“Silliness,” is how a Pentagon spokesman has just dismissed North Korea’s recent threats to wipe America off the globe and drench South Korea in “A fire shower of nuclear retaliation.”
Think again. For starters, let’s ask whether it’s really a good idea for America to treat lightly — even for p.r. puposes — a rogue regime testing nuclear weapons, testing long-range missiles and making direct threats of nuclear war. The world is watching this stuff, and it gives Kim’s pals in places from Venezuela to Iran all sorts of ideas about how far they can go in threatening and pushing around America and America’s allies. That line is moving right now almost by the day — and not in a good direction.
The list of North Korean outrages, transgressions and rank barbarisms is by now so long, and much of it so familiar, that it should hardly need repeating. The missile proliferation into the Middle East; the nuclear proliferation networks, including the secret reactor built by Syria in cahoots with North Korea (destroyed by an Israeli air strike in 2007); the gulag inside North Korea in which people are starved, worked to death, or executed outright for “disloyalty” to the regime. North Korea’s counterfeiting of U.S. currency (which should be taken, in itself, as an act of war); the narcotics peddled over the years out of North Korean legations around the world; the kidnapping of Japanese citizens; the kangaroo trial and sentencing to 12 years at hard labor of two American journalists this spring; the raw threats, the nuclear extortion, the broken promises, the failed Agreed Framework nuclear freeze of the 1990s, the failed Six-Party Talks of the Bush administration, the impotent flailings to date of the Obama adminstration (”Words must mean something” … oh really?).
Houston — or, rather, Washington — we have a problem. A big problem. And even if you believe that Kim Jong Il is much too fond of his pleasure-women and French cognac to actually sacrifice himself to the rigors of genuine nuclear war, we still have an enormous problem. That problem is the North Korean regime, which has been in the business of inflicting mayhem and misery on its own citizens, and the wider world, since Stalin installed Kim’s father as the tyrannical Great Leader (does that remind anyone of Iran’s “Supreme Leader?” — it should) at the end of World War II.
One of the mantras we’re now hearing is that North Korea’s uptick in threats, nuclear and missiles tests, and whatnot, are all just part of the preparations for the evidently ailing Kim Jong Il to hand over control to one of his sons — at the moment the designated heir seems to be Kim Jong Un. If so, this is — as the State Department might put it — an unhelpful succession process. The civilized world cannot afford a global scheme in which tyrants ensure dynastic continuation of their regimes by waving around nuclear weapons and threatening to rain nuclear fire on places such as South Korea, or the United States.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
66 Comments
1. RKV:“What neither North Korea nor Iran has felt from the U.S. is any demonstration of will to get rid of either regime.”
Excuse me Ms. Rossett, for all the respect that I have for your reporting, and I do, just what do you mean by that? Specifically? Are you proposing we invade either country? Just asking. The prospect of Zero as a wartime President doesn’t leave me filled with confidence as to the outcome. Regime change sounds fine to me, but without specific policy recommendations, I’m not at all ready to suggest we do such a thing. Many others are in the same boat. You’ve explained the why, which is fine as far as it goes. Until you get to the how, sorry, no sale.
Jun 27, 2009 - 12:22 pm 2. MPM:A demonstration of will can begin simply with verbal support and hopefully more substantial support within the country. Any sovereign nation’s government that does not derive it’s power directly from a majority of it’s citizenry is fair game to topple.
Jun 27, 2009 - 1:24 pm 3. nonny:The only thing I find comforting, is that all of NK’s probable atomic targets voted for Obama. Reap what you sow. I wouldn’t worry too much about NK missiles. It would be much easier and far more accurate to load a nuke onto a luxury yacht and detonate it in a marina in Hawaii, up the Potomac to DC or in a harbor in NY.
The yacht delivery route enables a cheaper delivery, out in the open stealth, and direct pinpoint targeting, with zero flight time. It also doesn’t subject the warhead to a 50G takeoff and re-entry. It also bypasses those anti-ballistic lasers and missiles. If the detonation is a dud, just sail back home to figure out what went wrong. Or fly repairmen out to the site. Rent/buy a warehouse full of scrap iron and store the warhead there.
I would hesitate to post this, except that it’s so elementary and obvious. Meanwhile, anyone who can smuggle tons of drugs into the US, certainly knows how to bring in a heavy footlocker.
The only protection you have is to get out of probable target areas.
Jun 27, 2009 - 1:33 pm 4. Ferg:I think that RKV has a point, to a point. I agree that we need specific plans for regime change before we can actually effect it, but if such plans were so readily known to us, I reckon that we’d not have been flailing around for 16+ years trying to fix this. There are no easy answer, to be sure, but that does not absolve either Bush or Obama for their counter-productive policies. One can make it the stated policy of the United States to seek regime change (re: Iraq 1998), without actually having to publicize a plan for doing it. Perhaps that is the model that Ms, Rosett had in mind.
Jun 27, 2009 - 1:42 pm 5. Fred2:Consider a long-running air war instead. Instead of invading, we just pound their main weapons systems from the air every couple of years.
The best start time would be when they launch that missile at Hawaii. Declare it an act of war. We just pound down their artillery near Seoul and their nuclear facilities. And a few other odds and ends. It could all be over in a few days if we’re willing to leave the current dictator in power up there.
Jun 27, 2009 - 1:43 pm 6. TMLutas:I cannot speak for the author but there are plenty of things that could be done.
1. Take the DPRK truce withdrawal seriously. Announce that all N. Korean nationals holding military rank that fall into the US’ hands and are in uniform will be held as POWs. All DPRK who are military but not in uniform will have 48 hours after a UCMJ determination of their status to provide sufficient intelligence information to convince intelligence officials to suspend sentence or they shall be executed as wartime spies. That means among other things that any regime kids who hold commissions and are secretly attending Western higher education institutions have to vamoose or else.
2. All DPRK civilians that fall into the US’ hands shall be interred as civilians of a power with which the US is at war until the end of hostilities or their patriation to S. Korea.
3. Ask the other nations with which the DPRK has recently renewed hostilities with by its withdrawal from the cease fire to also sign on to do points one and two.
It really isn’t hard to come up with more measures that would give the appropriate attitude without committing us to a full on military adventure that we would probably find difficult to finance. Ultimately, I find the how the lesser problem. Why is a bigger issue.
Jun 27, 2009 - 2:23 pm 7. TAK:I agree with RKV. Just what the heck are we going to do about all this? Invade North Korea? Surgical air strikes? Ditto for Iran. Shall we shoot down a plane load of agricultural consultants? North Korea reminds me of the class bully as a freshman in high school. In fifth grade (the 50’s) everybody was scared of him and his actions spoke louder than words. Now everyone is in high school, a much more sophisticated social and political milieu, and the bully has been left behind but he blathers on making idle threats. (I know; its a bad analogy). I don’ think anything constructive can be done until China gets in the ball game, but why should they. The NK threat is an annoyance that makes our strategy and policy more complicated to their advantage. In the interim, one has to hope that the disfunctionality of the North Korean system will eventually adversely affect the ability to project such a bully pulpit foreign policy.
Jun 27, 2009 - 2:34 pm 8. Insufficiently Sensitive:Specifically? Are you proposing we invade either country? Just asking.
How about toning down the faux hysterics. Next, you might provide some helpful suggestions on how a still powerful country might successfully influence a nuclear-armed rogue regime – instead of setting up a nonproductive howl with no useful information.
Jun 27, 2009 - 2:37 pm 9. Steve White:RKV, if we had a president that had the will, and a CIA that could work without blabbing everything to the New York Times, we would both work above-board to contain North Korea and Iran, and at the same time launch Operation Lemony Snickett in both countries: in which would occur a series of unfortunate events.
In North Korea, that would involve cutting off ALL US food aid (including to Wood Food Programme, etc) so as to starve the NK military and elites. It would cut off cash, money laundering and financial access. It would mean aid to refugees, especially to get them out of NK and then out of China. It would mean flooding NK with news and information. The covert part (Operation LS) would involve clandestine efforts to get a NK general to turn, smuggling radios into the country, and to build a resistance movement of any kind.
In Iran, it means again cutting off money and access to the world financial system, standing with the average people, supporting the new resistance, and demanding compliance with IAEA standards. The covert part would mean the sudden, unfortunate deaths of ayatollahs and revolutionary guards, mysterious explosions at gasoline import terminals, and lots of fatal traffic accidents for the Basiji.
That’s a demonstration of will. If President Obama doesn’t want to do it himself, he can appoint me ‘czar’ — he has a czar for everything else so why not this?
If I’m appointed czar, Ms. Rossett, I shall be calling you. Remember, ‘the wind blows in the east’.
Jun 27, 2009 - 2:43 pm 10. IOpian:I would hope that those writing off these threats keep in mind that it would take one high altitude detonation for the EMP to wipe out our electrical grid on the west coast. I understand our military equipment is shielded against this but our commercial electrical systems are not.
Jun 27, 2009 - 3:08 pm 11. John:RKV,
What do you really expect from journalists? Rossett has done a wonderful job of explaining the situation and reporting the facts therein. That is her job. It is not her job to present a fully detailed plan for combating it. Also, her article, in my mind, implies, that yes, we should show we are not going to back down. That we will do what is right, regardless of what the “global community” thinks. For instance, we need to pull that ship aside without N.Korea permission and inspect its cargo.
Jun 27, 2009 - 3:11 pm 12. THE BLACK KETTLE:[...] [...] [...]
Jun 27, 2009 - 3:15 pm 13. Clioman:There are LOTS of things that can be done; many of them are listed above. Personally, I’d be tickled pink if a U.S. spokesman could simply state the obvious: “The official view of the United States is that the leader of the PDRNK is a preening jackass, and personally responsible for exporting untold misery around the world. The sooner the Korean people get rid of him and his evil spawn, the better for Plant Earth. If we can help, call the toll-free number on your screen.”
Jun 27, 2009 - 3:47 pm 14. Michael Lonie:Why would China cooperate with the US to overthrow its client state NorK? “So sorry, but if NorK gets nukes we shall regretfully have to enable Japan and ROK to get nukes too. And maybe other countries in the region as well.”
“What other countries?”
“Oh well, that will depend on circumstances.” [Continued silence in the face of further such questions.]
One thing we might do is try to depopulate NorK. Get the word out in NorK that any refugees will be resettled in ROK. All refugees who make it across the Yalu River into Manchuria (or into Russia for that matter) will be cared for in camps (paid for by the US, and maybe with the help of some NGOs) then quickly transported, under guard of the USN, to ROK. ROK law makes them citizens already. Let them be resettled there.
The cooperation of both China and ROK would be needed, and both are reluctant. China does not want hordes of refugees in Manchuria, ROK is afraid of the monetary cost of reunification or of settling refugees in large numbers. If we had a competent diplomatic service I think they could be persuaded. Offer to pay for the refugee camps and quick movement of refugees out of China to ROK (it will be cheaper than a war with NorK). We could use the argument above to persuade Chian that reunification is preferable to other options. We could put the arm on ROK in various ways, including the threat to pull our troops out and revoke our support if they don’t cooperate in getting rid of the NorK tyranny.
It might not work, but I think it’s the best chance to solve this problem without a war. The war is coming. When the NorK tyrants realize the jig is up they will start a war to steal the wealth of ROK to keep themselves going a few more years. They will nuke us to prevent our help to ROK, and probably Japan too, just on general principles and in memory of Japanese colonialism in Korea. We will not avoid war by appeasement. We only wait for it to come when NorK feels most ready for it. If we drive NorK into collapse by a massive population flight before it’s ready for war we can avoid the major war that is otherwise coming. The other measures outlined by TMLutas are also good ideas, if we can put them into practice. Too bad we do not have a competent intel agency capable of covert actions.
As an aside, because some people in our government seem too naive to realize why, we should not negotiate with NorK over the security of the Korean peninsula without ROK being there and participating. If we do, it is tacit admission that NorK is the real representative of Korean nationalism, and ROK is just a puppet state of the US. It would delegitimize ROK. When NorK calls for direct, bilateral negotiations between the US and itself, that is what they are trying to establish. We should not go along with that travesty.
Jun 27, 2009 - 4:00 pm 15. Bilgeman:#9 Steve White:
“The covert part (Operation LS) would involve clandestine efforts to get a NK general to turn,”
What makes you think we, or the SoKo’s with ours and the Japanese’s backing don’t already have a few?
I suspect that if we turned Kim’s household and military command center upside down and gave it a good shake, we’d all be surprised how many double and triple payroll figures come a-rolling out.
And that doesn’t even take into account how many are on Beijing’s payroll.
Jun 27, 2009 - 4:56 pm 16. Donna B.:Am I the only one that thinks N Korea is simply begging us to attack them in some way, including board that ship which is just as likely bait for such a thing?
They suspect we’d be so overcome with “guilt” at doing such a thing we’d bend over backwards to do it their way afterwards.
If we had a functional CIA and State Department we’d also have a better idea of their motives.
Jun 27, 2009 - 5:42 pm 17. Doc:I’m no geopolitical expert (as I suspect no one else posting here is either, no offense) but it seems unlikely to me that NoRK will fire their creaking wheezing ICBM at the left coast. Being atheists, they have no hope after death, and surely even his O-ness would feel obligated to turn Pyongyang into a smoking crater if they launch at us. Of course I’m all for destabilizing them in any way possible, and if we have a legitimate beef with them, pound’em.
Jun 27, 2009 - 6:12 pm 18. Joe:Iranian Muslims, OTOH, seem down with the idea of dying in the course of killing infidels, so if I were Israeli I would be very nervous about now. The US might suffer greatly if Hawaii, or even more some city on the left coast was nuked, but Israel might just cease to exist if the man in the tall hat rises over Tel Aviv.
Forget nukes, the conventional weapons and munitions that North Korea has is stunning. They have enough artillery and munitions in range of Seoul to bombard every square inch of it continuously for days. Add in the massive amount of biological weapons North Korea possesses and it’s quite intimidating.
Jun 27, 2009 - 6:29 pm 19. Lou Gots:This discussion seems so silly to a veteran of those dark and scary days when we faced down the FSU (Former Soviet Union) over the nuclear gunsights. The antidote to terror is what it always was: superior terror.
What we used to call counter-value strike capability is the deterrent to the enemy’s nuclear threat. Missile defense is a counter-measure, not a deterrent. It would save some lives, but probably not all. What saves everyone’s lives is fear.
Those pathetic clowns in North Korea may or may not be able at some poit in the future to hit the United States or an ally with a nuclear weapon. A single ballistic missile submarine, and we have many, has the power to see to it that their language is spoken only in South Korea and Hell.
We never wanted to do that to the Russians, but we would have if we had been forced to. It was the credibility of our deterrent which made it unnecessary, and kept peace in the world. It worked then and it will work now.
Jun 27, 2009 - 6:36 pm 20. SteveA:Constraints on action:
1) NorK has enough dug-in artillery (reportedly with chemical warheads available) to obliterate Seoul in minutes. They don’t NEED nukes as a deterrent. We don’t (presumably) have the ability to take 10,000 artillery pieces out of action before the NorKs can get some of them into action.
2) The South knows that, if the border were opened, most of the general populace of the North would come south. The South does not want that. The reunification of Germany cost the Germans more than a decade of economic woe, and East Germany was in much better shape than North Korea.
The only scenario acceptable to the South is a change of government in the North that lowers tensions, reverses autarky, and generates a couple of decades of rapid economic growth — before the border opens. The odds of that happening are low to begin with, and the NorK rulers very much want it not to happen.
One way or another, this won’t end well.
Jun 27, 2009 - 6:41 pm 21. JFarr:When I see or hear NK make their threats I think of a 2 year-old having a tantrum. How do we deal with 2 year-olds having a tantrum? Usually ignoring or redirecting them. Can’t win an argument with a 2 year old.
Jun 27, 2009 - 9:59 pm 22. David Gillies:It would be interesting to see what would happen if the oil pipelines from China were destroyed, repeatedly. Maybe you could do it deniably; I don’t know. I’m with SteveA though. I think there are no likely good outcomes. The feckless, preening ninny currently occupying the White House is not helping matters, but in fairness the opportunity to avoid a catastrophe probably passed when the Clinton administration didn’t prosecute the peanut farmer Jimmy Carter under the Logan Act.
Jun 27, 2009 - 11:53 pm 23. Pajamas Media » North Korea’s Nuclear Program is No Joke:[...] Read the entire piece here. [...]
Jun 28, 2009 - 1:35 am 24. flickervertigo:the same problem remains: you’ve got to fabricate a bomb with the same nuke signature as that of the designated patsy’s bombs, just in case some malcontent nuke scientists insist on telling the truth.
skepticism of the israeli american media is growing… maybe they wouldnt be able to sell another 9/11 story, so it would be good if you used a bomb that would duplicate the characteristics of the patsy’s bombs.
see what i mean?
otherwise, you’re gonna have to declare martial law and start arresting unbelievers… but that’s probably a good idea, anyhow, isnt it?
Jun 28, 2009 - 3:10 am 25. El Gordo:Specifically? Are you proposing we invade either country? Just asking.
That´s the sort of brain-dead strawman argument muddying the waters in this country. Whatever it is, it is not “realism”.
We did not invade the Societ Union but we did a lot of things to undermine their viability.
First, we should stop propping up the regime (”carrots”) in exchange for lies and aggression. We should not be sending them money, oil and technology. We should fight the selling of nuclear and missile technology by all means necessary because it is a direct threat to us. Inspecting their ships without asking is the least we can do. Shoot down their test missiles. Go after their financial investments. We should remove our troops from the border so they will not be hostages to NoKo threats.
You bet they will become more pliant when we threaten the regime´s survival for a change instead of rewarding their aggression as we have done so far. That´s a better bet than hoping their supposed rationality will keep them from doing anything to us when it already doesn´t keep them from selling their technology to our less rational enemies (and you do not even know who will be in charge there in 2 or 5 years).
Jun 28, 2009 - 3:14 am 26. El Gordo:#21 JFarr
The ruthless leaders of a brutal dictatorships are not 2 year olds. They are stone cold survivors who have played us for decades. These are calculated moves and they are having exactly the desired effect – because of unthinking people like you.
Jun 28, 2009 - 3:17 am 27. flickervertigo:the absence of evidence of iran’s nuke weapons program is what makes this charade necessary… but apparently we’re not supposed to be able to figure that out, huh?
all we got to go on, so far, as “evidence” of iran’s nuke weapons, is elbaradei’s “gut feelings”… which makes it necessary to explain exactly how iran came into possession of nukes.
in light of tony blair’s million dollar leadership award from israel —awarded, no doubt, for lying us into a war in iraq— we’re entitled to wonder if elbaradei if elbaradei was somehow persuaded to talk about his “gut feelings” in anticipation of being rewarded somewhere down the line.
once you’ve abandoned your morals, anything is possible.
Jun 28, 2009 - 3:59 am 28. flickervertigo:in the interest of “full disclosure”, it should be noted that ms rosett is a member of the FDD, which is infested with PNAC members, many of whom signed the september, 2000 PNAC document that noted the need for a “new pearl harbor” to get their project underway.
a couple months later, those signatories were installed into positions from which they could make their “new pearl harbor” happen, and were installed by an election recount in a state governed by the president-elect’s brother, who is also a PNAC signatory.
Jun 28, 2009 - 4:38 am 29. flickervertigo:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eja-popojUo
Jun 28, 2009 - 4:43 am 30. News You Won’t See In The Mainstream Media Sunday, June 28, 2009 — ExposeTheMedia.com:[...] North Korea’s Nuclear Program Is No Joke [...]
Jun 28, 2009 - 4:43 am 31. Kat in Indiana:#10 IOpian – I had the same thought when I read the Fox News headline….
Jun 28, 2009 - 4:58 am 32. dark jethro:“When I see or hear NK make their threats I think of a 2 year-old having a tantrum. How do we deal with 2 year-olds having a tantrum? Usually ignoring or redirecting them. Can’t win an argument with a 2 year old.”
Except in this situation, the 2 year old has gotten his hands on a loaded gun, and is waving it around. Ignoring him is not an option at this point.
Jun 28, 2009 - 5:00 am 33. flickervertigo:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nvT3_iSaHU
Jun 28, 2009 - 5:27 am 34. Meryl:I Opian: “I would hope that those writing off these threats keep in mind that it would take one high altitude detonation for the EMP to wipe out our electrical grid on the west coast.”
I’m not sure what your point is here.
Are you suggesting that “those writing off these threats” should not be upset and angry?
Or that, out of fear of what an EMP can do, shut their mouths in self-censorship?
I think we very realize what an EMP can do, which is why (sometimes loudly) there are statements made out of helpless and fury at our hapless leaders.
Jun 28, 2009 - 6:02 am 35. Meryl:Phone was ringing and I lost my train of thought.
Last paragraph:
I think we very well realize what an EMP can do, which is why (sometimes loudly) there are statements made out of helplessness and fury at our hapless leaders.
Jun 28, 2009 - 6:04 am 36. hBG:Ignoring or redirecting… yeah, that strategy works well: look at any public high school cafeteria and see the results of such socialization, the sheer respect of authority this produces….
Jun 28, 2009 - 6:38 am 37. Barry 0351:As long as China is the NorKs co-belligerent The USA will NOT invade or bomb North Korea.
Jun 28, 2009 - 7:27 am 38. Ytzik:No one wants to trade a place like North Korea for any of our real estate.
The situation as it sits now is the RoKs will have to do the bombing and invading, Nation re-building and deal with China and the RoKs ain’t stupid.
Ignore the NorKs till their little system totally shuts down and falls apart.
The whole damned place ain’t worth one drop of American blood nor treasure.
no no no, N.Korea nuclear power it’s not a joke! It’s Obama who’s a joke.
Jun 28, 2009 - 7:37 am 39. Chaz:JFarr:
When I see or hear NK make their threats I think of a 2 year-old having a tantrum. How do we deal with 2 year-olds having a tantrum? Usually ignoring or redirecting them. Can’t win an argument with a 2 year old.
Most 2 year olds aren’t waving around guns. In this case, we have a 2 year old with nukes.
Jun 28, 2009 - 8:03 am 40. antaine:JFarr,
This is true, but most two year olds don’t possess nuclear weapons and a military.
Whereas they likely cannot at this point “wipe the US off the map,” they *can* cause untold death, destruction and questions about our long-term stability that would allow China to step in the 21st century into the role we played in the 20th.
I’m for taking a TR or Reagan approach with them, especially while it does not appear that China is ready to jump to war to defend them at this point (although they are willing to sit back and watch because what’s bad for the US is good for China’s global power prospects and vice-versa).
I’m hoping that the country will see what a fairytale Democrat foreign policy is by 2010. After Carter’s ineptitude gave us the fundmentalist theocratic Middle East that threatens us today, the Democrats have not had enough power to really pursue foreign policy according to their principles – until now. Even Clinton could only screw things up so much with a Republican Congress throwing up roadblocks.
I’d happily take eight more years of Bush regime changes over this deleterious pandering nonsense. I’ve honestly come to believe that in the last 40 years, the Democratic party has come to represent the greatest threat(s) to the long term survival of the Republic since the British invasion of 1812 (and yes, I’m not forgetting about the Civil War).
Jun 28, 2009 - 8:46 am 41. Steve:Oh well if we hope real hard that Kim Jong Il meets a quick demise then maybe there will be a change.
Jun 28, 2009 - 9:52 am 42. Delia:N. Korea and Iran are obviously very happy that Dohbi-wan-0bambi is the giggler-in-chief now.
The USA has become a joke under this administration.
Not good. Not good at all.
That cartoon of Kimmy is hilarious btw.
Jun 28, 2009 - 10:08 am 43. Fairbanks99:There are a lot of creative ideas on this site on how to deal with the North Korean threat. Some of them sound like Tom Clancy thought them up. The problem is, we have an Internationalist Supreme Leader wannabe in the Oval Office. Since he himself dreams of tyranny in America, he surely won’t stand against other tyrants and for freedom (see Iran). Drivel, blather, and blaming Bush is all we can expect from the Ayatollah Obama. He is too busy throwing Israel under the bus and implementing the Left’s wet dream of ‘climate change’ rules and socialized medicine to worry about real problems. A lot of people in the world are going to end up dead before this nightmare is over.
Jun 28, 2009 - 10:31 am 44. John Moore:The dangers here are multiple, and sufficient to require us to take serious action.
Threats:
1) Instability in Nork (say, during power struggle/transition) or loss of rationality in their leader could lead to a serious attack against us – with nukes or bio weapons. They do not need ICBM’s to deliver nukes – shipping containers, or, for really big danger, scud launch at sea of an EMP weapon. The threat of biological weapons is even worse, if rarely mentioned.
2) The clear willingness of Norks to proliferate, and their great need for money, means they may sell nukes to terrorists or other dangerous nations – especially Iran. The reactor in Syria is just one example.Ultimately this will lead to deadly danger to us and our interests.
Actions we should take:
Total economic warfare against North Korea: stopping and searching all vessels for contraband, and seizing what is found. Confiscation of all foreign bank accounts of the leaders. Embargo of all goods to North Korea.
The North’s greatest protection is holding Seoul (and Inchon) hostage. We have let the South Koreans go many decades under our shield, foolishly building a city of 20 million within artillery range of the North.
It is time to let the ROC’s know that we will no longer allow the threat to Seoul to prevent us from defending our interests. Under such conditions, they would rapidly protect themselves (shelters and other defensive measures). When I was in Seoul in 1982, they were still being careful – for example, with underground shopping centers. They need to do it again.
At the same time, we can let the North know that an attack on Seoul will result in the utter and ruthless nuclear destruction of their country.
If the Norks are irrational enough to attack Seoul under the conditions above, then they are irrational enough to pose an immediate and existential threat to the US itself.
The Chinese will not go to war with us over North Korea – they have too much to lose.
The carrot: if they allow full transparency of their weapons programs, dismantle all WMD’s, and allow full US inspection of all cargo entering/leaving their state, the economic sanctions will be removed and their evil dictatorship will be allowed to continue.
Jun 28, 2009 - 10:35 am 45. Robert:China will not help the US against N Korea because they are using NK as a puppet to further disrupt and cause damage to the US. China is our enemy and should be treated as such.
Jun 28, 2009 - 10:37 am 46. Allston:As what was once noted about Prussia, and certainly pertains to North Korea today, most nation’s have an Army; in the case of North Korea, the Army has a nation.
Jun 28, 2009 - 10:38 am 47. myth buster:I have an idea: let’s get Mossad to assassinate him. The Israelis don’t want him selling nukes to Iran, and everybody knows he will, so they’ll help us get rid of him.
Jun 28, 2009 - 12:18 pm 48. Marc Malone:The answer is simple. The next time he gives one of his speeches, hit him with a cruise missile. A very public, very accurate hit. It’ll send the message. Just cut off the head of the snake.
There will be no repercussions when we demonstrate our willingness to act. China won’t care to push the issue. We make no apologies, and they’ll let it die. They find Kim a bit of a nuisance, too, even if he is being allowed to be a means to embarrassing us.
Since Kim renounced the cease fire, we’ll be within our rights. The next guy will be willing to negotiate, rather than fight, because the message will have been received. One must negotiate from a position of strength.
I’m advocating what is the equivalent of knocking the little guy on his ass when he’s been running his damned mouth too much. Then you ask him if he wants to continue this. End of discussion and confrontation. We simply don’t have to take this crap.
Jun 28, 2009 - 12:53 pm 49. Paul of Alexandria:20. SteveA:
SteveA(20):
and
flickervertigo (26)
One significant problem is that The North Koreans are among the world’s best tunnelers. Those artillery tubes are in hardened tunnels with concealed doors, and the main problem with getting rid of them is that we can never be sure that we found them all.
They lease out this expertise to, among other clients, Iran; the reason that we can’t pull another Isreali-style raid is that it would – for all intents and purposes – take burrowing nuclear warheads to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities. For this reason also, we have to be careful before we say that there is no evidence for Iran’s nuclear program. Absense of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Jun 28, 2009 - 12:55 pm 50. Paul of Alexandria:Robert(44):
Interestingly enough, there is pretty good evidence that China is behind Iran also. Iran certainly purchases enough weaponry and technology from the Chinese.
Jun 28, 2009 - 12:57 pm 51. SukieTawdry:Does Ambassador Morteza Moradian remind anyone else of Madelaine Albright?
Jun 28, 2009 - 1:43 pm 52. Nisky:With that entire succession plan, handing the power to his son, I don’t think he would walk the talk.
Jun 28, 2009 - 2:02 pm 53. Chaz:I would say put the money where his mouth is and there would not be any son that can succeed.
KIM jong sung, Chaves et al.. All I hear is Blah bLah Blah..” Bring it on.”
45. Allston:
As what was once noted about Prussia, and certainly pertains to North Korea today, most nation’s have an Army; in the case of North Korea, the Army has a nation.
That can be used as a key weakness. If the army can’t be supported, the dictatorship will fall apart. The only way for the army to be supported is with cash, be it from foreign aid, or selling weapons. Cut off both and the army will fall apart… along with the rest of the nation.
Jun 28, 2009 - 2:55 pm 54. Pat J:North Korea is a gadfly. A pest. An unruly kid saying “I dare you.” I say, take any shot at the U.S. and we’ll turn North Korea into a nuclear wasteland.
Jun 28, 2009 - 6:53 pm 55. John Moore:That’ll be a lot of comfort when a terrorist nuke, bought from the Norks, goes off in downtown Manhattan and kills hundreds of thousands.
Jun 28, 2009 - 10:59 pm 56. kywrite:A better solution than anything proposed: blockade his ports. Board every single ship coming out to check for things he’s not supposed to be shipping out. If he shoots at ANY of our ships in retaliation, then we launch the many, many nuclear missiles we have on the submarines that are beyond the shadow of a doubt within striking range. We may lose a ship — but the problem is solved and the crap is scared out of Iran. And with our seagoing defense systems, we probably don’t even lose a ship.
BTW, those folks writing off Hawaii — um, I live here, next door to Pearl Harbor. And I am among the ten percent or so of people living here who are active duty military or their family. We do have more major military bases here per square mile and per capita than any other place in the world, I believe — losing Hawaii would HURT. KJL didn’t choose Hawaii because it was close or because Obama came from here — he chose it for the same reason the Japanese did in 1941, because it is the logical military target.
Jun 29, 2009 - 2:45 am 57. Thomas L......:Regime change, pure and simple, should be the only policy of the USA and its allies towards these outright antagonistic pipsqueaks. We don’t take these threats seriously today at great future risk. These days, a mouse can make quite a roar with the right amplification. Considering the behavior of NK and Iran, what I find hard to believe is that there would be any reluctance whatsoever to forcefully encourage and support resistance or, if necessary, actually assist in these changes.
Jun 29, 2009 - 8:21 am 58. LarryD:I’ll point out that the state of war from the Korean War has never been ended, we just stopped shooting at each other on a regular basis. The armistice was violated long ago.
A reiteration of that, with the addition that because of NK recent acts, the US will resume treating NK as a state in full war with the US. With a full on naval blockade. And targeting their missile program, by using their ICBM’s for target practice at a minimum. Invade, no. But put on the pressure to make them sue for a new armistice, at least.
Jun 29, 2009 - 11:18 am 59. Steve:This seems eerily similar to all the boasts that a certain guy named Saddam used to make about WMD’s. What do you expect from a guy who is used to telling whoppers like how he played a round of golf and hit 18 hole in ones.
This is South Korea, Japan, and China’s problem. The only way we should come to this fight is if they want to trade our military support for all the US treasury debt they currently hold.
Jun 29, 2009 - 12:28 pm 60. Tracy:Read the new novel One Second After. EMP is the problem. Report came out same day as 911 Commission report and was largely ignored. If we are not going to take aggressive military action against rogues, despots and insanity then can we at least defend ourselves and our way of life! Oh Gipper, where are you?
Jun 30, 2009 - 10:59 am 61. M. Report:All of the above, plus:
Seoul is built in a river bed;
the dam in in N. Korea, and is
mined.
S. Koreans still have family
feelings for the North, literally.
Assassination Droids might work;
Jun 30, 2009 - 5:09 pm 62. Steynian 369 « Free Canuckistan!:Richard the Lion Heart ended up
paying protection money to the
original Hashasheem because they
left a dagger on his pillow, three
nights running, in spite of all the
guards he had around his tent.
[...] ~ ITEM: North Korea’s Nuclear Program Is No Joke [...]
Jun 30, 2009 - 6:01 pm 63. Mike Hadden:American went to war in Korea back in the 50’s, but then signed an armistice essentially placing a hold on the war. North Korea since then has called the armistice off. Therefore are we (the United States) not at war with N. Korea? Why do we need UN pansy approval for boarding a N. Korean ship? Why do we even need to consult the UN?
Jul 1, 2009 - 4:48 am 64. Paul -Indiana:#5. So, we could pound them down in ‘a few days’.======
Jul 1, 2009 - 1:29 pm 65. sheesh:Just what do you think the NKs will be doing during that time? Probably shelling and sending rockets into South Korea. Your analysis indicates you voted for Obama since neither is well thought out.
53. Pat J . . .” . . . we’ll turn North Korea into a nuclear wasteland.”
What about the millions of innocent men, women and children who would be killed?
Jul 1, 2009 - 4:37 pm 66. Folklight:#53 Pat J has it framed:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton previously stated there would be no U.S. economic aid to Pyongyang unless the North returned to the six-party denuclearization talks. South Korea’s Ministry of Strategy and Finance estimated North Korea’s total grain production may reach about 4.3 million tons far short of the minimum 5.1 million tons needed to feed its people.Without sufficient food to protect his troops from hunger KJong may finally come face to face with some very harsh consequences of his own policies.
Kjong blaming others for his choices merely spreads misery as the denial kills. Speaking of denial, is that still even considered a negative character trait among politicians? Considering the fact that missiles are useless without accurate guidance systems capable of on target delivery. Loral and Hughes would know.
Ahhh Hsu I think the Clintons virus has spread around the world.
Jul 4, 2009 - 4:38 am~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Happy 4th Everyone!
- GOD BLESS USA -