US and Korea "Slipping Into War" - Page 5

KrazyHorse · July 23, 2003, 17:39

Cheap cars instead of smouldering rubble.

TCO · July 23, 2003, 17:45

Do we really think it will constrain the NK? What affect will it have on our own freedom of action and our ability to use threats for negotiation? (Public support, etc.)

I think it puts us in more of a box than the NK.

DanS · July 23, 2003, 17:50

Quote:

1. They can't/won't/would have a really tough time enforce such a demand.
2. The status quo is acceptable and they feels security that if things go to ****, someone else will bail them out.
3. They prefer not to have economic issues from reuninion with the North.
4. They beleive that a pure policy of talk and engagement is more beneficial than direct, enforced negotiation. They beleive in "process".

Yes. My thoughts exactly. IOW, agggghhhh!

Re #1, they would have more leverage with China if they didn't automatically take all of their negotiating points off the table all the time. Really, the only people SK has any backbone with is the US, their allies.

KrazyHorse · July 23, 2003, 17:51

How so? NK has to slide a long way before preemptive strike becomes a real possibility. You always have option of tying NK compliance to NA pact, so their eternal paranoia is not completely put to rest (i.e. you can still use it against them in the future if they misbehave)

Oerdin · July 23, 2003, 18:00

Quote:

Originally posted by TCO
They can't/won't/would have a really tough time enforce such a demand.

China supplies 70% of NK oil, gas, and coal. All the Chinese communists have to do is cut off Kim's life line when ever he acts up. But, the Chinese would never sell out their communist brothers even if said brothers are murdering thugs.

KrazyHorse · July 23, 2003, 18:02

As opposed to the Chinese?

Ned · July 23, 2003, 18:12

If a non agression pact will get NK to agree to verifiably end its nuclear program, then I think we should do it. The alternative is war between the US and NK or a US withdrawal from the penisula, leaving South Korea to its fate. I don't seen the status quo being maintained indefinitely.

TCO · July 23, 2003, 18:36

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
How so? NK has to slide a long way before preemptive strike becomes a real possibility. You always have option of tying NK compliance to NA pact, so their eternal paranoia is not completely put to rest (i.e. you can still use it against them in the future if they misbehave)

They have already shown systematic misbehavior (in OUR terms). How would this nonaggression pact help us to stop them from going nuclear? And stop them from extorting cash? (Not completely provacative question. Really curious.)

And for instance, if we could get a verifiable stop to the nuclear development ion exchange for some agreement, don't you agree that it is better negotiated bhind the scenes? To the extent that the public knows nothing about it? Else, we put ourselves in the box of havong th NK exploit and play games with our desire to "be successful" in negotiations? (It is a basic prinicple of negotiations to be willing to walk, readily. "Never negotiate with a hard-on.")

KrazyHorse · July 23, 2003, 18:40

Difference is that once they get cash from you there's no assurance of future compliance.

A NA pact doesn't actually give them anything, since it can be cancelled at a moments' notice if you say they're misbehaving.

Not to mention the fact that the US admin has already given NK assurances that it has no plans to attack...

TCO · July 23, 2003, 18:41

Remember the Pueblo...

KrazyHorse · July 23, 2003, 18:42

Quote:

And for instance, if we could get a verifiable stop to the nuclear development ion exchange for some agreement, don't you agree that it is better negotiated bhind the scenes? To the extent that the public knows nothing about it? Else, we put ourselves in the box of havong th NK exploit and play games with our desire to "be successful" in negotiations? (It is a basic prinicple of negotiations to be willing to walk, readily. "Never negotiate with a hard-on.")

I agree, but NA pact is going to be one of their major demands. It costs you nothing to give it to them as long as there's some sort of compliance and verifiability clause (since then you can always decide to violate them out of the agreement).

KrazyHorse · July 23, 2003, 18:43

Remember what? That NK's insane? It's sort of hard to forget...

TCO · July 23, 2003, 18:47

But seriously...

ARe you saying that we have nothing to lose so why not try it or are we saying "this has a good probability of working".

And do you really think that we can cancel a nonaggression pact and get public support so readily if we have a problem down the line?

There is also the issue of access for monitoring, etc.

TCO · July 23, 2003, 18:50

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Remember what? That NK's insane? It's sort of hard to forget...

That was my cute comment. Serious to follow. Although...Pueblo is close to my heart emotionally...

KrazyHorse · July 23, 2003, 19:01

Quote:

Originally posted by TCO
But seriously...

ARe you saying that we have nothing to lose so why not try it or are we saying "this has a good probability of working".

And do you really think that we can cancel a nonaggression pact and get public support so readily if we have a problem down the line?

There is also the issue of access for monitoring, etc.

My point is that you're not going to war with NK in the foreseeable future (because that would be a real hornet's nest). Therefore a NA pact is worthless, because it's a statement of fact. Cancelling it might mean trouble if you were actually then going to go to war right away, but not if it's just a means to use their paranoia against them in the future.

Vandal-1 · July 23, 2003, 21:38

Perhaps it's time to resurect " The Rising Sun" ,such that it may be the one to retaliate in a nuclear fashion if attacked in a nuclear fashion.We only look like the bad guys ,if we do it for them.We could re-invent the lend lease program with them on weapons. Unlikely as that may seem it is a contingency.I 'm not too worried about Japan attacking the US ,they have learned that its all for sale.

'For trade ,we show you good time' If NK wants a non- agression document ,( I maybe a little confused ),we call them peace treaties,right!?Kims really going about this backwards.I wonder if he'd like to run for president of all Korea while he's at it .jeeesh

DinoDoc · July 23, 2003, 21:43

Quote:

Originally posted by TCO
What do we get out of a non-aggression pact?

So far it looks like a promise that they won't screw us over like last time backed up by nothing more than hot air.

TCO · July 23, 2003, 23:43

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

My point is that you're not going to war with NK in the foreseeable future (because that would be a real hornet's nest). Therefore a NA pact is worthless, because it's a statement of fact. Cancelling it might mean trouble if you were actually then going to go to war right away, but not if it's just a means to use their paranoia against them in the future.

If it is owrthless, why shoud the NK value it? And you have n't adressed how it reduces our leverage. And we have a little.

Q Classic · July 24, 2003, 11:55

Quote:

Are they Finlandized?

if by finlandized you mean fortified and defended up the wazoo, then yes.

buildings are constructed so that the north walls are thicker, and streets and boulevards are designed with barriers facing north to provide cover. all major highways and throughfares have numerous tank traps.
all chokepoints and natural curves have been fortified with caches of supplies and fortified.

as for ressurecting a militarized japan...
that's not going to go over well with anybody in east asia.

Drake Tungsten · July 25, 2003, 04:09

Quote:

that's not going to go over well with anybody in east asia.

The people of Taiwan might not mind it.

Sikander · July 25, 2003, 04:34

Quote:

Originally posted by TCO

That was my cute comment. Serious to follow. Although...Pueblo is close to my heart emotionally...

Mine too.

Honestly I wonder if we can have any other long term policy than the destruction of the NK regime. We can't trust them to do anything they agree to, and there is no mechanism that I can see to hold them to their agreements that hasn't been proven ineffective by the history and nature of this regime. They are forcing us to destroy them, and we should at least make this clear before we have to do so.