Hot on the heels of Gulf II

[Rywill]

Korea II? (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/07/15/nkorea.nukes/index.html)

Anyone want to lay odds on Korea being for real? On them already having the couple nukes they said they have? On war?

[Troy S Goodfellow]

Former Sec of Defense Perry was quoted by CNN as saying that he wasn't sure what this administration's NK policy was, and I have to agree with him. NK has been on our radar as an imminent threat for many months now and there is no sense that the Bush people have been doing anything to calm the waters.

Will there be war? God, I hope not. This would be a messy one unless the NK army overthrows Jong-Il. But the apparent refusal of the Bush administration to negotiate with the North Koreans in any serious or prolonged manner doesn't bode well.

Are they for real? I suspect partially for real. A lot of NK's bluster has usually been to remind us how dangerous they are and how we'd better negotiate with them soon or they'll hold their breath and die and take Seoul with them. But even if they don't have a feasible arsenal at the moment, they are well on their way to one. And NK, unlike Iraq, has a long and documented history of selling missiles to whoever wants them.

Troy

[bmulligan]

Negociate? We can't just hand over our lunch money to the school bully so he'll stop bugging us for a few weeks. He'll keep coming back and demanding more. Maybe if we wait him out, their internal power structure will collapse and we can avoid capitulating to another american hater. Why is NK any more of a threat than Iran?

[Jason McCullough]

Augh (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56019-2003Jul14.html).


Former defense secretary William Perry warned that the United States and North Korea are drifting toward war, perhaps as early as this year, in an increasingly dangerous standoff that also could result in terrorists being able to purchase a North Korean nuclear device and plant it in a U.S. city.

"I think we are losing control" of the situation, said Perry, who believes North Korea soon will have enough nuclear warheads to begin exploding them in tests and exporting them to terrorists and other U.S. adversaries. "The nuclear program now underway in North Korea poses an imminent danger of nuclear weapons being detonated in American cities," he said in an interview.

Perry added that he reached his conclusions after extensive conversations with senior Bush administration officials, South Korean President Roh Moo Hyun and senior officials in China.

A few months ago NK basically offered to completely dismantle their program and submit to inspections if the US would sign a non-aggression pact with them. I haven't the slightest idea why Bush is passing it up.

Perry does, though:


From his discussions, Perry has concluded the president simply won't enter into genuine talks with Pyongyang's Stalinist government. "My theory is the reason we don't have a policy on this, and we aren't negotiating, is the president himself," Perry said. "I think he has come to the conclusion that Kim Jong Il is evil and loathsome and it is immoral to negotiate with him."

If you need me, I'll be fleeing to Montana.

[bmulligan]

Wasn't another stipulation in the deal the receiving of humanitarian aid from the UN? If yes, then why would we want to let him steal more money and avert the natural implosion of the government there?

[quatoria]

Wasn't another stipulation in the deal the receiving of humanitarian aid from the UN? If yes, then why would we want to let him steal more money and avert the natural implosion of the government there?

Yes, when you have a government that posesses nuclear capability, what you really want is for it to implode, so that anyone can swoop in and take said nuclear capability for themselves. This is, clearly, sound foreign policy.

[bmulligan]

what, it happened in the Soviet Union and we all came out unscathed (so far). Besides, When it happens, were poised right on the border to do soime swooping of our own.

[quatoria]

what, it happened in the Soviet Union and we all came out unscathed (so far). Besides, When it happens, were poised right on the border to do soime swooping of our own.

Apart from the dozens of nuclear missiles and warheads that are missing and totally unaccounted for, you mean. And apart from the cases where former military officers have actually been caught red handed SELLING nuclear technology, you mean.

I have a sneaking suspicion that we won't come out of that anywhere near as "unscathed" as you seem to think.

[bmulligan]

Now you sound like Cleve. Actually, I'm more concerned with the unaccounted for radioactive material, which is much harder to track than a nuclear warhead with a missle attactched. Just think what spitbowl of strontium could do inside a dirty carbomb in the middle of times square.

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2002/03/21032002101036.asp

[Cleve Blakemore]

Now you sound like Cleve. Actually, I'm more concerned with the unaccounted for radioactive material, which is much harder to track than a nuclear warhead with a missle attactched. Just think what spitbowl of strontium could do inside a dirty carbomb in the middle of times square.

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2002/03/21032002101036.asp

Yeah, I'M A PARANOID NUT. Get outdoors more and look around.

(Sound of two ton vault door closing on hydraulics as klaxon sounds. Door slams into deep groove in floor, the tumbler flywheel turns and locks tight with gruesome finality. PT-312 military phone to our right rings with a sodden clatter and we pick up the receiver as a muffled voice on the other end speaks ...)

"Yeah, that Cleve character just overreacts to world events! He is a paranoid nut who doesn't have enough faith in shopping malls and cappuccino bars to save us from 50 megaton continent busting cobalt salted bombs! RRRRR-r-r-r-r-ight!!!"

(Phone clicks and line goes dead, noxious capsicum sprays out of overhead nozzles)

Remember, fresh minty tasting fallout ash contributes to fresher breath and whiter teeth! It also helps control cavities and cold sores through hormesis!

[Kool Moe Dee]

http://www.moonwalkmadnessinc.com/images/browndog180black.gif

[quatoria]

Yeah, I'M A PARANOID NUT.

Most honest line you've ever spoken. I may quote this instead of dog pictures from now on.

[John Merva]

If we went to war over WMD that we couldn't then find, then this "Pyongyang admitted to having a covert nuclear weapons program -- in violation of a 1994 pact." Seems like a platinum plated invitation. However, N. Korea are renowned for brinkmanship along the lines of,
'we plan to do (insert threat)'
*world panics*
(a few days later) 'however, if we don't. what will you give us?'

Therefore I don't think this one will kick-off. Hope not anyway, I'll be in the immediate vicinity for the next few months!!

[antlers]

If Bush actually settled the problem with North Korea, he would take away the sole justification for the non-functional National Missile Defense boondoggle that they are already building in Alaska.

Let's not forget that before September 11, National Missile Defense was the centerpiece of Bush's security policy. The centerpiece of Gore's, according to statements he made during the campaign, would have been counter-terrorism.

[bmulligan]

If Bush actually settled the problem with North Korea, he would take away the sole justification for the non-functional National Missile Defense boondoggle that they are already building in Alaska.

No, theres still Iran, China, and Pakistan who all have some ballistic missile capability.

[Daniel Morris]

Anyone want to lay odds on Korea being for real? On them already having the couple nukes they said they have? On war?

Judging from our history with North Korea, I'd lay the odds at around 100-1 against, with the one chance in a hundred being largely due to error.


A lot of NK's bluster has usually been to remind us how dangerous they are and how we'd better negotiate with them soon or they'll hold their breath and die and take Seoul with them.

A good, if obviously simple, analysis, though I'd amend "a lot of NK's bluster" to "all of NK's bluster."


Former Sec of Defense Perry was quoted by CNN as saying that he wasn't sure what this administration's NK policy was

I find that hard to believe, since this administration's NK policy is loudly announced all over every issue of the journal Foreign Affairs. For the same reason, it's hard to believe most pundits express confusion over the NK policy.


Negociate? We can't just hand over our lunch money to the school bully so he'll stop bugging us for a few weeks.

A vote against appeasement? I'm impressed -- that's a rare thing on this board.

(Reality, as always, will be more muddled. We will negotiate with Kim, only because the other option is so horrific, but there are time-honored ways to negotiate without caving in to blackmail. More on this in a second.)


A few months ago NK basically offered to completely dismantle their program and submit to inspections if the US would sign a non-aggression pact with them. I haven't the slightest idea why Bush is passing it up.

We're passing it up because it would be submitting to blackmail, in a manner very similar to the second-act break in any James Bond movie. A massively destructive war on the Korean peninsula would be preferable to an announcement to the world that we can be cowed by WMD.

Luckily, this apocalyptic dilemma is a theoretical one only, suitable for fretting over on Internet forums but not having much to do with the real, pragmatic world of international diplomacy. The US will get its disarmament and NK will get a version of its "non-aggression pact" -- in the form of a multilaterally-guaranteed regional security condominium involving Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea.

[antlers]

If Bush actually settled the problem with North Korea, he would take away the sole justification for the non-functional National Missile Defense boondoggle that they are already building in Alaska.

No, theres still Iran, China, and Pakistan who all have some ballistic missile capability.

The Alaska NMD isn't designed to stop an attack on the scale China could launch; China could also attack from submarines.

Iran and Pakistan's ballistic missile capability is quite far from being able to get near the U.S., and the Alaska NMD isn't well placed to stop attacks from those countries anyway.

So the Alaska facility is there for North Korea and perhaps some sort of "unauthorized launch" scenario from China.

Of course, the primary problem with the Alaska NMD is that it doesn't work at all.

[XPav]

Of course, the primary problem with the Alaska NMD is that it doesn't work at all.
And the worse problem is that its definitely going into service in 2004, working or not!

[Jason McCullough]

Guess what day its going into service in 2004. Guess. :D

[quatoria]

We're passing it up because it would be submitting to blackmail, in a manner very similar to the second-act break in any James Bond movie. A massively destructive war on the Korean peninsula would be preferable to an announcement to the world that we can be cowed by WMD.

Wow. What an admirably cavalier attitude you have, Daniel. I doubt you'd find many Koreans, South or North, who'd agree with it, but, what the fuck, right? They're only Koreans, after all.

[Anders Hallin]

Guess what day its going into service in 2004. Guess. :D
July 11th? May 11th? December 11th? February 11th?
For God's sake, man, tell us!


(because of that, it's probably the fourth of July)

[Anders Hallin]

Negociate? We can't just hand over our lunch money to the school bully so he'll stop bugging us for a few weeks.

A vote against appeasement? I'm impressed -- that's a rare thing on this board.
Daniel, that was bmulligan talking. bmulligan.

[quatoria]

Negociate? We can't just hand over our lunch money to the school bully so he'll stop bugging us for a few weeks.

A vote against appeasement? I'm impressed -- that's a rare thing on this board.
Daniel, that was bmulligan talking. bmulligan.

I think he meant that he was impressed that bmulligan didn't simply shriek "NUKE 'EM ALL! NUKE 'EM! NUKE 'EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEM! YEEEEEEHAW!". For that matter, so was I.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

Why is it that any negotiation is said to be "appeasement"? I certainly wouldn't advocate rolling over and giving the North Koreans whatever they want at no cost. I would at least require an intrusive inspection regime led by regional powers (China, Russia, Japan) to report to the UN. But we shouldn't expect them to bow down to threats or the silent treatment.

Just as silly as NK's posturing and chest-puffing is the Bush administration believing that even talking to these people is going too far.

Troy

[Jason McCullough]

October 31st, 2004. :D

[bmulligan]

October 31st eh? They might as well send out invitations that say:

"Just try to nuke us now, I dare ya!"

yeah, that missle defense sys. is making me feel safer already.

[hermyhermit]

I think he meant that he was impressed that bmulligan didn't simply shriek "NUKE 'EM ALL! NUKE 'EM! NUKE 'EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEM! YEEEEEEHAW!". For that matter, so was I.

I'm actually more impressed that you aren't waving the flag for peace before a war would even begin and trying to capitulate everything away like the good liberal pansy lap dog you are. That you even entertain the idea that there may be another way besides rolling over and dying in the face of a threat, well, perhaps there is hope for the spineless yet. Bravo! *golf clap*

[MikeJ]

The Alaska NMD isn't designed to stop an attack on the scale China could launch; China could also attack from submarines.

What IS China's intercontinental capability? Do they have ballistic missile subs (or any nuclear subs)? I though there was only the twenty ICBMs (half aimed at the US) and a host of smaller, shorter-ranged weapons.

How many targets is this NMD supposed to handle (assuming it actually worked)?

[XPav]

The Alaska NMD isn't designed to stop an attack on the scale China could launch; China could also attack from submarines.

What IS China's intercontinental capability? Do they have ballistic missile subs (or any nuclear subs)? I though there was only the twenty ICBMs (half aimed at the US) and a host of smaller, shorter-ranged weapons.

How many targets is this NMD supposed to handle (assuming it actually worked)?

FAS (www.fas.org) is your friend, its got all this info.

According to FAS, China has 20 DF-5 ICBMs and 12 JL-1 SLBM on one SSBN. There might be 2 SSBNs, and all information is rather sketchy.

Its a small deterrent force. The current setup at Alaska is supposed to be 20 ground based interceptors. So I'd have to say that since these of course won't have a 100% kill rate, China still has a reasonable deterrent.

On the NMD project though, its obvious its not going to be a magic bullet. It will be interesting to see if the chance that we could shoot down incoming missiles will embolden our politicians to take a harder line against North Korea.

Cheney: Ok Mr President, there's a 50% chance that the interceptors will work and some place on the left coast won't get nuked if we attack North Korea -- are you feeling lucky?

Bush: They didn't vote for me anyway! Roll em, cowboy!

[quatoria]

The problem is, the system has never worked. Ever. Nor has it ever shown the vaguest promise of working. It failed miserably, dramatically, utterly, in every fair public test. It only managed to roughly approximate a success when the people running the test altered the system, cheated, in order to produce what looked like a success. When the media caught onto this, the tests and all results were abrubtly classified. The system is a farce, based on bad ideas and spotty logic. I will be greatly surprised if it ever works in any significant way.

[Toddy]

A massively destructive war on the Korean peninsula would be preferable to an announcement to the world that we can be cowed by WMD.

Yes, I'm sure the good people in Seoul and Tokyo would agree with this moral pragmatism. Tell you what, Dan. You head over to the 38th parallel for the next six months, set up a tent, and see if you can still be so cavalier over how "preferable" a "massively destructive war on the Korean peninsula" would be to some sort of negotiated settlement.


Luckily, this apocalyptic dilemma is a theoretical one only, suitable for fretting over on Internet forums but not having much to do with the real, pragmatic world of international diplomacy. The US will get its disarmament and NK will get a version of its "non-aggression pact" -- in the form of a multilaterally-guaranteed regional security condominium involving Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea.

I hope you're right. But this is a different situation than before. You seem to be basing these predictions on how North Korea has acted in the past. That alone shouldn't govern any judgements about how the current situation will work out, as the regime there is insane. Also, North Korea has some justification for the paranoia now, as the US has a leader who practically rattles spurs when he walks and says idiotic things like "Bring 'em on" about Iraqi guerilla warfare.

The current North Korean bribe attempt has a very different flavor than the last one. I'm not sure that negotiations are going to work this time, nor am I sure things will come together quickly enough for Bush's satisfaction. He's already blundered into one growing catastrophe; who's to say he won't blunder into another?

And the Bush position is anything but coherent on North Korea, no matter what you've read in Foreign Affairs. I don't blame the administration for this, however, because I don't have a clue how to proceed with this situation. I don't think anyone does. You buy them off, there's no guarantee that they'll ignore treaty provisions like they did in 1994. You don't buy them off and the North might get so desperate that they'll attack the South, or maybe even Japan, or an accident/mistake could result in a missile launch. Attack them and they might get a missile or three off at Seoul and Tokyo. Go in to topple the regime and you'd be faced with a major war, and a population that isn't too happy with GI Joe after the tanks stop rolling, if there's any truth to how the North Koreans are so heavily indoctrinated.

But hey, I'm glad you think that there's only a one in a hundred chance of anything bad happening here.

[Jason McCullough]

Yeah, it was an atrocious, destablizing idea in the Cold War, but now it's just kind of a waste of money.

[Rywill]

Yes, I'm sure the good people in Seoul and Tokyo would agree with this moral pragmatism. Tell you what, Dan. You head over to the 38th parallel for the next six months, set up a tent, and see if you can still be so cavalier over how "preferable" a "massively destructive war on the Korean peninsula" would be to some sort of negotiated settlement.
You (and the other folks who posted substantially similar responses) are going to have to do better than that. Sometimes people have to make sacrifices. Your argument is like saying "Yeah, try being the first guy out of the boat at Normandy Beach and see how you like it." Of course it sucks and lots of people got killed. But it had to be done, because the alternative was even more people being killed. Put another way, I could just as easily say to you, "Yeah, you try being one of the folks at ground zero whenever NK sets off a nuke and then tell me it's not worth a war in Korea." The fact that people will be harmed is not, standing alone, sufficient justification for inaction--unless you can make a convincing case that inaction will not lead to harm. As yet, you haven't even tried.


Bush: They didn't vote for me anyway! Roll em, cowboy!
:lol: Hilarious. Only because it's so close to the truth.

[Tom Chick]

You (and the other folks who posted substantially similar responses) are going to have to do better than that.

Umm, did you read the rest of his post?

I'm beginning to think you and Dan are the same person. Actually, since I've seen you both and you look nothing alike, I'm not thinking that at all. But I am thinking that you guys call each other on the phone and talk about when and what you're going to post.

Ryan: "I'm going to do something about the centrifuge in the rose bushes. Then I'm going to razz Tim. What are you going to do?"

Dan: "Oh, I was going to do those. How about you let me razz Tim and you can do the North Korea thing with Brett?"

Ryan: "Okay, but I get to do Jason McCullough's next post."

Dan: "I was going to do Jason McCullough's next post. You can do Tim the next two times if I can have Jason."

-Tom, offering nothing of substance to the whole affair

[Cleve Blakemore]

If Bush actually settled the problem with North Korea, he would take away the sole justification for the non-functional National Missile Defense boondoggle that they are already building in Alaska.

No, theres still Iran, China, and Pakistan who all have some ballistic missile capability.

Funny how you guys never mention Russia anymore with 18,000 nuclear tipped missiles still available to them as resources. I guess being Americans you equate a weak economy with harmlessness. I equate it with instability and complete chaos.

James Jesus Angleton was right, Russia would succeed once they faked a glasnost and faded into the shadows of world power. They're a bigger threat now than the other nations combined.

[Anders Hallin]

If Bush actually settled the problem with North Korea, he would take away the sole justification for the non-functional National Missile Defense boondoggle that they are already building in Alaska.

No, theres still Iran, China, and Pakistan who all have some ballistic missile capability.
Funny how you guys never mention Russia anymore with 18,000 nuclear tipped missiles still available to them as resources. I guess being Americans you equate a weak economy with harmlessness. I equate it with instability and complete chaos.
No, it just doesn't matter in this situation, since a nuclear strike by Russia could never be stopped by the NMD.

[Cleve Blakemore]

Former Sec of Defense Perry was quoted by CNN as saying that he wasn't sure what this administration's NK policy was, and I have to agree with him. NK has been on our radar as an imminent threat for many months now and there is no sense that the Bush people have been doing anything to calm the waters.

Will there be war? God, I hope not. This would be a messy one unless the NK army overthrows Jong-Il. But the apparent refusal of the Bush administration to negotiate with the North Koreans in any serious or prolonged manner doesn't bode well.

Are they for real? I suspect partially for real. A lot of NK's bluster has usually been to remind us how dangerous they are and how we'd better negotiate with them soon or they'll hold their breath and die and take Seoul with them. But even if they don't have a feasible arsenal at the moment, they are well on their way to one. And NK, unlike Iraq, has a long and documented history of selling missiles to whoever wants them.

Troy

You guys are hilarious characters. A war with North Korea would be "messy." Talk about being removed from reality.

Yes, a 1 megaton groundburst at San Diego could be "messy," you're right. A return volley from China and Russia following the American strike could also be "messy."

Americans are so utterly doomed. It shines through in everything they say and do.

[Cleve Blakemore]

October 31st eh? They might as well send out invitations that say:

"Just try to nuke us now, I dare ya!"

yeah, that missle defense sys. is making me feel safer already.

Ohh! A logical conclusion! Be careful you don't hurt your upper cortex with that stuff.

Yeah, I'm NUTS. Nothing bad can ever happen to America because we have the best shopping malls, God is dead and he left us in charge.

2012, China : "Hey, what was the name of that country that got paved and graded back in 2006? What wazzit? Amadica? Gattaca? Amartyrka? Yeah, anyway they got fugged pretty badly, I think it was like three days and they were reduced to a gigantic parking lot of smoking rubble. Ce La Vie. Anyway, what's on TV?"

[Rywill]

You (and the other folks who posted substantially similar responses) are going to have to do better than that.

Umm, did you read the rest of his post?
Of course. What part of it did you think was relevant? Dan says "War on Korea is preferable to letting Korea get lots of nukes." Brett says "You wouldn't say that if you were in the middle of the war." I said that's a silly argument. I don't see how the rest of Brett's post has anything to do with any of that. If you're trying to say that he makes lots of more reasonable arguments in the latter part of his post, I agree, which is why I didn't criticize those arguments. I just criticized the one that he (and others) had made, which I thought was kind of dumb. The other stuff about NK, I don't know enough to weigh in on.


I'm beginning to think you and Dan are the same person.
Yeah, I feel really bad about having views that are close to someone else's on the board. I'm going to try to be more like you and Jason and Tim, with your wildly divergent views.

[Cleve Blakemore]

The problem is, the system has never worked. Ever. Nor has it ever shown the vaguest promise of working. It failed miserably, dramatically, utterly, in every fair public test. It only managed to roughly approximate a success when the people running the test altered the system, cheated, in order to produce what looked like a success. When the media caught onto this, the tests and all results were abrubtly classified. The system is a farce, based on bad ideas and spotty logic. I will be greatly surprised if it ever works in any significant way.

Quatoria, you finally said something I agree with. NMD is a farce. Just think about the physics involved and how many ways you can spoof the enemy if he is using some half-ass system based on the principles of NMD. All the NMD "deterrent" achieves is making nuclear war imminently thinkable, it reduces it to an arcade session of missile command where you hit some, lose others and suddenly you wake up and realize you're playing the game of thermonuclear war, formerly a MAD proposition where nobody risked total destruction during the Cold War.

Think hard about NMD and it will suddenly hit you why I see the future in store for the world. NMD is the biggest strategic mistake in the history of the United States. A nation with no civil defense program which institutes an NMD shield is setting itself up to be a radioactive slaughterhouse for it's citizens. You're making nuclear war practical and turning overkill into a major virtue. NMD is the kind of military concept that a recovering crackhead like Dubya would suspect is a good move but nobody playing with a full deck would consider longer than an instant.

You're all stark raving mad. (Sound of two ton vault door closing on hydraulics)

[Anders Hallin]

I just completely agreed with one of Cleve's posts. Well, maybe with the exception of the final sentence.

[Cleve Blakemore]

I think he meant that he was impressed that bmulligan didn't simply shriek "NUKE 'EM ALL! NUKE 'EM! NUKE 'EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEM! YEEEEEEHAW!". For that matter, so was I.

I'm actually more impressed that you aren't waving the flag for peace before a war would even begin and trying to capitulate everything away like the good liberal pansy lap dog you are. That you even entertain the idea that there may be another way besides rolling over and dying in the face of a threat, well, perhaps there is hope for the spineless yet. Bravo! *golf clap*

What threat is that? The only people threatening anybody are Americans threatening North Korea based on what they might or could do. What the hell kind of paranoid schizophrenic geopolitical strategy is that?

If you ask an incoming mental patient, "Why were you walking down the street shooting strangers in the head?" He might reply, "They could pose harm to me at some time in the future through their actions. I could only be safe by being proactive and killing them first before they might someday try to kill me."

You're all insane, it's the Jerry Springer and the diet coke has caused you to go completely off your nut. You've attacked two nations since 9-11 that had nothing to do with 9-11 and you're now thrashing about threatening to kill everyone in the world who dares to consider arming themselves with the same weapons you yourselves have.

Americans are stark raving insane. They've all gone so far off the deep end they need electroshock. They make the Nazis look like Boy Scouts with better manners.

I believe within ten years that the United States will have ceased to exist, for reasons described earlier.

[Linoleum]

The problem is, the system has never worked. Ever. Nor has it ever shown the vaguest promise of working. It failed miserably, dramatically, utterly, in every fair public test. It only managed to roughly approximate a success when the people running the test altered the system, cheated, in order to produce what looked like a success. When the media caught onto this, the tests and all results were abrubtly classified. The system is a farce, based on bad ideas and spotty logic. I will be greatly surprised if it ever works in any significant way.

Because everyone working on the system are McDonalds rejects and mankind is limited in its ability to achieve. After all, do we not look every day at the birds in the skies and wish to be aloft? Or behold the speed and grace of the cheetah and curse our inability to match such speed traveling overland?

It can be done and it will be done. How long it will take to get it working well is an unknown. There are two attitudes to take towards solving the problem: either throw up your hands and write it off as impossible or roll up your sleeves and get to it, being willing to fail and screw up before achieving success.

People with a political axe to grind will point at failure and claim 'see, look, it will never work!'. When engineering and developing the unknown, things aren't going to work right the first time. A failure is only a failure if it isn't taken advantage of to learn from and revise for the next iteration.

As for the political/cost/world stability issue, a lot of it boils down to making other people make hard choices. The B-2 stealth bomber is currently being used as a very expensive square peg to a round hole. What it was originally intended for was to invalidate the Soviet early warning radar infrastructure. In that, it succeeded.

Building an ICBM arsenal is not cheap. The US and USSR spent hundreds upon hundreds of billions of dollars. If a country such as China views a US ABM system as viable, developing an effective deterrent will be costly, and forces strategic decisions on how to spend defense dollars. If China chooses to build ICBMs at the cost of building up a force structure capable of invading Taiwan, that is not a bad thing. In this era of globalization we rely far more on Eastern manufacturing than on foreign oil (it is the global price of oil that matters, not the supply).

The installation in Alaska is infrastructure that is needed to develop the system. It will not be an effective system at first, but if you never build it, you can never refine it. Much of the refinement is in software, control and sensor technologies (with interceptors), launch infrastructure doesn't change.

[Jason McCullough]

NMD isn't a technical problem like curing cancer; it's two competing technical problems. It's really the old shell vs. armor race in a new form - and we know who won that one.

And the "ICBMs are expensive" thing is fine, but NMD is even more expensive.

[Anders Hallin]

NMD isn't a technical problem like curing cancer; it's two competing technical problems. It's really the old shell vs. armor race in a new form - and we know who won that one.

And the "ICBMs are expensive" thing is fine, but NMD is even more expensive.
Not to mention that these things usually work like this: Develop system that sort of works. Enemy develops counter-measure that makes the system fail. Improve or redesign system. Repeat ad nauseaum. It wouldn't really work that way when we're talking nukes.

[ydejin]

NMD isn't a technical problem like curing cancer; it's two competing technical problems. It's really the old shell vs. armor race in a new form - and we know who won that one.

Hey Jason, so who did win that one? As far as I can see our Abrams tanks seem to be pretty much invunerable to anything thrown at them. They also seem to be able to take anything out that's been sent against them. Of course we don't know how they'd do against the British or Germans who I hear both have very good tanks. It's also not clear how they'd do against a Frogfoot or an enemy attack helicopter. But basically for all current purposes they're pretty close to invulnerable.

Just as a side note, anyone have any thoughts on why our tanks seem to do so much better than the Russian's? Is it because we threw more money at the problem (along with getting some help on the armor from the British). Is it because we've never really gone against Russia's latest top of the line equipment? Are our tanks really not that good, it's just that the people we've fought are just incompetent?

As far as NMD goes, I'm not philosophically opposed to it. Reducing our vulnerability to North Korea (or perhaps in the future Iran) is not a bad idea. However, at this point, the current proposed system doesn't seem to be technically sound. Plus it's going to cost a boat load of money. I just don't see this as being a good use of our money given our current technical abilities. Maybe it will make sense in another 20 years, but not right now.

[Cleve Blakemore]

NMD is junk science. Always was and always will be. Satellite based laser weapons made a lot more sense (Reagan) than the NMD fantasy. Both are completely impractical and likely will be for at least two decades or more. Even then, the opportunity to spoof and decoy your opponent is almost limitless.

http://publicbroadcasting.net/opb/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=522272

Don't worry about NMD, because America's primary weapons technology will be sticks, stones and wooden shields within ten years.

[quatoria]

Yes, I'm sure the good people in Seoul and Tokyo would agree with this moral pragmatism. Tell you what, Dan. You head over to the 38th parallel for the next six months, set up a tent, and see if you can still be so cavalier over how "preferable" a "massively destructive war on the Korean peninsula" would be to some sort of negotiated settlement.
You (and the other folks who posted substantially similar responses) are going to have to do better than that. Sometimes people have to make sacrifices. Your argument is like saying "Yeah, try being the first guy out of the boat at Normandy Beach and see how you like it."

It's interesting that you don't see the differences between "We'll have to make sacrifices for the greater good," and "They'll have to make sacrifices so that we can avoid looking like we're willing to negotiate when the rest of the world thinks it's a really good fucking idea."

[Rywill]

Remind me again which countries have said bilateral talks are a really fucking good idea? Remember (or, if you never knew this, discover) that the US has consistently pressed for multilateral talks. NK refuses to negotiate unless it's NK-US only.

[Jason McCullough]

"Hey Jason, so who did win that one? As far as I can see our Abrams tanks seem to be pretty much invunerable to anything thrown at them."

I think this has more to do with us competing against, effectively, a third world country when it comes to technological development. I'm pretty sure shells won - I doubt an abram vs. abrams battle would just result in shells bouncing off. And in the larger scheme of things, they've invented infantry-launched missiles that go up and smack into the weak top armor of tanks.

Anyway, as Anders pointed out, it's a problem of competing innovations.

[ydejin]

"Hey Jason, so who did win that one? As far as I can see our Abrams tanks seem to be pretty much invunerable to anything thrown at them."

I think this has more to do with us competing against, effectively, a third world country when it comes to technological development. I'm pretty sure shells won - I doubt an abram vs. abrams battle would just result in shells bouncing off. And in the larger scheme of things, they've invented infantry-launched missiles that go up and smack into the weak top armor of tanks.

Anyway, as Anders pointed out, it's a problem of competing innovations.

Yes, but if the conclusion is that we can make our tanks invulnerable to third world countries based on our technological development, even though we can't make them invulnerable to tanks fielded by first-world armies, isn't it reasonable to assume the same is true of missle defense? That is, while we won't be able to make a missle defense work against top rate first-world technology we might be able to make it work against the likes of North Korea?

As I've previously stated, I don't think the technology is there yet (plus I'm more worried about bombs getting here by unconventional means than via an ICBM). But the point is, your "really the old shell vs. armor race in a new form - and we know who won that one" quote doesn't necessarily hold here anymore than it does with our expensive Abrams tanks against the second class technology we've been facing.

[Jason McCullough]

For chrissakes, it was a loose analogy. :D

The obvious, cheap countermeasure of shoving a hundred mylar balloons & heat flares in with the missile point out the inherent problems with NMD.

[XPav]

Of course, we could just go and mount big old fat nuclear warheads on our anti ballistic missiles. That'd probably take out the missiles.

Something tells me that's not a politically viable solution though.

[Jason McCullough]

Plans to use nukes to knock down nukes lasted until the 1960s if I remember correctly. That it was completely insane didn't have much deterrent value to Pentagon planners.

Oh wait, I forgot, Rumsfeld (http://www.clw.org/nmd/nukeinterceptors.html) brought it up again last year.

[quatoria]

Plans to use nukes to knock down nukes lasted until the 1960s if I remember correctly. That it was completely insane didn't have much deterrent value to Pentagon planners.

Oh wait, I forgot, Rumsfeld (http://www.clw.org/nmd/nukeinterceptors.html) brought it up again last year.

Well, hey, why not? What with all the new uranium pits we'll be using to produce our proposed "mini-nuke bunker busters", surely we'll have enough to use randomly fire nukes into the upper atmosphere, right? What harm could there be in that?

[Toddy]

Of course. What part of it did you think was relevant? Dan says "War on Korea is preferable to letting Korea get lots of nukes." Brett says "You wouldn't say that if you were in the middle of the war." I said that's a silly argument. I don't see how the rest of Brett's post has anything to do with any of that. If you're trying to say that he makes lots of more reasonable arguments in the latter part of his post, I agree, which is why I didn't criticize those arguments.

Yeah, that's silly. Of course, that's not what my point was at all, and I think you know that. My comment about Dan setting up shop on the 38th parallel was directed at his flippant way of dismissing how serious a new Korean War would be. Dan was discussing this like he was summing up what happened in his last turn in Civ III. That attitude really pisses me off, as I find it incredibly thoughtless. That's all we heard in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, and now we've got 20-year-olds getting shot through the head while guarding museums in Baghdad. Why? Does anybody know why these poor kids are even there? What the end objective of it all is? How their sacrifices will make Dubuque safer? Read the cover story in this week's Time if you want to get some idea of how fucking enraged I am at US foreign policy right now. Or listen to "Fortunate Son."

As for the rest of the argument, I've never, ever been against war. You won't see me marching anywhere at anytime, singing "We Shall Overcome" with hippies and hairy lesbians. But I really don't like the idea of senseless sacrifices for no good reason. And fighting North Korea is dumb right now. Nobody would win that war. Millions would die, the world economy would be shattered, and the engagement could begin the run-up to what Cleve jacks off over every night in the backroom of Vault 13. Which would be really, really stupid. It'd make the most sense to play North Korea's game in a limited way. String the regime along, bribe it to get inspectors in the door, and provide just enough aid so the government can limp forward. Get the balancing act right and you would keep Kim happy enough to let Tokyo keep its tentacle porn and uh, streets and houses, but not alter the steady progression towards a total social meltdown that will see North Korea change from within over the next decade or so. It's going to happen. It has to. Even now, the North is continuing to develop stronger ties with the South.

What I really don't get are people who think the US needs to prompt a nightmare scenario in order to avoid a nightmare scenario. What sense does it make to kick off a likely nuclear exchange now, by attacking North Korea's nuclear facilities before other rogue states get bad ideas, to possibly avoid a nuclear attack later? Why tempt fate like this?

[Rywill]

Yeah, that's silly. Of course, that's not what my point was at all, and I think you know that. My comment about Dan setting up shop on the 38th parallel was directed at his flippant way of dismissing how serious a new Korean War would be. Dan was discussing this like he was summing up what happened in his last turn in Civ III. That attitude really pisses me off, as I find it incredibly thoughtless.
I don't see the difference. How is "Dan is being flippant and thoughtless in his discussion of the war and wouldn't if he were living in Korea when it happened" different from "Dan wouldn't make prowar statements if he were one of the people who will be affected?" Maybe I'm just not getting you. It's probably a useless point to spend this much time on anyway.


That's all we heard in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, and now we've got 20-year-olds getting shot through the head while guarding museums in Baghdad. Why? Does anybody know why these poor kids are even there? What the end objective of it all is? How their sacrifices will make Dubuque safer?
Some people do, yeah. It's been debated endlessly on this board, so I'm not going to get into it again, but a search of threads for "Iraq" will surely turn up dozens of million-post threads about the merits of invading Iraq.


And fighting North Korea is dumb right now. Nobody would win that war. Millions would die, the world economy would be shattered, and the engagement could begin the run-up to what Cleve jacks off over every night in the backroom of Vault 13.
Well, I think most hard-liners think that NK wouldn't actually go to war; and that if NK would go to war--meaning they're crazy--it's better to go to war with them now than pay them off and give them time to build more nukes. The counter-argument is that the NK government will collapse on its own given time, so we should just pay them off and hope the government collapses before it does anything terrible like selling nukes or attacking someone or demanding something that we just can't give them.

It all comes down to what you think the relative chances are. If you think there's a high chance that NK would do something terrible before the government collapses, you should be in favor of a hard-line stance (e.g., no negotiations unless it's multilateral, and refusing to give them anything in exchange for dismantling their nuke program). OTOH, if you think there's a low chance that NK would do something stupid before the government collapses, you should be in favor of a soft-line stance (e.g., giving them whatever they want--a nonaggression pact and food and fuel, in this case--in exchange for dismantling the nuke program).

Personally, I don't know enough about it to really take a stand. My instinct is that appeasing nuclear blackmailers is almost always a bad idea, particularly those (like NK) that have we have previously appeased only to have them break the deal and threaten us again. But I see the argument that the NK government is very close to collapse and it's not worth risking an enormous war over. If I had to decide today, I'd say stick to the hard-line stance.

[hermyhermit]

What threat is that? The only people threatening anybody are Americans threatening North Korea based on what they might or could do. What the hell kind of paranoid schizophrenic geopolitical strategy is that?


Open a newspaper and look at a few articles related to North Korea from the last 6 months. The rhetoric from NK has become increasingly inflammatory independent of US foreign policy. So while Bush and his cronies are downplaying things, Kim Jong Il is racheting up the tension not in response to anything the US has said or done, but moreso, just because he can. I do not see how anyone with working neurological function cannot see that type of rhetoric as a threat. Perhaps not an imminent threat, but a threat nonetheless.

That being said though... Bush started the ball rolling with his "Axis of Evil" bullshit, and its has been a slippery downhill slide since then. When he named North Korea that day in his speech I was just staring at the TV thinking, "This man wants to kill as many people as possible." Bush lives in this fantasy world I think where John Wayne always gets the Indians after he circles the wagons and the cowboys ride off into the sunset without a bullet ever hitting them. And this clown is now in charge of the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons on Earth. Makes you feel safe doesn't it?

I predicted that Iraq would be a totally chaotic and non-structured thing after we ousted Saddam, and sure enough, here we are like an 800lb gorilla with a blindfold on. It is a dangerous thing that you don't want to be hit by but its blind and so you can poke at it without much fear of reprisal. That is the US military in Iraq right now.
Americans are not the best colonialists, perhaps we should have turned things over to the British they are exceedingly proficient at colonization. Let them deal with Iraq's infrastructure. Americans can win the war, but cannot win the peace.

[Jason McCullough]

My instinct is that appeasing nuclear blackmailers is almost always a bad idea, particularly those (like NK) that have we have previously appeased only to have them break the deal and threaten us again.

Surely you're aware "nuclear blackmailers" is a loaded term here?

Anyway, why the hell won't Bush just take the non-aggression pact trade?

[Jason McMaster]

just check his livejournal, sheesh (http://www.livejournal.com/users/kim_jong_il__/)

[Daniel Morris]

My comment about Dan setting up shop on the 38th parallel was directed at his flippant way of dismissing how serious a new Korean War would be.

You're adopting the Elhajjian tactic of mischaracterizing what I wrote and drawing absurd conclusions from it. I do not "dismiss" how serious a new Korean War would be. In fact, I believe I described such a scenario as "apocalyptic" in my earlier post.

You're free to disagree with my conclusion that a new Korean War is preferable to a nuclear attack on a US city. But please don't accuse me of flippancy.


What I really don't get are people who think the US needs to prompt a nightmare scenario in order to avoid a nightmare scenario.

Who exactly prompted this nightmare scenario? In 1994, the US averted war by appeasing NK and signing an ill-considered disarmament deal. It was thought, at the time, that anything was preferable to a conflict. The regime reneged on that deal, and learned it can get what it wants by issuing suicidal threats of war.

The chasm we face today is a direct result -- we're once more faced with a belligerent NK, except this time it's a potential nuclear power. One shudders to imagine what the circumstances of the next showdown would be if we caved in to NK's belligerence today, repeating our mistake of 1994.


Anyway, why the hell won't Bush just take the non-aggression pact trade?

I have a proposition for you, Jason. First, I'm going to threaten to punch you in the face unless you give me $100 -- but if you give me the money, I promise to leave you alone forever. Really, honest, I promise, I'll never bother you again.

[Jason McCullough]

Right. Except you're also promising to let the cops take all the weapons from your house and car and then bug your house.

[Daniel Morris]

I know. Just like NK did in 1994, until deciding to rearm itself surreptitiously and throw out all its UN monitors.

See, Jason, states have the power to do that. There are no "cops" in the world of international relations. Read your history. Start with 1994.

[Jason McCullough]

Ok, whatever, you're right. We should get thousands, possibly millions, of South Koreans killed right now on the off chance that NK doesn't do what you expect in the future.

I need to go dig up that quote about the discount rate for current vs. future lives again.....

[antlers]

I think the 1994 agreement was a good one, maybe not the best possible, but a good one, nonetheless.

Bush blew it by playing into NK's paranoid fantasies with his "Axis of Evil" speech.

[TimElhajj]

You're adopting the Elhajjian tactic of mischaracterizing what I wrote

Don't piss me off, Morris.

[MikeJ]

Don't piss me off, Morris.

Don't make Tim angry. You wouldn't like him when he's angry...

[Rywill]

Surely you're aware "nuclear blackmailers" is a loaded term here?
Are you saying it's not accurate? I can never tell with these fency posts you like to put up. It's a loaded term the same way calling Osama bin Laden a "terrorist" is a loaded term, I guess.

If you're trying to say that NK isn't blackmailing us with the possibility of their nukes, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think it's pretty clear. There's a rational debate to be had on how to meet their extortionate demands, but if you're going to take the position that, you know, they're not asking us for anything we don't want to give, or they're not holding their nukes over our head to try and get it, you and I have nothing to discuss.

[Rywill]

I think the 1994 agreement was a good one, maybe not the best possible, but a good one, nonetheless.

Bush blew it by playing into NK's paranoid fantasies with his "Axis of Evil" speech.
Yeah. Bush is responsible for NK violating the 1994 treaty. Just like the US is responsible for Saddam killing all those dissidents, because we didn't support them. The folks with their fingers on the triggers don't bear responsibility for anything--it's always the omnipotent US that's to blame. Which, somehow, always turns into an argument for us to not do anything about the world's problems today.

[Jason McCullough]

I think just think throwing around terms like "blackmail" when it comes to international diplomacy doesn't help resolve anything. I mean, technically, you could say the US is "blackmailing" various countries to go along with breaking up terror cells; it's not a particularly illuminating description.

[quatoria]

My instinct is that appeasing nuclear blackmailers is almost always a bad idea, particularly those (like NK) that have we have previously appeased only to have them break the deal and threaten us again.

Surely you're aware "nuclear blackmailers" is a loaded term here?

Anyway, why the hell won't Bush just take the non-aggression pact trade?

DUDE. If we promise not to attack them, soon EVERYBODY is going to want us to promise not to attack, and then we won't be able to attack anybody! And what kind of a world would that be, man?

[quatoria]

I think the 1994 agreement was a good one, maybe not the best possible, but a good one, nonetheless.

Bush blew it by playing into NK's paranoid fantasies with his "Axis of Evil" speech.

And, you know, parking a big fucking cruiser just off their shorelines. That probably wasn't interpreted as the most friendly gesture, either. Nor was refusing to provide the guaranteed power facilities. Not was making press appearances on a wall at the South/North border ranting about a museum with a machete being proof that all the people of North Korea are evil.

Call me crazy, but if I were North Korea, I'd be pretty fucking sure by that point that Bush wasn't planning to make nice and ask me to the winter formal.

[Daniel Morris]

What part of the following document don't you understand?

http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/koreaaf.htm

[Jason McCullough]

You're right, Daniel - because NK violated the spirit of an agreement we should get a buttload of SK citizens killed.

[Kyle Wilson]

Call me crazy, but if I were North Korea, I'd be pretty fucking sure by that point that Bush wasn't planning to make nice and ask me to the winter formal.

Well hot damn, better abduct some more Japanse sunbathers, quick!

[Toddy]

You're adopting the Elhajjian tactic of mischaracterizing what I wrote and drawing absurd conclusions from it. I do not "dismiss" how serious a new Korean War would be. In fact, I believe I described such a scenario as "apocalyptic" in my earlier post.

You're free to disagree with my conclusion that a new Korean War is preferable to a nuclear attack on a US city. But please don't accuse me of flippancy.

I'm willing to accept that you don't believe a nuclear exchange to be a good thing, but you wrote: "A massively destructive war on the Korean peninsula would be preferable to an announcement to the world that we can be cowed by WMD." That's exactly what you wrote. That's not a mischaracterization. And that's flat-out nuts.


Who exactly prompted this nightmare scenario? In 1994, the US averted war by appeasing NK and signing an ill-considered disarmament deal. It was thought, at the time, that anything was preferable to a conflict. The regime reneged on that deal, and learned it can get what it wants by issuing suicidal threats of war.

I agree with you here. But does it matter now? I'll assign North Korea 100% of the blame. Clinton was an idiot to pay the blackmail. Fine. We've still got to deal with what's going on right now. And the situation has changed dramatically. The North Koreans very likely have some nuclear capability. They've also got access to missiles that can hit Japan, and may be able to reach the West Coast of the US. You want to play blame game and attack, go right ahead. But it's irresponsible to concoct foreign policy based on something that happened a decade ago, under a different president, before the North Koreans had nuclear weapons.


The chasm we face today is a direct result -- we're once more faced with a belligerent NK, except this time it's a potential nuclear power. One shudders to imagine what the circumstances of the next showdown would be if we caved in to NK's belligerence today, repeating our mistake of 1994.

As I said before, I think the idea here is to let North Korea limp along until it collapses on its own. Give 'em a little, keep 'em engaged. Talks with the South have been ongoing for some time, even in the midst of the threats, to the point that both countries were working together on the 2010 Olympic bid. Couple that with the poverty and starvation and you've got a government in the North that won't last too much longer. I know it'd be cool for the US to get all blustery and kick-ass, and I'm sure you find this way wimpy, but I think it's got a better chance of saving lives in the end.

BTW, do me a favor and add names when you're replying to multiple posters like this?

[Jason McCullough]

A summary culled from NPR's To The Point tonight, which had an assload of muckity mucks from both parties:

1) The President really has it in for Kim Jong. No idea why; I mean, he's evil, but *that* evil? He basically is completely allied with the hardliners, who:
2) Think NK is right on the verge of collapse; it only needs some pushing.
3) The non-hawks (State, et al.) thinks the hardliners are crazy, and want to see what it takes to get NK to the bargaining table.

The book writer they had on talking about how it was far, far too easy to see how NK doing an above-ground nuclear test in response to US stonewalling could lead to war. Seriously worried about this shit now.

[Brad Grenz]

People on NPR worried? Heavens-ta-Betsy!

[Jason McCullough]

Oh, don't give me that. They had some super-hawk from the administration on for balance. And Perry isn't a bleeding-heart liberal, last I heard.

[Daniel Morris]

From MSNBC today:


TRILATERAL TALKS IN AUGUST?
As tension over the development has grown in the intervening months, North Korea has demanded one-on-one discussions with the United States, saying the nuclear issue is between it and Washington. The United States says the issue a regional one, and it wants to include China, Russia, Japan and South Korea.
Beijing has said it would back any form for talks acceptable to the parties involved, although it was not clear what proposals Dai was pitching in Washington. But in what appeared to signal a compromise, a knowledgeable Chinese source told NBC News late Friday night that discussions among the United States, North Korea and China would likely take place in Beijing sometime in August.



Hey, how about that, Jason? It seems the Apocalypse has been deferred until at least August.

[Jason McCullough]

Time to spend the 401k!

[Daniel Morris]

Are you still in your fallout bunker?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25824-2003Jul21.html


Bush administration officials are considering granting North Korea formal guarantees it will not come under U.S. attack as part of a verifiable dismantlement of its nuclear facilities, in what would be part of a diplomatic gambit by the Bush administration aimed at resolving a standoff over Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions.

In extensive talks last week with Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Dai Bingguo, administration officials asked him to inform the North Koreans that the United States would agree to meet again with Chinese and North Korean officials in Beijing, provided the session was followed almost immediately by multilateral talks that include South Korea, Japan and possibly Russia, U.S. officials said yesterday.

Administration officials said that at this broader multilateral meeting, they would formally unveil a U.S. plan for ending the crisis, which has prompted intense discussion within senior levels of the administration about the form of the proposal and how it would be presented.

U.S. officials have indicated to Asian allies they would open with discussion of how the administration could reassure North Korea it does not face a U.S. invasion and then move toward what one official called a "whole gamut" of issues between North Korea and United States, such as providing energy and food aid if the North Korean government meets a series of tough conditions, including progress on human rights.

The diplomatic activity -- including a willingness to bend on the administration's previous insistence that its next meeting with North Korea must include South Korea and Japan -- suggests the administration is actively looking for ways to defuse the crisis.

[Jason McCullough]

In other words, Bush is taking the Non-Aggression Pact for nukes swap. Whew.

[Jason Levine]

In other words, Bush is taking the Non-Aggression Pact for nukes swap. Whew.

Of course. There's nothing for Halliburton in North Korea.