Is North Korea Really A Threat?

[Zhade]

IMIO, Kim Jong-Il's number one reason for pursuing nuclear weapons is for use as a deterrent against an attack by the United States. His number one demand for giving them up is that the United States sign a non-aggression pact stating it will not attack or invade North Korea.

In light of this, is NK really the threat even some DUers posit it to be?

[DireStrike]

1. It can become a threat.

Depending on how it's dealt with.

[malmapus]

8. I agree it can become a threat

Really depends on how it is handled, but yeah with ** at the helm, I'm already practicing kissing my ass goodbye

[Zhade]

2. It's okay to expand on your vote, guys. Really.

Especially those who do see it as a threat. Convince me how, because I don't yet see it.

[7th_Sephiroth]

3. rumor is Lil Kim died in that exploision

hasent been seen in public since

[jayfish]

16. Which One?

Jay

[BlueCaliDem]

4. I Voted "Yes" Because I Believe North Korea *is* a Threat...

...to the United States, especially when even the Republican owned-and operated media news has mentioned before the invasion of Iraq that Li'l Kim and his people think him a god (much like Repubs think Bush is), and that back in early 2003, he wasn't bluffing when he told the world, that he had at least ONE nuclear warhead that could already hit the West Coast of the United States!

John Kerry has said, during many of his campaign speeches, that NK has between 9-10 of those things, and that the situation there is getting worse!

Remember, that Li'l Kim, and his robot-like people believe he is a god, and immortal, and the country is starving, and America isn't.

What does he have to lose if he were to start a nuclear war with America?

[Zhade]

5. "What does he have to lose if he were to start a nuclear war with America"

Uh, everything?

Might help if you keep in mind that the conservative corporate media is nothing more than propaganda. I'm not convinced that NK is a threat to America.

[BlueCaliDem]

12. I Know that the Media...

...is RW owned-and operated, but bear in mind, that they reported this before Bush launched the invasion into Iraq.

The question then posed on CNN and MSNBC (mostly by Democratic leaders, and Wesley Clarke) was whether or not Iraq was more pressing an issue than, say, North Korea.

By the way, John Kerry too reiterated that North Korea is more of a threat than Iraq, since it was a public secret, that Rumsfeld was the go-between the Swiss corporation ABB that delivered enough equipment to North Korea to build, not one, but TWO nuclear power plants.

Here is the link:
http://www.nzz.ch/2003/02/22/english/page-synd1648385.html

[bahrbearian]

6. WTF?

"What does he have to lose if he were to start a nuclear war with America? " MY GOD with that rational every country is a threat.

[BlueCaliDem]

14. Well, South Korea is Another Country Under Threat...

...but it's clear looney Li'l Kim has his sights on the United States.

You need to remember, that in the isolated culture of North Korea, Jong Il is considered to be a god, i.e. immortal, and his people would lay their lives at his teensy-weensy little feet without hesitation (after all, gods can make one immortal, right?).

Anyhow, Clinton saw the danger of this crazy dictator, and understood their culture, and although his agenda for NK ultimately failed, he at least bought Al Gore some time to further the talks (thinking, as we all now know, that Al Gore would have been in the WH).

Here is a link to an article in Feb 2003 wherein it's claimed that NK got it's nuclear capabilities from none other than our Secretary of the Department of War.

http://www.nzz.ch/2003/02/22/english/page-synd1648385.html

[wuushew]

15. Clinton's policies did not fail...Bush destroyed them

The agreed framework was followed to the letter but not in spirit. Plutonium production ceased as did missile development.

The clandestine uranium enrichment program which produced weapons grade material very slowly was not a insermountable problem until Chimp called their leader a pygmy, labled them part of the Axis of Evil and cut off needed aid.

[BlueCaliDem]

18. I Stand Corrected. I've Got To Get Those RW Media Voices Out

of my head.

Thanks for your help in achieving that. :)

[Martin Eden]

7. North Korea is a threat because

they are always strapped for cash, and might be likely to sell nuclear materials on the black market.

The greatest threat within our borders (of attack by outsiders) is the possibility of a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb beig smuggled into this country and detonated in a populated area.

The nuclear material of the former Soviet Union is often cited as the most likely source, but North Korea is becoming more of a threat. The policies of the Bush administration are just making the situation worse.

[wuushew]

9. We could always make them a better deal

Like setting up trade agreements or providing them with heating oil.

Since the probability of killing thousands of North Koreans in conventional combat is greater than the probability adjusted American causalities of nuclear terrorism an impartial ethicist would favor diplomacy.

[malmapus]

10. Food too

Last I heard they were suffering some sort of famine? Dunno if thats still the case but if we send aid it might help the situation some.

[bettys boy]

22. Moral hazard

This incentivizes the pursuit of WMD programs as a form of extortion.

[wuushew]

23. But yet it worked with Libya, South Africa, and opening up China

seems like the carrot approach has a good track record.

[bettys boy]

71. Clinton offered carrots

Under the Agreed Framework of 1994 - food and oil shipments, and light-water reactor technology in return for abandoning the WMD program, a program aided covertly by elements in Pakistan.

But the fact that we're even discussing a NK capability in 2004 indicates that there were serious flaws in the 1994 verification regime. In other words, plenty of carrots but a broken stick.

Pyongyang has a long history of playing one power off against another, and Bush's unilateralism in Iraq has weakened our hand in this regard. Seoul, Beijing, and Tokyo have entered a period of quiet detente with Pyongyang, the respective governments bolstered by public opposition to Bush's assertive US exceptionalism.

This was the point of critiques by folks like Wes Clark: the fixation on Iraq diverted attention and drained legitimacy away from dealing with greater threats along the Pakistan-Pyongyang axis.

[Martin Eden]

34. We "incentived" their pursuit in the first place

If I were North Korea or Iran, I would be pursuing nuclear weapons as essential for self defense. Bush named them and Iraq as part of an "axis of evil," then invaded Iraq on the flimsiest of pretexts. Iraq was militarily the weakest of the three. Nuclear weapons are pretty much a guarantee against being invaded.

It's possible these countries would have pursued nuclear weapons if 9/11 and Iraq had never happened, but the policies of the Bush administration have certainly contributed to the perception that they need nukes to defend themselves. If we really want to halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons, we need to provide international leadership in fostering a climate in which they are viewed as detrimental to a nation's interests rather than essential for defense.

The U.S. is the greatest arms supplier of the world, and completely hypocritcal when it comes to nuclear weapons. We are currently developing two mini-nukes for actual use as a first-strike weapon. What was previously unthinkable is being seriously put forward by Bush. We have absolutely no cerdibility other than the threat of force, and that is what has fostered the need for other nations to develop nukes.

A strategy for eliminating North Korea's nuclear program must be accompanied by a basic change in U.S. foreign policy that alleviates the concerns that nukes are needed for self defense. Practically speaking, there is no chance to get North Korea's cooperation at this point without providing some positive incentives. Not doing so may seem like standing on principle but it is, in my opinion, a foolish denial of the reality of the situation and what it will take to improve it.

[Zhade]

36. I, for one, cannot blame NK or Iran for pursuing nukes.

I don't like nuclear proliferation, but I certainly understand why they are doing what they're doing.

Damn b*sh to his Hell for putting me in the position of defending nuclear proliferation!

:mad:

[sangh0]

38. bush* didn't make you defend nuclear proliferation

Your decision to ignore or discount the possibility that a nation that feels forced to develop nukes is still a threat to us, even if it does have a valid reason for developing nukes, and that is why you're defending nuclear proliferation.

And I'd add that your regret about defending proliferation supports the idea that NK is a threat.

[Zhade]

44. You drew the exact opposite conclusion.

"And I'd add that your regret about defending proliferation supports the idea that NK is a threat."

No, it supports the idea that the United States is a threat to the rest of the world, including NK and Iran, and I can understand why they would develop nukes.

[sangh0]

47. Guess what?

The fact the US is ALSO a threat (and I agree with you about that) does not mean that NK is NOT a threat.

There can be more than ONE threat. Get over the idea that if one is bad, the other must be good.

[Zhade]

55. I don't believe NK is a threat to the United States.

"Get over the idea that if one is bad, the other must be good."

That is, of course, not what I said. Not even close.

I simply do not see NK as a threat to the United States. That does not mean that I see NK as "good".

[sangh0]

58. It is what you said

When I pointed out that NK is threat, your response was to say that the US is a threat. If that wasn't relevant to the idea that NK is not a threat, then why do you repeat it?

Every time someone in this thread has argued that NK is a threat, you respond by saying that the US is a threat. Why do you keep saying this is if has no bearing on whether or not NK is a threat?

[Zhade]

61. You're misreading my posts.

I mention the U.S. as a threat to illustrate why I understand they are pursuing nukes, not to downplay any possible threat from NK (which, until someone pointed out some possible threats below, I didn't see as a threat).

And, of course, I did not respond to every post calling NK a threat. That much is clear from reading the thread.

For example, I did not reply at all to posts #7, #27, #35, or #46, which all posit that NK is a threat.

[sangh0]

65. Then why bring it up?

If saying that NK has a reason for pursuing nukes sheds NO LIGHT on the question of whether NK is a threat, then why bring it up?

For example, I did not reply at all to posts #7, #27, #35, or #46, which all posit that NK is a threat.

I didn't review all the posts you refer to because when I checked the 1st example (ie #7) I see that you DID respond to that post, though not right away, and you DID respond by pointing out that NK has a reason for pursuing nukes (see YOUR #36)

[Zhade]

67. Really? Show me where I directly responded to #7.

You're mistaken. No surprise there, seems to happen a lot with you.

[sangh0]

69. I never said "directly responded"

.

[dpibel]

63. Because of the difference in posture?

There's only one country in the world going about changing regimes in other countries, and it is not N. Korea.

There's only one country in the world which posesses 10,000 nukes and a government which has repudiated a long-standing "no first strike" policy.

This makes substantially more likely the hypothesis that the N. Korean nukes are defensive, rather than offensive.

Just a guess.

[sangh0]

66. Non-responsive

All you said is that NK has a reason for pursuing nukes. What you didn't do is respond to my point which was "That sheds no light on whether or not NK is a threat"

This makes substantially more likely the hypothesis that the N. Korean nukes are defensive, rather than offensive.

Defensive weapons also pose a threat. By making a counter-attack against them less likely to succeed, a defensive weapon has the potential to make aggression more likely because the aggressor's defensive weapons lowers the costs to them from the almost inevitable counter-attack

[John BigBootay]

103. The US is only concerned with elimination of a threat

Not in creating economic misery in NK. But the question is what is the best way to achieve a "non-nuclear" NK?

Ply them with kindness, food, oil, opening trade barriers?

Or a stricter, more punitive approach-- as in nothing from the US until we verify the destruction of your WMD program?

It's a tough choice, but I think the stricter approach is a better one. However, I feel that niether will work satisfactorily and we'll probably be fighting these guys some day.

The fact is, Kim cannot be trusted, he is viewed as a god, their economy is in ruins, they have few resources and yet have a massive military.

This scenario is alarmingly Imperial Japan, ca. 1939.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-06/24/content_342131.htm

[wuushew]

11. North Korea currently has NO ability to launch ICBMs against the U.S.

larger version http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/missile/index.html

[x_y_no]

19. That data is out of date

See: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/missile.htm

Approx. 100 No-dong missiles which threaten most of Japan and large populated parts of China.

Approx. 10 SS-N-6 derivative missiles with 2750 - 4000 km range.

Approx. 15 Taep'o-dong 1 missiles with 2000 - 2900 km range.

Edit: Looking at the wrong range rings. These won't threaten Alaska, but could affect our facilities in Okinawa and maybe Guam.


The Taep'o-dong 2 missiles may or may not be operational, but they're close, and may threaten Alaska.

[wuushew]

20. That info is not out of date

The missile debris that landed in Alaska was the result of a failed two-stage Taep'o-dong 2 missile. The 6,000 theorized range is from a as yet undeveloped three stage Taep'o-dong.

Since Clinton left office the pace of rocket testing has not appreciably increased. The reports of weapons testing you hear about on the news are from much shorter range missiles that threaten South Korea and possibly Japan. Please show me links about recent DPRK missile development.


(on Edit) The info on the No-Dong B was good, thanks for the link

[NCN007]

29. but they can still hit Yokosuka, Guam, and Okinawa

completely destroying our ability to swiftly retaliate against a push into South Korea or any military action by the chinese. Even pearl isnt too far outside the envelope

[wuushew]

31. Why are we still located in those places?

Yankee needs to go home, the Cold War is over.

[bobthedrummer]

30. Here is some up to date open source data on the SLBM's of N. Korea

Hello.
North Korean nuclear missile 'could reach US' (Guardian)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,1275587,00.html

[sangh0]

39. I'm pretty sure that it IS out of date

A couple of years ago, NK Launched a missile that passed over Japan, which would be impossible according to the picture you posted.

[wuushew]

81. Wrong

from the link in post #30


According to the South Korean military, North Korea has 600 Scud missiles with a range of 600km and 100 Nodong missiles with a range of 1,300km. It also test-fired a multi-stage Taepodong 1 rocket over Japan in 1998.


Also


March 19, 2003: North Korea again signals that it might not adhere to its moratorium on testing long-range missiles, asserting in a March 19 Korean Central News Agency statement that it has the “sovereign right” to have a “peaceful” missile program. North Korea conducted missile tests February 24 and March 10, but both tests involved short-range missiles that did not violate the moratorium.

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron.asp#2003

Also the blue rings in my map are SCUD range rings. The green rings represent the possible ranges of other missiles from 2-4000 km.

[sangh0]

83. That doesn't make sense to me

I said the NK had a missile that passed over Japan, and you agree with me, but say I'm wrong.

WHat am I missing here?

[Lone Pawn]

13. Paper tiger

Right now it's not in their national interest for war with America. KJI is a rather intelligent man, actually. He acts crazy to throw people off--a rather Hamlet-like "madness." Nukes are a bargaining chip, but he's not insane enough to start a war unless he knows he can win.

[Minstrel Boy]

17. The North Korean regime just wants to survive.

And of course it will not survive if it preemptively lobs a crude nuke at the Pacific coast.

A non-aggression treaty is what it's asking for in exchange for its nuclear program. It wants the US to promise not to attack it. Too much to ask?

Which nation is truly led by a mad man? Which nation starts unprovoked wars? Which nation has murdered more than a hundred thousand innocents in less than two years? Which nation poses the greater threat to the world?

[shesemsmom]

21. Shrub should have kept a better eye on them

now they may be more than a force to be reckoned with. His has had optical rectitis for so long he should have a permanent ring around the collar. We can certainly thank him when we are all speaking Chinese

[Zhade]

32. Exactly.

NT!

[Deja Q]

24. It will become a threat if * still acts like an untrained toddler at them.

Boasting like a peacock, name-calling their leader, and so forth.

Indeed, as NK has already said that the US isn't the only country that now has a right to use pre-emption as a form of defense means any country on this planet could be a threat against the US.

Watch the world crumble.

[greekspeak]

25. NK is a very strange place, by about any standard

First, let me relate what I know about how NK is run. No "imperfect" humans (i.e. blind, paralized, deaf, mentally ill) allowed in Pyongyang. Speakers that tell strange propegandistic stories about the leader--something about a jellyfish and immortality. NK just sort of does its own thing and appears to be oblivious to the world unless it somehow bumps into some other country.

As for how they are set to attack us, I think a nice analogy would be a wild animal. If you stay back but are close enough for them to be scared, they hiss and posture and take on a lot. Of course, NK hisses and postures a lot anyway. But you get that wild hissing beast cornered and start poking it with a stick, like ShrubCo is doing, and it is going to attack.

[dpibel]

26. "Threat" is a pretty broad term

A threat to conquer the country? Hardly.

A threat to lob a nuke at San Francisco...oops!...as one poster on this thread discovered: Guam? Why? What possibly could NK gain by nuking Guam?

This isn't MAD redux. It's AD. The only thing NK gets from using a nuke is the glassing over that our counterparts on the right so desperately desire.

How do residents of the country with more nukes than anybody, with a military budget bigger than the next 25 countries combined, get so frothed up with the idea that somebody's comin' ta get us?

As matters stand, this country cannot be invaded. Much to the surprise of many Americans, this country has the third-largest population in the world. No country has the naval/air capability of getting enough soldiers on American soil to do jack diddly squat.

What's the threat?

[Zhade]

37. Yes, I should have specified "a threat to the United States".

My mistake.

[dpibel]

40. Sorry, not the issue

Is the question, "A threat to conquer the US?" If so, not in a million years.

If the question is, "A threat to lob a one-off suicide nuke at the US?" then the answer is, "Not unless they really want to be the world's first experiment in nuclear glass production."

So what is the perceived threat to the US? I just don't get it.

[Zhade]

43. You and I are in complete agreement.

I just meant that I should have specified "to the United States", because I don't see a threat to us either. My poll represented a larger question than I had in my mind.

Maybe it's an ingrained U.S.-centric view rearing its ugly head?

[dpibel]

51. Even more than that

It's the amazing ability of Americans to feel threatened from all sides.

If you can get people in a discussion forum on a beacon-of-clear-thought website to admit feeling threatened by N. Korea, just imagine the opinion in the broader population.

Another fascinating illustration of this phenomenon is the defense of the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions by saying, "So you want your wives and daughters to wear burkhas?" As if the most impoverished nation in the world (Afghanistan) were about to mount an invasion, or a country of 25 million, devastated by crippling bombing followed by 12 years of sanctions were about to do the same.

How, in the imagination of the "we're about to be invaded" types do these vast armies get here? And once they do, just how is it they conquer a nation more than 10 times their size (for the information of the frightened: If Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong Il determined that the wise course would be to load the entire population of their countries onto boats and send them off to invade the weak and defenseless USofA, and successfully got every single one of them past the world's mightiest fleet and the world's most overwhelming air force, they'd hit the ground fighting more than 10 times as many people.

They're comin' ta get us!!

[Zhade]

56. Fear is a drug, and Americans are junkies.

NT!

[gordianot]

27. They are a threat and are dangerous.

Perhaps even suicidal. Of course since they can truly fight back Bush like all bullies leaves them alone.

We will pay someday.

[Selatius]

28. Kim Jong Il is powermad, not suicidal

If Kim was suicidal, he'd be serious about putting his nukes on his long-range missiles and launching them at the west coast. All of his actions point to him being powermad, not suicidal.

Killing political dissidents is an act of a man who wants to hold power. Keeping the population in subjugation is an act of a man who wants to maintain his grip. Not allowing democracy is an act of a man who does not want people challenging his authority. These are the acts of a man who is greedy and would jealously guard it.

If that is the case, then can someone argue the case that him attacking the US with nuclear weapons is not equivalent to signing his own death warrant and therefore is a threat to his own grip on power? Attacking the US is a guarantee of Kim being removed from power or even killed. Does anyone here disagree? It doesn't make sense if Kim is powermad, but it does if he's suicidal, and frankly, I don't think he's suicidal.

[Yupster]

33. To South Korea or maybe Japan

Not to us.

I think Bush has pretty much washed his hands of it and told China and Japan that they need to settle it.

[Padraig18]

35. They are a threat, because of treaty obligations ....

We are obligated to defend S. Korea, in the event of invasion. Because of *'s ham-handed foreign policy and Iraq invasion, we would be unable to assist S. Korea to the extent realistically envisioned under the treaty.

[sangh0]

41. Ding, ding!! We have a winner

Most of the power that comes from possessing a nuke comes not from using it, but from it's power to deter the aggression of other nations AND, more importantly, it's power to prevent the allies of your neighbors from defending them for fear of being attacked with nukes.

NK's missiles probably can't reach us, but if NK were to invade Japan or SK, we might hesitate to send troops to an area that NK's missiles CAN reach.

[sandnsea]

42. Yes, but would they

And does South Korea have as many problems with the evil commies as the US does. Seems like they prefer a path of normalizing relations and opening up communications between the people of the countries in order to bring North Korea into the community of nations instead of alienating them. Could certainly be way wrong there, that was just my perception over the last ten years or so.

[dpibel]

45. Forgotten (recent) history

At the beginning of Booshworld, before they'd decided which direction they were going to point their aggression, Boosh had a meeting with the then-leader of South Korea (whose name now escapes me, and I'm too lazy to try to figure out how to google it up).

Now S. Korea's leader had been very effectively working toward detente with N. Korea. The "Sunshine Policy," I think it was called.

Boosh dissed him to his face, telling him he knew not whereof he spake with matters on the Korean peninsula. This was, mind you, in advance of the Axle of Weevils.

Yes, it would be possible to bring N. Korea into the family of nations. There was progress in that direction. Boosh scuttled it, because he wasn't sure whether he needed N. Korea as an enemy to carry out his dream of being the Whore President.

That is what he calls himself, isn't it?

[sandnsea]

48. New leaders since then

Even some sort of coup or overthrow in February this year, I think it was. I really haven't taken the time to figure out all the different factions in S Korea and their agendas.

[dpibel]

53. Doesn't change the answer

I thought you were putting out the question whether it is possible to bring N. Korea into the family of nations, and whether S. Korea feels less threatened by N. Korea than do we here in the weakest, most vulnerable country in the world.

The fact that there was this effort, well on its way to success, which was scuttled by the Fierce Warrior Chieftain indicates that there is at least a significant faction of S. Koreans who feel that N. Korea is not an imminent, terrifying threat.

I think we're on the same page, but then, I'm an optimist.

[sandnsea]

60. Big assumption

Assumes everybody in a country thinks exactly the same and that's never true. It appeared S Korea was on that track, I really don't know anymore.

[dpibel]

64. Not that big an assumption

First, please don't demean with stuff like, "Assumes everybody in a country thinks exactly the same." Perhaps I do come across as that simple-minded, but I don't think so. Last I heard, S. Korea had a representative democracy, and as we have recently demonstrated here in the USofA, that doesn't mean that you end up with leaders that everybody in the country thinks exactly like.

I recall no mass movement in S. Korea to put the kibosh on the Sunshine Policy. I do remember stories about thrilled people from both sides being able to visit relatives for the first time in a generation.

I guess we can agree to leave it that neither of us knows the majority opinion in S. Korea at this instant. I trust we can also agree that there was, within recent memory, a successful move toward detente between N. and S.

[sandnsea]

75. Yes there was

I agree.

I was just pointing out that there have been some surprising changes in S Korea and that I don't know what is going on today. It was an impeachment actually. Here's some info and that's all I was trying to provide, not trying to be demeaning. I'm direct and to the point when I'm doing that, believe me.

http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2606595

[sangh0]

50. Focusing on the US's mistakes, does not make NK any less of a threat

Yes, it would be possible to bring N. Korea into the family of nations, but a "possibility" of peace does not mean that NK poses no threat at all.

[dpibel]

52. What is the nature of the threat?

I really want to know.

[sangh0]

54. There are three main ones as see it

1) NK has a history of selling ANY weapons systems it's develops and it's not picky about who it sells to.

2) NK might actually use it's nuke against a US ally. If they were to bomb Japan, Hong Kong,or Taiwan, it would wreck our economy, not tom mention possibly starting WWIII, this time with nukes

3) If NK were to invade SK (possibly motivated by an economic collapse in NK), the US would be obligated, by treaty, to fight to defend SK. However, that would put them in range of NK's nukes, and as a result, we'd be less likely to support SK against an NK invasion, making the odds of an invasion more likely.

[Zhade]

57. These are points worth considering.

NT!

[dpibel]

59. Thanks

Your #1 is the Saddam option. Seems I've heard that song before... Somehow I think there's a difference between selling the ultimate weapon and selling, e.g., SAMs like those ones the US interdicted, then let pass, on their way to Yemen. I confess I could be wrong about this. But even if N. Korea sells a nuke to the ubiquitous terrists, does this constitute a threat to the existence of the US? That's the question I'd like answered from the "yes it's a threaters." If you're talking about threat of a terrist attack, I suppose N. Korea is, along with 20 or 30 or 40 other nations. I'm just curious what makes N. Korea so special as a potential nuke market. Belarus still has nukes, I believe, and they're pretty strapped for cash.

Your #2 and #3 simply posit another version of the nuclear glass scenario. What in god's name makes you think that the US would respond to a nuclear attack on Japan or S. Korea by inserting conventional forces to be an easy target for additional nukes. The Fierce Warrior Chieftain and his band of rogues are itching to pull the trigger on some nukes. Why ever would they hesitate to defend their allies by lobbing a hundred or so of the US stock of 10,000 to respond to a N. Korean nuking of an ally?

[sangh0]

68. Yes, it does sound like the Saddam option

the difference is that NK *actually* has nukes. You may disagree with me, but I think this is a salient point, and I'm not willing to take that risk.

And yes, there's a difference between selling SAM's and selling nukes, but given the fact that NK sold missiles to Pakistan so that Pakistan could build a nuclear missile, I can't be certain that NK understands that difference the way you and I do.

But even if N. Korea sells a nuke to the ubiquitous terrists, does this constitute a threat to the existence of the US?

Yes, it certainly does, IMO.

If you're talking about threat of a terrist attack, I suppose N. Korea is, along with 20 or 30 or 40 other nations. I'm just curious what makes N. Korea so special as a potential nuke market.

NK's history of helping other nations develop missile technology. I don't Belarus is very big in the missile trade.

Your #2 and #3 simply posit another version of the nuclear glass scenario. What in god's name makes you think that the US would respond to a nuclear attack on Japan or S. Korea by inserting conventional forces to be an easy target for additional nukes.

I wasn't referring to out responding to a NK nuke attack on an ally. You're mixing up #2 with #3. I was referring to the US responding with conventional (ie. non-nuclear) military forces to a conventional military invasion of SK by NK.

Why ever would they hesitate to defend their allies by lobbing a hundred or so of the US stock of 10,000 to respond to a N. Korean nuking of an ally?

If we were to respond to a NK attack (nuclear and/or conventional) of SK (or an attack on some other neighbor) by lobbing nukes at NK, NK could respond by nuking Japan, Taiwan, or Hong Kong, which would devastate our economy.

The threat is caused by the fact that a NK in possession of nukes has many more options in the way of both defense and offense.

[sandnsea]

62. Sounds like Saddam

Those are pretty much the arguments for overthrowing Saddam. Without US hysteria over the commies, would the regional countries simply open communications with N Korea, stop marginalizing them, and thereby avert the threat. Seems to me Kim Jung Il's willingness to work with other countries up and until 2000 is evidence he really doesn't intend to invade or nuke anybody.

[sangh0]

70. But NK actually DOES have nukes

I would argue that real nukes pose a greater threat than fictional ones.

[sandnsea]

74. Here's my problem

How many times have they announced N Korea has nukes? First it was Oct 2001, wasn't it? It just seems to me that every 6 months since then there's been a major announcement about N Korea obtaining nukes. You can only obtain nukes once, don't you think? Does he actually have the nukes, or is he just doing the plutonium enrichment. The reports conflict with the previous reports. What's the real deal there?

Maybe I'm just getting very weary, I honestly don't care who has nukes anymore. Then again, I was sick of it in the 80's. Stop talking about the damned nukes and start talking about peace and solving the other problems that divide. Plus, knowing that so much of this is truly driven by a need to dominate the world for the corporations, I just get very cynical about all of it.

[sangh0]

76. I think you need to re-read those announcements

They didnt all say the same thing (ie "NK has nukes") The first announcements were about NK's intentions to build nukes. After that came announcements that they were enriching uranium. After that came announcements about Clinton's deal with NK. Then came an announcement that NK had cheated on the deal and had started enriching plutonium at an undeclared facility. Then there was an announcement that NK was withdrawing from the Clinton deal. Then there were announcements concerning NK's throwing the IAEA monitors out of NK. Then there were announcements about how NK had shut off the cameras that were monitoring the uranium that NK had already enriched (enough to make 1-3 bombs IIRC). Then there were announcements about how NK removed the enriched uranium. Then there were announcements about how NK used the enriched uranium to build 1-3 bombs. Then there were announcements about how NK was enriching more plutonium..........

Stop talking about the damned nukes and start talking about peace and solving the other problems that divide

Well, that was what Clinton was doing, but bush* threw all that into the crapper, so I can't blame you for being cynical. However, regardless of how awful bush* is, NK is still a threat. Nuclear proliferation is a real threat. Even bush* and Kerry can agree on that.

[sandnsea]

77. Excuse my skepticism, but

Puhleeze, I could dig up more...

10/16/02
The North Korean official then shocked Kelly when he looked at him and said "something to the effect of, 'Your president called us a member of the axis of evil. ... Your troops are deployed on the Korean peninsula. ... Of course, we have a nuclear program,'" according to the senior administration source, who was briefed on the meeting.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/10/16/us.nkorea/

4/25/03
North Korea on Thursday admitted to having at least one nuclear bomb, senior Bush administration sources told CNN.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/04/24/nkorea.us/

7/15/2004
"North Korea has admitted for the first time that most of its nuclear activities are related to weapons production, Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-07-15-nkorea-nukes_x.htm

[sangh0]

79. I think your skepticism is a good thing

I just hope you don't let it lead you into reactionary responses. Yeah, bush* is full of crap on this issue, but that shouldn't keep you from taking a hard look at the cold facts, and IMO, that requires skepticism.

[Ediacara]

46. I believe it is a threat

So I voted Yes, but I also share the sentiments of the No option, that North Korea can be dealt with diplomatically, and will not strike us unless they see it as their last and only option.

[JVS]

49. Not for me. I live in the Eastern USA. Eat shit West-coasters!

Serves you right for making us stay up sooooo fucking late for World Series and Superbowl games.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

72. Another day, another bogeyman.

For a "peace loving" country we sure seem to have accumulated a lot of "enemies" who don't buy into that popular myth.

"North Korea", "Iran", "Cuba", "Commies", "Terrorists", "Insurgents", "Rebels", "Inner City criminals", "Hair loss", "Toe Nail Fungus", "Credit Card Debt", "Obesity", "Second hand smoke", the list is endless.

With all threats that average Americans have to face on a daily basis, it's a wonder anyone ever gets out from under the covers their holding over their heads.

[sangh0]

73. Logical Fallacy

"We're bad, so they must be good"

[dpibel]

78. Not the point at all

Oops! First edit to add penultimate paragraph; second edit to add what the first edit was.

For starters, the poster doesn't say anything at all about the USofA being bad. The poster is pointing out that Americans are fed an endless diet of threats and fears and horrors and things that go boom in the night.

Perhaps I've been fooled, and you have a hard lock on the real facts, but once I've been told a thousand things that are imminent threats, none of which materialize, I tend to look with skepticism and the thousand-and-first.

Has nothing to do with good or bad. Has to do with bogeymen.

It looks to me that your belief that the existence of the US is threatened by NK nukes is based, at least in part, by the threat of financial collapse in case nuking commences. Leaving aside whether that would be the biggest problem upon commencement of nuking, I'm a lot more worried about the very real unsupportable debt, declining dollar, and Soviet-style bankruptcy in pursuit of the perfect military. But that's just me.

I will cheerfully agree to differ with you on this whole issue, since we seem to have rather stubbornly different views of the matter. Which is to say, I have nothing further to say. If the last word makes you the winner, then you win.

[sangh0]

80. Au contraire

For starters, the poster doesn't say anything at all about the USofA being bad. The poster is pointing out that Americans are fed an endless diet of threats and fears and horrors and things that go boom in the night.

So the US, which repeatedly issues warnings and stokes fears about "bogeymen", is NOT behaving badly? It wasn't explicitely stated, but the meaning is still as clear as day

Perhaps I've been fooled, and you have a hard lock on the real facts, but once I've been told a thousand things that are imminent threats, none of which materialize, I tend to look with skepticism and the thousand-and-first.

The only people characterizing NK as an "imminent threat" are the BFEE and their neo-cons. Clinton never said it was an "imminent threat", Kerry never said it, I don't know of any Dem who has said it.

And in this thread, NO ONE has called them an "imminent threat"

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

82. Another day, another misreading.

I should know, by now, better than to ask you back up your statements about what I wrote, but for the sake of amusement:

Just where, in my post, did I say anything that could be deciphered as "We're bad, so they must be good"?

[sangh0]

84. So you think the US is GOOD for fearmongering over bogeymen?

.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

85. Did I say that?

Funny, Sangho, but I could have written your response word for word before you did.

The answer, however is no. Do you? But, back to your comment about "logical fallacy". Please point out to me in my post where I said that North Korea is good because the USA is "bad"?

[sangh0]

86. Yes you did. In your subject line

Another day, another bogeyman is what you said. YOu followed it with:

"...With all threats that average Americans have to face on a daily basis, it's a wonder anyone ever gets out from under the covers their holding over their heads.

And now you say this has nothing to do with fear.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

87. Yes, I did what?

How do you relate "Another day another bogeyman" with saying that North Korea is "good"? And, where did I say that this has nothing to do with fear?

Your convolutions to defend your "logical fallacy" statement have reached Gordian proportions. Kinda like Kerry's defense of his vote for the war.

But, keep trying. I'll be waiting for the next installment of "how to not answer a question by use of obfuscation".

[sangh0]

89. You argued that NK is NOT a threat, just a "bogeyman"

and in the context of this thread, "not a threat" = good.

And the only argument you made to support your belief that NK is not a threat is "The US lies"

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

90. I did? Show me where?

Do you not think that the US lies?

[sangh0]

91. NK is a threat

The thread isn't about the US

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

92. So is global warming and heart disease.

Not to mention thousands of other things. So?

And, so is North Korea. I never said otherwise as you claim I did. But, you still refuse to back up your claim of "logical fallacy" where you claim that I said that the "US is bad, North Korea good".

Come on Sangho, you can do better than you're usual ploy of changing the subject.

As for the thread "not being about the US". That's like saying threads about Iraq aren't about the US. Or, that a thread about Palestine shouldn't make reference to Israel.

[sangh0]

93. So? It's the subject for this thread

This thread isn't about NK in genenral. It asks a simple and clear question.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

94. It's a question I've answered. Still waiting for your answer.

The one about showing me where I said that NK was "good" because the US was bad. Remember?

Do you really expect the posters who answered the "simple and clear question" with only a "yes" or "no"? This is a "discussion board" if you haven't noticed.

[sangh0]

95. Your first post in this thread

or are you trying to say that your first post in this thread had NOTHING to do with what the thread was about?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

96. Still waiting.

Where in the post did I say that NK is "good"? Now there is a "simple, clear, question". You could try taking a stab at answering it in "simple, clear, language".

Of course my first post was in answer to the original post. So, what's your point?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

97. Addendum: Where is your direct answer to the first post.

All I see are your responses to other posters.

[sangh0]

99. #41

It's my third post in this thread. The first two I posted as I read through.

And in #54, I list the three main ways that NK having nukes making them a threat.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

101. padraig and dpibel didn't pose the original "simple question"

that you refer to.

Still waiting for the "logical fallacy" answer. Will it be a long wait?

[sangh0]

104. In your first post

maybe you'll understand it the third time

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

105. Well, if you ever get around to answering it, let me know.

Right now, I'm going to have a late lunch and read a good book.

You never fail to entertain me Sangho. Have you ever thought of taking up pretzel impersonations? You're so adept at twisting yourself in knots trying to avoid answering questions.

[durutti]

88. Not unless the U.S. attacks first. n/t

[morgan2]

98. north korea is only a threat to our pocket books

They're selling weapons to people that we wanna sell weapons too.. How dare they compete.

[ProfessorGAC]

100. Other

Anybody who gets a nuke is a threat. Anybody!

Nukes are completely indiscriminate. Even a small one can kill a million people if it detonates in a densely populated area.

Anybody who is trying to get a nuke, no matter how feeble or robust their effort, is therefore, a threat.

Of course, that is only true if you buy my underlying premise that nukes are, in and of themselves, such a dire threat, that anyone with one or trying to get one becomes as threatening as the weapon itself.
The Professor

[RedCloud]

102. I am so tired of North Korea killing me

Every day when I get up, North Korea has murdered me. Then after bin Laden kills me, the Taliban kill me. Then John Kerry slits my throat.

Every day it's the same old thing.

Too bad all those color warnings aren't posted.

It used to be when the Democrats ruled (and they will again unless there is some strong ethnic cleansing here!) my eyes were killing me and my feet. But I had them arrested.

Now I fear calling the police because if you know something they will jail you.

Well there's the door bell. It's probably that tax and spend liberal who is going to kill me.