself!

Americans often have a problem with realizing that many really, really bad problems in the world are not ones that we can solve.

[Uncle Larry]

There's no scenario I can imagine where anyone, anywhere on this planet, would for any reason invade North Korea, even if they didn't have nukes. Sure, W would love to bomb the fuck out of them if he could, but invade? We have enough abandoned nuclear missile silos sititng around to construct our own North Korea, with twice the charm(and about 20X the infrastructure).

[Andrew Mayer]

Our President defines diplomacy (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060707/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush;_ylt=AgrkXDeF.kpnq.dbX35W6KWs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMT A2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--):

You're watching the diplomacy work not only in North Korea but in Iran. And it's, kind of — you know, it's kind of painful in a way for some to watch, because it takes a while to get people on the same page.

Not everybody thinks the exact same way we think. Different words mean different things to different people. And the diplomatic processes can be slow and cumbersome.

Read the whole article and then lets meet back here and talk about crazy again.

[Uncle Larry]

Done! Standard struggle of Bush vs. English but noticably absent was the part where we threaten another country with "anihilation" while we demand that same country submit to bilateral talks. It's hard to swallow, I know, but we really *aren't* as bad as the other guy in this instance.

Wait, didn't you just agree he was crazy a few posts ago?

We had the crazy fucker under some kind of containment, and then a bunch of idiots who have no fucking clue decide to go look for their lost content lens over in Iraq where the light is brighter.

I mean, I don't mind if you have to kick sand in Bush's vagina in every instance that you otherwise concede the talking point, do what feels right man. But however inept our current goverment may be has no bearing on how batshit fucking insane KJI has always been. Although I guess I'll have to wait until Jan '09 when he test fires missiles on President Biden's watch for us to truly see eye to eye on it.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

Tee hee, President Biden. In whose dreams apart from Biden's own does THAT scenario take place?

[Uncle Larry]

Well, mine for now.

[Toddy]

You're a lunatic. There are plenty of reasons to be concerned about this, but "shit what if their test missile accidentally hit somebody" is not one of them.

Classy as always.

LOL Tell that to the Japanese. You do realize that the North Koreans fired a test missile in 1998 that went right OVER Japan, right. They claim it was supposed to be a satellite, but nobody outside of Pyongyang and your house believes it.

NK is firing this crap off with no real idea where it's going to land. That's why people in the region are so freaked out. Sure, even if one manages to hit land, chances are that nobody is going to get hurt. It's a billion to one shot. But that's not the point.

Tell, me how would you feel if the redneck next door to you started test-firing his new homemade shotgun in the general direction of your living-room window?

[Toddy]

As someone who's actually a US citizen who could die over this, either through nuclear detonation or getting drafted: Fuck you. United States foreign policy doesn't exist to slaughter people for your knee-jerk irrational fears and hand waving about CRAZY!!!!!

I'm also a US citizen (dual), with half of my family spread out from NY to IL to CA. And I live about six blocks from NY state. So, sorry, but I've got as much to lose as you do -- probably a hell of a lot more, given that you're in the Pacific Northwest.

Go fuck yourself, you batshit-crazy asshole. You're so lost in your left-vs.-right black/white view of the world that you've become totally divorced from reality. Tell me, when you ask people what the weather is like outside, do you grill them on their voting preferences before deciding whether or not to believe them?

I mean, come on -- seriously arguing about the sanity of the North Korean government? Wow. This is amazing, even for you. Why don't you post this kind of insanity over at Daily Kos? There you're sure to find even more lunatics to agree with your Chimpy McHitler crap.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

Hey Twosixteen!

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/2353/kingjack8qu.gif

[Uncle Larry]

Sigh.

[JeffL]

Biden is too politcally dumb to win the nomination. He's on the current Democratic "Indians are all 7/11/Gas Station attendents" kick that Hillary started with her comments that she saw Gandi working in a gas station down the road.

Really, some of these politicians just amaze me at the stupid comments they make in public, comments that your average person knows better than to make at their workplace.

[Jason McCullough]

So, sorry, but I've got as much to lose as you do -- probably a hell of a lot more, given that you're in the Pacific Northwest.

So now North Korea is going for shots over the pole to hit New York, rather than Alaska or Seattle?

It's good to hear that you actually are a US citizen on this; I guess have to give a smidgen of respect to your desire to shoot everyone who gives us problems, regardless of feasability.

[Rimbo]

My brother always has great insights into events like these.

He's laughing about it.

Consider this. In a Democratic society, the military competes with all of these other agencies for funding. In order to get that funding, they have to play up their threats. Dictators play into that, because they always overestimate their own capabilities. Also, democratic militaries have to prepare for the worst case scenario.

He shot down my idea that the missile was shot down. Aegis is designed just to do that, but no gun can hit a missile at 60k-70k feet. This thing just failed, and it's embarassing for NK. The scientists and engineers who spent all of that foreign aid money created something that didn't work; they and their families are probably already dead.

That's another one of the problems with these stalinist regimes; they keep killing off the people they need. The original Stalin killed off so many of his best generals in his Purges that when WW2 broke out, he didn't have any who could adequately fight the Germans.

Another thing he pointed out: Everyone read their history books about the Korean War and how that went. He doesn't think a lot of people recognize just how much the world changed since then. NK can't even wargame against us, because they have no concept of the kind of foe they'll face; we have entire fleets of jets that are completely invisible to their radar.

[Lum]

There's a book called "Through the Looking Glass (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0815764359/sr=8-1/qid=1152409154/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-1862494-1364961?ie=UTF8)" that, although 6 years old, has tons of insight into the workings of the DPRK and specifically why they do what they do.

Their analysis of how North Korea thinks they'd fight a war (which seems plausible to me:

Step 1: Flood over the border. Blow the holy crap out of Seoul. Don't bother to try to seize it, just move on around and surround it, while turning it into a smoking crater with artillery fire. Try to win the war through shock in the first couple of days.

Step 2: Fight deeper into South Korea, with an eye towards forcing a negotiated truce on their terms.

Step 3: Withdraw back into North Korea and arm millions of militiamen, and fight a guerilla war.

None of this is remotely feasible (South Korea's military would most likely stop the North Koreans close to the border, albeit still with a horrific cost in lives as Seoul becomes a war zone) but it's what they honestly believe they can do. The problem is that the NK military leaders still think they can refight the first Korean War and win it.

[Toddy]

Another thing he pointed out: Everyone read their history books about the Korean War and how that went. He doesn't think a lot of people recognize just how much the world changed since then. NK can't even wargame against us, because they have no concept of the kind of foe they'll face; we have entire fleets of jets that are completely invisible to their radar.

It's also essentially a one-man state. I know McCullough is already typing "Yeah, remember how they laid down rose petals for us in Baghdad?" But with NK, does anyone really think that the regime there would actually be willing and able to fight back? Just the prospect of reunification, getting families back together, and being able to, y'know, eat the odd meal would likely have 99% of the army laying down their weapons the moment the SK army and US crossed the border.

Of course, now that the long period of "containment" or whatever McCullough calls the Clinton-era appeasement is over and NK has a nuke or three, any such effort to remove Kim's paranoid, insane (hey, there's that word again!) regime would likely glow in the dark.

[Toddy]

There's a book called "Through the Looking Glass (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0815764359/sr=8-1/qid=1152409154/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-1862494-1364961?ie=UTF8)" that, although 6 years old, has tons of insight into the workings of the DPRK and specifically why they do what they do.

Their analysis of how North Korea thinks they'd fight a war (which seems plausible to me:

Step 1: Flood over the border. Blow the holy crap out of Seoul. Don't bother to try to seize it, just move on around and surround it, while turning it into a smoking crater with artillery fire. Try to win the war through shock in the first couple of days.

Step 2: Fight deeper into South Korea, with an eye towards forcing a negotiated truce on their terms.

Step 3: Withdraw back into North Korea and arm millions of militiamen, and fight a guerilla war.

None of this is remotely feasible (South Korea's military would most likely stop the North Koreans close to the border, albeit still with a horrific cost in lives as Seoul becomes a war zone) but it's what they honestly believe they can do. The problem is that the NK military leaders still think they can refight the first Korean War and win it.

Is the NK army in any shape to actually fight? I know it's big and all, and apparently indoctrinated, but it's horribly equipped and this is the modern world -- surely the word is out in the north about how great things are comparatively in the south. And you've gotta think that the morale is crap due to that whole never-ending drought thing, seeing as an army marches on its stomachs and all. The NK army probably couldn't rush into the south and do much of anything because it would have to forage for food after a day or two in the field.

[Toddy]

So now North Korea is going for shots over the pole to hit New York, rather than Alaska or Seattle?

It's good to hear that you actually are a US citizen on this; I guess have to give a smidgen of respect to your desire to shoot everyone who gives us problems, regardless of feasability.

Hey, anything's possible with Kim. Incidentally, there were rumors going around years ago that one of his plans was to nuke Montreal. By Kim's thinking, that would really the US's attention, but not piss the Americans off enough that they would nuke Pyongyang in return.

Of course, that is obviously right-wing propaganda, Kim is actually a fine statesman, blah, blah, blah.

[Lum]

Is the NK army in any shape to actually fight? I know it's big and all, and apparently indoctrinated, but it's horribly equipped and this is the modern world -- surely the word is out in the north about how great things are comparatively in the south. And you've gotta think that the morale is crap due to that whole never-ending drought thing, seeing as an army marches on its stomachs and all. The NK army probably couldn't rush into the south and do much of anything because it would have to forage for food after a day or two in the field.

The NK army is trained Soviet style - don't think, just march in one direction when prompted. Plus, they actually consistently are told they're already at war; visits by Kim to "front line installations" are painted as though he's a brave hero visiting troops under fire.

Also, no, the words is NOT out in the north about how things are better elsewhere. You may not quite get that North Korea is the most isolated and most propaganda-dosed land on the planet. They think everyone is starving and they're doing a little better because of the brilliance of the leadership. North Korean functionaries who visit the south sometimes accuse their counterparts of putting on a show, to which one responded that yes, it was all a show, and the many skyscrapers of Seoul were actually put on wheels and pushed into view.

People near the Chinese border are starting to filter back and forth, but the vast majority of North Koreans have no idea what South Korea is like, at all. Defectors remark that it's like setting foot in another planet.

After a week or so the conscripts might start melting away, yeah. But there would certainly be a good bit of carnage first.

[Uncle Larry]

Yeah, they're totally brainwashed. I don't think the conscripts would "melt away" without employing some sort of Godzilla-based attack, and even then it'd take a while for the news to reach the holdouts that dear leader didn't take the beast down with a suplex.

[Destarius]

Invading NK isn't going to be quite like Iraq. Given the terrain, I would quite confidently say that the technological advantage on the ground isn't quite as large as that achieved in Iraq.

[delirium]

Tee hee, President Biden. In whose dreams apart from Biden's own does THAT scenario take place?

Biden did the commencement at my graduation in the election year 2004. There's nothing more obnoxious than having a self-serving politician urge you to be successful in life and vote Democrat. He got boo-ed hardcore.

[Andrew Mayer]

It's also essentially a one-man state. I know McCullough is already typing "Yeah, remember how they laid down rose petals for us in Baghdad?" But with NK, does anyone really think that the regime there would actually be willing and able to fight back? Just the prospect of reunification, getting families back together, and being able to, y'know, eat the odd meal would likely have 99% of the army laying down their weapons the moment the SK army and US crossed the border.

I think your rosy prospect scenario is ridiculously unlikely as anything but right wing propoganda. Here's what you should of learned from Iraq: NO ONE likes having their sovereign nation invaded. NO COUNTRY is just going to roll over and let the invaders in.

Of course, now that the long period of "containment" or whatever McCullough calls the Clinton-era appeasement is over and NK has a nuke or three, any such effort to remove Kim's paranoid, insane (hey, there's that word again!) regime would likely glow in the dark.

Yeah. America is fucking great at big dumb military solutions.

Screw the South Koreans, lets unleash the nuclear genie! What Clinton did worked, because, as you clearly point out, they didn't have nukes. Which was the point.

America can't fight every war. Our army is breaking down, and we're trying to fix it by recruiting white supremacists and gang members. I'm sure it's ready to start policing the world any time now.

[Karen]

The scary thing today is that, during the Cold War, the leaders with nukes might have been "bad guys" but they were sane. Now we've got total nut jobs like this guy in North Korea that is certifiably cuckoo's nest crazy, and wacko's like the Iranian leaders. I've been to North Korea, and even under the constant, watchful eye of your "keepers" 24 hours a day, you can still see how spooky the place is. You can't even find a bug, because people are so starving they eat anything that moves. Their god-leader, who says and believes he came to earth on the wings of some birds, is completely disassociated with reality and might believe dropping a big missile on Japan will make him king of the world. I don't have a clue how you deal with a guy like that, who's killing millions of his own people via starvation and tossing missiles around, but if there was ever a time for some world leader to have an "accident", this is the time and guy.

Two things to keep it in perspective, though: one, despite all the hand-wringing in the US media, NK is obviously not even remotely close to having the technology to send a missile even to western Alaska or Hawaii, nor are they likely to develop such technology within our lifetimes. They simply lack the infrastructure and the research community necessary to pull it off. Long-range missile guidance is sophisticated stuff, and NK's missiles are essentially circa WWII technology that was given to them by the Soviet Union.

The larger threat is the one to SK and Japan, but that brings up the second point: NK is also not even remotely close to being able to engineer a nuclear weapon small enough to fit on the end of a missile. That's also a much more sophisticated design feat than most people realize, and one that NK is unlikely to realize any time soon, or possibly ever.

This missile test was just empty posturing. And bad empty posturing at that, since the test went off pretty poorly. The US media seems eager to help people connect the dots between "NK has nuclear weapons" and "NK has missiles" with "NK now has ICBMs," but it's just not true.

[Jason McCullough]

It's also essentially a one-man state.

I'm not arguing about that; unlike Iraq, I think it'd be win and you're done. Unfortunately, winning would probably kill at least a half-million south korea civilians.

[Hanzii]

Yes, but just as Iraqi civilians must be sacrificed in the War Against Terror, it's not unreasonable to sacrifice 500.000 South koreans to keep the Yukon safe from nuclear attack.

[bago]

Because the 20k people in the yukon will make their voice heard. They'll totally leave flares on the road.

[Lum]

So, looks like North Korea is feeling unloved, as they're set to set someone up the bomb! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5403572.stm)

An openly nuclear North Korea could have the following possibilities:

1) Nothing changes. Kim sits on his new toys and says "Yeah, you're not getting rid of me ever." US glowers and pouts and gets back to worrying about midterm elections and leveraging pedophiles for political gain.

2) To escalate from one to two fingers in the eye of the West, Kim sells nukes for money (or hell, even food). All bets are off if that gets proven.

3) Kim blackmails the South. Order the US to leave, or we nuke Seoul. Unlikely, but in the far realm of possibility.

4) Kim uses his nuclear power as barganing chips during negotiations. This is what everyone fervently hopes. The problem is; what can he bargain for that's worth a nuclear deterrent?

Not very good choices, and my confidence in the US administration handling this provocation well isn't high.

(Note: I'm scheduled to travel to Seoul on business in a few weeks. I'd really like not to be nuked, very plz thx kk ~~ )