home

North Korea's Nuclear Option

By TChris, Section Foreign Affairs
Posted on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 08:42:15 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

As if the world hadn't exceeded its quota of serious trouble:

North Korea Says Nuclear Test a Success

< Police Poisoned in Iraq | A Literary Conflict of Interest >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    North Korea's Nuclear Option | 28 comments (28 topical)
    Re: North Korea's Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 05:50:24 AM EST
    et al - Time to crank up the B-52's.

    Re: North Korea's Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#2)
    by Sailor on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 06:18:59 AM EST
    et al - Time to crank up the B-52's.
    yes, exactly, nuclear war is the only thing bush hasn't f***ed up at yet. ppj actually thinks the US can 'win' a nuclear war. warmongering idiots. this is what sandbox diplomacy and violating or 'unsigning' international treaties causes.

    Re: North Korea's Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#3)
    by Sailor on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 06:24:38 AM EST
    Time to crank up the B-52's.
    I'd prefer to crank up 'Talking Heads.'

    Re: North Korea's Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 07:26:46 AM EST
    Sailor - Better to do it now instead of waiting until they have a delivery system that can reach us. And I wasn't, as you well know, saying hit'em with nukes. Of course you claiming that is just Sailor being Sailor and really should be expected. Hit the various necessary locations with conventional weapons delivered by aircraft and missiles. And then a blockade. No need to invade. Just wait and they will collapse.

    Re: North Korea's Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#7)
    by Al on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 08:04:37 AM EST
    See, here's the interesting thing about North Korea's nuclear test: In January 2004, one Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of the Pakistani nuclear bomb, confessed that he had passed along nuclear weapons technology to Libya, Iran, and North Korea. And here's the astonishing bit: The Pakistani government pardons him. You know, our Pakistani allies. Why did the Bush regime allow this to happen? Why is Bush protecting the people who arm North Korea?

    Re: North Korea's Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#8)
    by Al on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 08:07:58 AM EST
    Think again, PPJ.

    Re: North Korea's Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 08:21:26 AM EST
    Kim Jong may be a crazy tyrant, but he's no dummy. The only way to prevent US agression is to have a nuke. This is the bed we made with the old USSR, and now we have to sleep in it.

    Re: North Korea's Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#6)
    by desertswine on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 08:21:26 AM EST
    Yet another massive Bush administration foreign policy disaster.

    Re: North Korea's Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#9)
    by Sailor on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 08:58:40 AM EST
    Hit the various necessary locations with conventional weapons
    as soon as bush declared them to be part of bushco's religious crusade against 'evil' they figured out what else TBM's and concrete can be used for. China, russia and the rest of the world might have something to say about that america attacking yet another country. incurious george's wild west diplomacy led directly to NK having nukes.

    Re: North Korea's Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 09:21:49 AM EST
    Al - The fact that Pakistan did what it did has nothing to do with the fact that N Korea evidently now has one. i.e. N Korea bought the technology. You write:
    Why did the Bush regime allow this to happen? Why is Bush protecting the people who arm North Korea?
    Or are you saying that we should also bomb Pakistan.....? Come to think of it, you may have something there. Didn't know you had it in you. et al - Of course the real problem began when Clinton, Carter and the rest of that merry band of do nothing about terrorists gave N Korea nuclear fuel based on a promise that N Korea wouldn't make a bomb.. Yeah. Smart. Way to go Willie! Guess we also have to clean up this mess you left us. Nice legacy, dude. Sailor - Ready to surrender right now, eh??? kdog - Remember the Rosenbergs?? Remember how they gave the technology to the USSR? Remember that MAD was the only alternative we had besides attacking or surrendering???

    Re: North Korea's Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#15)
    by Sailor on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 09:56:30 AM EST
    yes, everything is clinton's fault; NK getting nukes under bush from bush's ally pakistan, 9/11 happening under bush after he ignored clinton's crew's warnings, foley going after 16 yr old pages, a complete failure to capture OBL and stop the taliban in afghanistan, a roll back of the US constitution and signing statements saying bush can ignore the law ... it's all clinton's fault. so much for the party of family values and personal responsibility.

    Re: North Korea's Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 11:42:44 AM EST
    actually, NK was a triumph of multilateralism, not cowboy diplomacy. we relied on the world to get the job done and it abjectly failed. the Russians and the Chinese will now have a nuclear armed loony on their borders. what a pity.

    Re: North Korea's Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edger on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 11:42:44 AM EST
    Sailor, I think that over the next few years we'll see 'China, russia and the rest of the world' spending a great deal of time in efforts to contain the US. What goes around comes around....

    Re: North Korea's Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 11:42:44 AM EST
    Remember that MAD was the only alternative we had besides attacking or surrendering???
    Peaceful co-existence is another alternative...but there is no money in that. And no empire. I'll give you one thing, as crazy as it sounds, the world was a lot safer with the USSR and MAD still around.

    Re: North Korea's Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#14)
    by Al on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 11:42:44 AM EST
    Or are you saying that we should also bomb Pakistan.....? (PPJ)
    Of course not. Bombing is the preferred technique by the casualty-averse military, but it systematically fails miserably, only managing to kill thousands of innocent people. You know, the "unavoidable" collateral damage. Why is the Bush regime supporting the Pakistani government politically? Why is Musharraf welcomed at the White House? And yes, I understand North Korea bought the technology, and I understand that's incredibly dangerous (probably better than you, since you didn't seem to be aware of the range of their missiles). But that doesn't distract me from the other question: Why did our "allies" give them the technology in the first place? Why was Khan pardoned? Again, why is Musharraf welcomed at the White House?

    Re: North Korea's Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 12:04:47 PM EST
    kdog - Peaceful coexistence? Perhaps you weren't around and I'm not sure they taught much history past 1968... But the USSR gobbled up Eastern Europe, a chunky Russian pounded his shoe on his desk in the UN and said they would bury us... kdog, some people and regimes truly are evil.. Sailor - North Korea could have had the technical info a thousand times over, but if Clinton, Carter and their merry band of not bothering terrorists hadn't have given them the fuel, they couldn't have made a bomb. I don't care how much you hate Bush, you have to admit that giving them the fuel, and depending on their word to not make bombs was about as stupid and naive as it gets. All this Pakistan stuff is just strawmen trying to take the heat off your boy Clinton. Won't work. Facts are known. Maybe he needs to chew out another press guy from Fox to show how tough he really is.... while chewing on his lower lip and tell us he feels our pain.. And this has nothing to do with 9/11. But a good try at a strawman. Al - Why is Pakistan being supported? Come on, Al. You can't be that dumb. Repeat after me. AT THE PRESENT TIMR THEY ARE HELPFUL IN THE WAR ON TERROR. There now. You actually learned something today. As for their missiles, they claim to be able to hit the west coast, but so far their tests have failed.. But thanks for making my point we need to strike with devasting force, NOW>

    Re: North Korea's Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#17)
    by Sailor on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 12:36:58 PM EST
    Sailor - North Korea could have had the technical info a thousand times over, but if Clinton, Carter and their merry band of not bothering terrorists hadn't have given them the fuel, they couldn't have made a bomb.
    once again ppj comments on a subject of which he zero scientific knowledge. You can't make nukes from light-water reactors, that's why we negotiated with them to stop using their heavy fuel reactors whose 'spent' rods could be enriched. They also got the test data, centrifuges and specs from bush's good friend pakistan to enrich natural uranium. REPEAT: YOU CAN"T MAKE NUKES FROM THE TECH WE GAVE THEM. bush let his good friend musharaff from pakistan ;lie to him about selling the tech to NK. bush also called NK a member of the axis of evil and unsigned these treaties: -The Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty -The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty -The 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty Then he refused to even talk to them, preferring to make empty threats. Gee, now we have a new enemy on the block with nukes and it's directly bush's fault.

    Re: North Korea's Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#19)
    by Al on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 01:25:48 PM EST
    Al - Why is Pakistan being supported? Come on, Al. You can't be that dumb. Repeat after me. AT THE PRESENT TIMR THEY ARE HELPFUL IN THE WAR ON TERROR. There now. You actually learned something today. (PPJ)
    The only thing I could have learned from this is that you are as arrogant as you are ignorant, and that I learned a long time ago. How is the Pakistani regime helpful in the "war on terror"? Musharraf has just signed a truce with the Taliban in Pakistan, thereby conveniently releasing them to turn their attention to Afghanistan, where they are advancing on the NATO forces. Musharraf is obviously not lifting a finger to try and apprehend Osama bin Laden or any Al Qaeda leaders. Madrassas in Pakistan continue to train future jihadists. On top of this, he protects the guy who by his own admission has helped North Korea get the bomb. How is all this helpful?
    As for their missiles, they claim to be able to hit the west coast, but so far their tests have failed..
    Well, they have reached Alaska. What really scares me is that people as ignorant as you are actually working for the government. Indeed, for all I know, you may be one of them.

    Re: North Korea's Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#18)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 01:31:23 PM EST
    kdog, some people and regimes truly are evil..
    Regimes, yes. In fact, the one I'm living under right now seems kind of evil. People, not really. 99% of us just wanna carve out an existence for ourselves and our families and live a peaceful life. But those pesky evil regimes find a way to make us hate each other and kill each other. While they count the cash it generates.

    Re: North Korea's Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 04:55:16 PM EST
    Sailor - Catch a clue. The rogue scientist from Pakistan traded them plans in return for missile technology in 1997. Clinton did nothing about that. Of course he didn't know about it... Heck, there were a lot things he didn't know about.. You can have all the plans you want and without the material you can build NOTHING. Trust me. At one point I had the plans for building the Palatial Retirement Compound... but no matter how hard I tried, nothing happened until I had the building materials delivered to the job site... Link
    With the abandonment of its plutonium program, North Korea began an enriched uranium program. Pakistan, through Abdul Qadeer Khan, supplied key technology and information to North Korea in exchange for missile technology around 1997, according to U.S. intelligence officials. This program was publicized in October 2002 when the United States asked North Korean officials about the program, [2]. It is worth noting that the added claim -- "they acknowledged they had a secret nuclear weapons programme involving enriched uranium," -- was never substantiated. Although the Agreed Framework specifically prohibited then-existing plutonium programs, not uranium, the U.S. argued North Korea violated the "spirit" of the agreement. In December 2002, the United States terminated the 1994 Agreed Framework, suspending fuel oil shipments. North Korea responded by announcing plans to reactivate a dormant nuclear fuel processing program and power plant north of Pyongyang. North Korea soon thereafter expelled U.N. inspectors and withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
    I guess this is now considered factual.
    "they acknowledged they had a secret nuclear weapons programme involving enriched uranium," -- was never substantiated.
    We never built the light water reactors because we knew they had violated the agreement, which Clinton touted as fixing the problem. It didn't. Instead it gave them cover and time to build the nukes. Willie should have bombed them instead of that asprin factory in the Sudan... Al - If Pakistan isn't important in the war on terror then why did Sweet William and company say that they could do nothing without having Pakistan on board? Link
    Clarke: Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office -- issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy
    BTW - You need to get a globe out and see just see how close the Aleutian's are to North Korea.... and how far they are from the mainland... Now you have learned some geography. Luck you, eh?? BTW - Don't you just love Lefties like DEMO Rep Markey... his plan ...Now. If you will just promise to not break your promise, again and again... we'll send you food, money, clothes... And to think that once upon a time we told some tinpot pirates.. "Not one penny for tribute..." promise

    Re: North Korea's Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#21)
    by Sailor on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 05:59:20 PM EST
    notice how ppj, as always, ignores the truth and just lies again. what else is new.
    if Clinton, Carter and their merry band of not bothering terrorists hadn't have given them the fuel, they couldn't have made a bomb.
    A flat out lie. A proven lie. GFY and talk to the hand.

    Re: North Korea's Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 06:24:11 PM EST
    I happen to agree that the world would be a lot safer if the USSR were still around. Two superpowers helped keep the world in check. Here's an article I posted on another site on that very topic. By the way, for anyone wondering, Alaska would be a tempting target to North Korea for two reasons: 1) To shut down the oil pipelines. That, in and of itself, is self-explanatory. 2) To shut down phased-array missile-tracking radars on Shemya Island and at Clear. These radar provide "top cover" to CONUS on inbound ICBMs, obstensibly from Russia. But really, I'd seriously doubt that North Korea would launch a pre-emptive strike on ANYONE. Pyongyang might be crazy, but they're not dumb.

    Re: North Korea's Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#23)
    by Al on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 06:53:27 PM EST
    PPJ, in the link to the transcript of Richard Clarke's testimony to Congress that you provided, I am reading this: CLARKE: ... One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. And so, this would put, if we started aiding the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, this would have put us directly in opposition to the Pakistani government. These are not easy decisions. ANGLE: And none of that really changed until we were attacked and then it was ... CLARKE: No, that's not true. In the spring, the Bush administration changed -- began to change Pakistani policy, um, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started. By "we" in that last paragraph, it is clear that Clarke is talking about the Bush administration. Guess what. Musharraf is still aiding the Taliban. You really have to abandon the line that Clinton is responsible for everything that is happening today, as if your boy hadn't done anything. It's sounding terribly silly. As for your allusion to the Aleutians, it does nothing for me, except provide an opportunity for a play on words.

    Re: North Korea's Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 09:58:26 AM EST
    Al - From the link I actually provided:
    Clarke: Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office -- issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy
    Now pay close attention. What he is saying is that Clinton didn't want to change their Pakistan policy...perhaps because of Pakistan's rogue services helping the Taliban.. who knows? BUT. A few weeks ago when the PM of Pakistan was in town it was revealed that the Bush administration threatened them if they didn't cooperate, and cooperate they did... You know... the old CJ strategy couldn't work, but the new strategy did. Now the situation has changed again. Based on the Left's well known desire to give terrorists what they want, elements within Pakistan are betting that Bush is too weak to control them. Congrats to the Left. Mohammed and his head choppers send greetings and thanks. Sailor - Your continual vulgar, self serving remarks define you. Please keep them up so everyone can see what kind of a person you are. A person in which everyone but you lies. My point was, as you know, that our agreement - see the link I provided - to provide them fuel oil and light water reactors gave them cover to continue on with their development efforts. Those are the facts, dearest Sailor. And you can speak to the hand, whatever that means, until the bulls come home, but Clinton, Carter and their merry band of "don't piss off the terrorists," failed miserably. That's the legacy. The peaceniks failed. Just as they did with Hitler, and just as they are doing in Europe with the IslamoFascists. There comes a time, dearest Sailor, when a country must fight or surrender. Got your pray rug???

    Re: North Korea's Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#25)
    by soccerdad on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 10:52:45 AM EST
    Now the situation has changed again. Based on the Left's well known desire to give terrorists what they want, elements within Pakistan are betting that Bush is too weak to control them.
    Complete BS. Musharef (spelling) is doing it to save his own butt from being killed. Simply self-preservation. There have been multiple attmpts on his life in recent months Bush refused to talk directly with NK and couldn't stop the infighting between the neocins ans the Dept of stae. The result was policy paralysis, no talks, and now NK doing tests. But as usual there will be no accountability by the present mis-administration its all the fault of the left, carter, clinton the pages what ever. SSDD

    Re: North Korea's Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#29)
    by jondee on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 02:46:50 PM EST
    Fight or surrender Just dont ask the 101st keyboard commandos to do any of it.

    Re: North Korea's Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 03:54:32 PM EST
    talk directly with them-you mean like a cowboy would? get your complaints straight for a change, will you?

    Re: North Korea's Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 03:54:32 PM EST
    NK does tests because it suits their purposes to do tests, knowing, of course, that people like the worthies here will blather to find excuses for them. talking is a means to an end, not an end in itself. we talked and toasted and offered and continued to abase ourselves to the NK's and got nowhere-why continue?

    North Korea's Nuclear Option | 28 comments (28 topical)