N. Korea Says It Has, Plans to Test Nukes

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


I still want people to specify what they mean by 'deal with South Korea' without meaning US force.

Interesting, provide no rationale's yourself, but ask for some..OK:

The Republic of Korea aligns itself with the Us becuase of North Korea. For Korea, Japan is as much a porblem as China in tersm of it's strategic position. Over the last decade Chinese relaons with the Republic of Korea have imporved markedly, and trade has ballooned, to the benefit of both sides. A single Korea would whish to maintain good relation with the US, but also build a strong relation with China, one that would not be confrontaional. and thus Us forces for defense would be unnecessary. now this new one Korea might very well decide to go nuclear itself, in order to check the Chinese and the Japanese.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by GePap
That's the point, we would be, once there was no NK. Koreans are not eager to have a permament significant US military presence.

After a major confrontation with the DPRK and us pulling their asses out of the fire, they'd probably want us around, at least for a while. According to my friends who served in the RoK, the RoK military is totally unreliable politically.

Like many countries, the RoK has cumpulsory military service. The youth of Korea, on the other hand, are very nationalistic, and many openly support the North. That doesn't change just because you've been drafted.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The youth of Korea, on the other hand, are very nationalistic, and many openly support the North. That doesn't change just because you've been drafted.

Why would they support the North. I can think of virtually nothing that would be attractive to anyone about DPRK.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Since when will the Japanese public let them get any greater than that? IIRC, their Constitution specifies a small defense force.

Keep up with the news boy..lately some of the governing parties people have come out saying Koizumi wants to change that clause in the constitution. And as long as the threat of NK nukes exist the government may very well do it.

So what does 'deal with North Korea' mean then?

at most the admin. imagines airstrikes against nuclear facilities, and I would guess leadership sites. They would never get the authorization to move in enough US forces to do any other sort of rpe-emptive attack, so they aren;t even planning that.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by PLATO
Why would they support the North. I can think of virtually nothing that would be attractive to anyone about DPRK.

Think about the age of the group I just mentioned.

[chequita guevara]

Actually, Japan's SDF is already one of the largest militaries in the world.

[GePap]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
After a major confrontation with the DPRK and us pulling their asses out of the fire, they'd probably want us around, at least for a while. According to my friends who served in the RoK, the RoK military is totally unreliable politically.

S Korea's military is more powerfull than the north's. In any war, it will be the RoK forces that will do most of the figthing, dying and winning. The Koreans this time will NOT have to thank of for saving their asses form the fire.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Think about the age of the group I just mentioned.

Even so...DPRK is pretty bad. I can see a desire for unification in this age group and a desire for "give peace a chance" thinking, but to support DPRK over ROK for any age group makes no sense to me. Hopefully it is not just that I am so far removed from that age group myself!

[Kuciwalker]

I'm not so removed, and it still makes no sense.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap


S Korea's military is more powerfull than the north's. In any war, it will be the RoK forces that will do most of the figthing, dying and winning. The Koreans this time will NOT have to thank of for saving their asses form the fire.

ROK's firepower is superior to DPRK for sure. The problem is that no one knows if a large first strike by DPRK could equal the odds some. Additionally, old fashioned arty is easy to move and hide and when massed can still be hugely formidable against even a highly mobile force. Not to mention the fact that we had DPRK soundly beaten in the 1950 conflict only to find ourselves facing a couple of million pissed Chinese.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
North Korea only recently got these. In November, the CIA said it thinks NK will be a nuclear power by the beginning of the new year.

That's strange. I'm quite sure that the CIA and other assorted world intelligence bodies have suspected NK of having at least two nuclear weapons since the early to mid-1990s.

But Bush did nothing. He woudl rather go after Iraq which had no nukes AT ALL and posted very little threat.
And now it is too late. Because of his inaction, and because he did not care, North Korea is in this position of power. And we can do nothing to stop it.

Talk about simplification. Yeah, I think Bush should have gone after NK over Iraq, but I'm willing to bet folks would have been screaming bloody murder had he done that. Especially once NK began raining arty down on Seoul.

Gatekeeper

[Verto]

But Bush did nothing. He woudl rather go after Iraq which had no nukes AT ALL and posted very little threat.

What would you have liked him to do? What could he have done, or do right now, against NK? It's a very difficult situation - even if NK doesn't have nuclear weapons.

[Spiffor]

N. Korea Says It Has, Plans to Test Nukes

I am dismayed.

How come you didn't use a semicolon in your thread title Sloww ?

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO


ROK's firepower is superior to DPRK for sure. The problem is that no one knows if a large first strike by DPRK could equal the odds some. Additionally, old fashioned arty is easy to move and hide and when massed can still be hugely formidable against even a highly mobile force. Not to mention the fact that we had DPRK soundly beaten in the 1950 conflict only to find ourselves facing a couple of million pissed Chinese.

The north may have the firepower to destroy large sections of Seoul, but it does not have the firepower to do immense damage to the South korean military in one go: huge artillery bombardments would be no more effecitve today than in WW1 or 2, where well prepared positons survived such attacks. Plus, long terms (like a motnh or two in), the South has better logistics, will enjoy commmand of the air, which means ti can muster its reserves without fear of North Korean attack and turn the tide.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
I'm not so removed, and it still makes no sense.

AFAIK, you aren't Korean.

Now, my knowldge of the political fashion of Korean youth is maybe five years old, so things may have changed.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by PLATO
Eventual war looks fairly likely now. This one will be a bad one.

I don't think NK wants war. Remember, what Kim wants is to keep his power. His aim is not to destroy everything around at the cost of his own throne or his own death ; His aim is merely to make sure NK won't get invaded.

Everything NK has done until now shows a paranoid fear of an American (or US sponsored) attack. And indeed, the US would probably have already attacked if Kim wasn't such a dangerous hedgehog. In some way, Kim follows the same strategy as Israel (the "mad dog" strategy I think) : be too dangerous and unpredictable to bother.

I think Kim's secondary aim, once his own power in Pyongyang is secured, is to get leverage in the eventual Korean reunification. He'll use the threat of a nuclear war as much as possible to keep as much power as possible during the reunification. He'll may even want to intimidate SK into surrendering to NK.

But his only weapon in diplomatic talks is the threat of using nukes, not the use of nukes by themselves. If he launches his nukes, he's toast. Even the Chinese will come and stop this guy. And what would he have achieved ? Losing his power. I.e, he'd simply have lost everything and won nothing.

You (Americans in general) shouldn't believe that dictators around the world are movie villains bent on destroying for the heck of it. They generally have a very precise and reasonable agenda. Only the idealists or fundamentalists are really unpredictable.

[Urban Ranger]

North Korea (news - web sites) startled a six-nation conference on East Asian security by announcing its intentions to formally declare its possession of nuclear weapons and to carry out a nuclear test, a Bush administration official said Thursday.

I will believe it when it comes out from the horse's mouth.

[yavoon]

If NK "wont use nukes aggressively" then lets just not bother them. course if ur all lying sacks of crap and they would do it aggressively, then lets preempt and bomb them now.

either way playing the game w/ them seems absurd.

[Imran Siddiqui]

at most the admin. imagines airstrikes against nuclear facilities, and I would guess leadership sites.

Yes, that would SOOO go over well .

Not like China wouldn't raise a stink. They still think of it as their sphere of influence and American military interference would go over as well as the 'bumping' of the Chinese plane a few years back.

I mean, really, you keep saying 'no rationale', 'no rationale', hoping that perhaps it'll come through. The mere fact that North Korea is in China's sphere of influence (would the US like it if China changed the government of Trinidad & Tobago?), and NK is one of their boys (which is the main reason it hasn't been touched in over 50 years) is rationale enough.

As Spiffor said if NK lauches nukes (becoming a pariah): Even the Chinese will come and stop this guy. Why single them out? Because they tacitly give support to the NK regime.

[Spiffor]

I think the Chinese are suffering from the "rebellious puppet" syndrome. NK has been China's zone of influence in the past 50 years, and even today is only one of the few foreign assets of China.

However, Kim's regime isn't exactly a puppet regime. It probably was at the end of the Korean war, but it isn't anymore. Except for some diplomatic importance, and the absence of US troops next to its border, China doesn't get much from NK. Worse, with the trouble NK is stirring on its own, China may well be dragged in an untimely diplomatic or military crisis.

If the NK regime was really a puppet of Beijing, Kim would have fallen already, and a toned down Beijing like communism would have taken over. I think Beijing considers Pyongyang more and more as a thorn. However, they remain obviously its main sponsor. By giving NK some utilities (I think they give oil and electricity IIRC), they buy at least a bit of tranquility, and help maintian stability in this crazy and nuclear country.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I tend to agree, Spiffor, however, even though it is more and more a thorn, it is still their thorn and thus will back it against threats from the outside or those groups not supported by the Chinese. To think China will simply stand by as outsiders (ie, the US, UN or Japan) change the regime is being totally naive, IMO.

I think it does depend on your definition of a puppet regime. I tend to think of the Shah of Iran, especially in the end, as a puppet of the US, but that didn't mean the US had total control over it.. just as much control as it probably could have had without taking the place over.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I tend to agree, Spiffor, however, even though it is more and more a thorn, it is still their thorn and thus will back it against threats from the outside or those groups not supported by the Chinese.

Exactly. For the Chinese to take action against NK, they would either need excellent guarantees from the US side (US, Japan, SK), or they would have to become really troubled by their thorn. Either way, China's not gonna let the US or its clients grab all of NK. At least, not without a fight or proxy fight.

[Nubclear]

I will agree that China will do something to defend the border, however I don't think China is willing to risk its entire economy for North Korea which is quickly becoming a liability to Bejing.
Again, they know that soon they will become an international superpower because of their growth barring some catastrophic event. If they were to support a state that used NUCLEAR WEAPONS as a first strike, their economy would be dead.

It's just that simple.

[Spiffor]

This is obvious Tass. I don't imagine China backing NK if it uses nukes, especially if they do so offensively (but I doubt the Chinese will like even defensive nukes).
However, if the US or its clients attack, China will probably react. Not with all military might and nuclear power, but it'll definitely sponsor "volunteer" organizations to secure as much territory past the border as possible.

If China takes the initiative, I imagine they'll sponsor a regime change, to have a Beijing-like communism take over.

I don't think NK will take the initiative. It is merely a paranoid regime which knows everybody is out to get it eventually. Even China seems less and less enthusiastic sponsoring it. This regime simply wants to survive, and uses the only way it has to scare / repel its neighbours.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by PLATO


Even so...DPRK is pretty bad. I can see a desire for unification in this age group and a desire for "give peace a chance" thinking, but to support DPRK over ROK for any age group makes no sense to me. Hopefully it is not just that I am so far removed from that age group myself!

The people there that are my age and older will remember the war first hand. The people born in the 60's would have been told about the war from mom and dad. People born after the 80's only heard about it from grandfather/mother but don't really mean anything to them.
Even here the young really don't understand Pearl Harbor, and in another 10 to 15 years from now Vietnam will be the same.

[Seeker]

Remember though Joseph that in Korea this has been a 'shootin' peace. Soldiers still get killed by real bullets by the NKs. Like the naval ship sunk last summer, the commando squad sent to the Blue House, the tunnels.

Imagine if WW2 had ended with a negotiated peace, and the Nazis still in control.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Spiffor
This regime simply wants to survive, and uses the only way it has to scare / repel its neighbours.

Not exactly. Kim Jing-Il has been trying to do some modernising a la the PRC, but this is not exactly an easy task. There are factions inside the party he needs to deal with.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I will believe it when it comes out from the horse's mouth.

I haven't seen anything like that yet, but this is what the DPRK has on their news site:

Keynote Speeches Made at Six-way Talks
Pyongyang, August 29 (KCNA) -- Heads of delegations to the six-way talks on the nuclear issue between the DPRK and the U.S. made keynote speeches at the talks opened in Beijing on August 27. Assistant State Secretary James Kelly, head of the U.S. delegation, said that the U.S. immediate purpose is to ensure that the north Korean nuclear program is eliminated in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner. He added that the U.S. can discuss security assurances and political and economic benefits only when the DPRK eliminates its nuclear weapons program completely, verifiably and irreversibly.
Noting that the U.S. would not pursue the bilateral talks with the DPRK for the solution to the nuclear issue, he said: Once the DPRK's nuclear weapons program is eliminated, the U.S. is prepared to start bilateral negotiations on a series of issues, including missiles, conventional weapons, counterfeiting and drug smuggling, terrorism, human rights and abduction. That would be aimed to normalize the bilateral relations.
The conclusion of any non-aggression treaty is neither appropriate nor necessary. The U.S. is, therefore, not interested in it. Once the DPRK's verifiable and irreversible abandonment of the nuclear weapons program is confirmed, the U.S. would be ready to discuss security concerns with other countries at the next talks.
Kim Yong Il, vice-minister of Foreign Affairs, who is leading the DPRK delegation to the six-way talks on the nuclear issue between the DPRK and the U.S., in his keynote speech made clear the principled stand on the settlement of the nuclear issue between the DPRK and the U.S.
He said:
The denuclearization of the Korean peninsula is the general goal of the DPRK. It is not our goal to have nuclear weapons.
The denuclearization of the Korean peninsula was our initiative and it is our consistent stand and the desire of all Koreans to realise it. The U.S. is, however, standing in its way.
If the nuclear issue between the two countries is to be peacefully settled through dialogue the U.S. should make a radical switchover in its policy toward the DPRK.
This is a master key to and a precondition for the settlement of the nuclear issue
The Bush administration openly disclosed its attempt to use nuclear weapons after listing the DPRK as part of "an axis of evil" and a target of a "preemptive nuclear attack."
This prompted us to judge that the Bush administration is going to stifle our system by force and decide to build a strong deterrent force to cope with it. Hence, we determined to possess that force. Our deterrent force is not aimed to attack somebody without any proper reason. It is a means for self-defence to protect our sovereignty.
We can dismantle our nuclear program if the U.S. makes a switchover in its hostile policy towards us and does not pose any threat to us.
The benchmark for our judgement that the U.S. no longer antagonizes us will be provided only when a non-aggression treaty is concluded between the DPRK and the U.S., diplomatic relations opened between them and the U.S. does not obstruct our economic dealing with other countries.
The non-aggression treaty called for by us is by no means to demand "security assurances," but to have a non-aggression treaty with legal biding force whereby both signatories commit themselves to non-aggression.
The U.S. can not shirk its responsibility for having suspended the implementation of the agreed framework.
We have fully fulfilled our commitment to freeze our nuclear facility since the adoption of the agreed framework.
Kelly who came to the DPRK as a special envoy of President Bush in October 2002, failing to present any specific "evidence", groundlessly pulled us up, using coercive words and rudely behaving ignoring the Oriental custom. He claimed that we have secretly pushed forward an enriched uranium program in breach of the Agreed Framework.
In this regard we made it clear that we have no secret nuclear program but we are entitled to have weapons more powerful than those based on enriched uranium. We have powerful weapons, including single-hearted unity. After Kelly's Pyongyang visit, the U.S. misled the public opinion, saying that we admitted to the secret nuclear program and unilaterally stopped the supply of heavy fuel oil from November, 2002.
The DPRK-U.S. Agreed Framework concluded in October 1994 was thus nullified due to the U.S. unilateral refusal to fulfil its commitments.
The DPRK has abided by the principle that the measures for settling the nuclear issue between the DPRK and the U.S. should be implemented by simultaneous actions.
These actions provide a realistic way of realizing the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.
Any opposition to the simultaneous actions would mean opposing the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and, furthermore, can not be construed otherwise than a revelation of an intention to disarm the DPRK and swallow it up. "Early inspection" can never be accepted in any case, he said, setting out our proposal for a package solution to the nuclear issue and the order of simultaneous actions.
He further said:
For a package solution, the U.S. should conclude a non-aggression treaty with the DPRK, establish diplomatic relations with it and guarantee the economic cooperation between the DPRK and Japan and between the north and the south of Korea. And it should also compensate for the loss of electricity caused by the delayed provision of light water reactors and complete their construction.
For this, the DPRK should not make nuclear weapons and allow the nuclear inspection, finally dismantle its nuclear facility, put on ice the missile testfire and stop its export.
According to the order of simultaneous actions, the U.S. should resume the supply of heavy fuel oil, sharply increase the humanitarian food aid while the DPRK should declare its will to scrap its nuclear program.
According to this order, we will allow the refreeze of our nuclear facility and nuclear substance and monitoring and inspection of them from the time the U.S. has concluded a non-aggression treaty with the DPRK and compensated for the loss of electricity.
We will settle the missile issue when diplomatic relations are opened between the DPRK and the U.S. and between the DPRK and Japan.
And we will dismantle our nuclear facility from the time the LWRs are completed.
Clarifying the principled stand of the DPRK on finding a solution to the nuclear issue between the DPRK and the U.S., our delegation would like to advance the following proposal prompted by the desire to make the six-way talks fruitful.
First, the DPRK and the U.S. should make clear their will to clear up bilateral concerns.
The DPRK will clarify its will to dismantle its nuclear program if the U.S. makes clear its will to give up its hostile policy toward the DPRK.
Second, all the countries participating in the six-way talks should agree on the principle to implement the measures for solving the nuclear issue between the DPRK and the U.S. through simultaneous actions.
If our reasonable proposal is turned aside at the talks, we will judge that the U.S. does not intend to give up its attempt to stifle the DPRK by force at an appropriate time while persistently insisting the DPRK "scrap its nuclear program first" to waste time.
In this case the DPRK can not dismantle its nuclear deterrent force but will have no option but to increase it. Whether the nuclear issue will be settled or not depends on the U.S. attitude.
Chinese, Russian, south Korean and Japanese sides made keynote remarks at the talks.
Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wang Yi, head of the Chinese delegation, said the nuclear issue should be solved peacefully, adding that the conclusion of a non-aggression treaty, peaceful co-existence and normalization of relations with the U.S. and the establishment of economic and trade relations with other countries proposed by the DPRK are a positive, constructive, just and rational offer. He noted that the conclusion of the non-aggression treaty should be settled through the DPRK-U.S. direct talks and the issues of denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and security concerns raised by the DPRK should be solved simultaneously. It is important to achieve durable peace on the Korean peninsula by establishing a peace mechanism on the peninsula with the peaceful settlement of the nuclear issue as a momentum, and the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula is favorable for protecting the fundamental interests of the north and the south of Korea and the stable situation in Northeast Asia, he said.
Russian Vice Foreign Minister Losyukov, head of the Russian delegation, said an emergency measure is needed to defuse the tensions on the Korean peninsula, noting that it is important to work out a "roadmap" by incorporating each other's measures.
He noted that Russia is interested in ensuring denuclearization and durable peace on the Korean peninsula and maintaining reliable security for all the countries in the region and developing the mutually beneficial cooperation.
Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of south Korea Lee Soo-Hyuck, head of the south Korean delegation, set out the "simultaneous action order," promising to sincerely implement the June 15 North-South Joint Declaration and continue the economic aid to the DPRK on the basis of compatriotism and humanitarianism and noting the nuclear issue should be comprehensively solved.
Department Director of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs Mitoji Yabunaka, head of the Japanese delegation, noted that it is necessary to solve the missile and abduction issues in a comprehensive way together with the nuclear issue.
Through the keynote remarks made by each delegation at the six-way talks one may comment on the stance of each country as follows:
The DPRK reclarified its consistent stand that its goal is the denuclearization and the guarantee of peace and security on the Korean peninsula and comprehensively set out a clear orientation and specific ways for the peaceful settlement of the nuclear issue including the principle of simultaneous actions.
The DPRK set the goal of dropping its nuclear program from the time the U.S. abandons its hostile policy towards the DPRK and advanced a package solution and simultaneous action order, calling for implementing all the measures to attain the goal on a phased basis on the principle of simultaneous actions.
China, Russia and south Korea also referred to the package solution and the way of simultaneous actions, urging the peaceful settlement of the nuclear issue.
Japan took the attitude to use the six-way talks for meeting its political interests, focusing on the abduction issue rather than the settlement of the nuclear issue. The prevailing tone of the keynote remarks is that it is imperative to achieve denuclearization and peace and stability on the Korean peninsula, peacefully solve the nuclear issue and to this end give a package solution to all issues of concerns between the DPRK and the U.S. on a phased basis on the principle of simultaneous actions.
But regrettably, the United States flatly refused such views.
The United States opposed the package solution and the principle of simultaneous actions instead of expressing its will to make a practical switchover in its policy.
It is the U.S. stand that only when the DPRK scraps its nuclear program first the U.S. can discuss issues of security assurances and economic aid and the issues of missile, conventional weapons, human rights and other issues should be discussed if the DPRK wants to normalize the relations with the U.S. even after it completely abandons its nuclear program.
The United States said the next talks can take place only when the DPRK expresses its intention to scrap its nuclear program.
In the final analysis, the U.S. would move only after the DPRK is completely disarmed.
It is against common sense to raise such a demand to its counterpart at the talks when the DPRK and the U.S. are standing in confrontation with each other with arms and this raises a serious question as to its true intention.
The DPRK cannot but interpret this otherwise than a U.S. intention to invade it after it is disarmed.
It is a brigandish like demand beyond the tolerance limit.
It has become clearer through the six-way talks that the United States is forcing the DPRK to disarm, while persistently pursuing its hostile policy toward the DPRK.
In fact, the DPRK hoped that an agreement was reached between them at the talks whereby the DPRK could be able to express its will to scrap its nuclear program in return for the U.S. manifestation of its will to make a policy switchover at least and the hard-won dialogue would go on.
As such expectation was betrayed, it is not difficult to guess how the DPRK will react to it.
By flatly refusing to exchange even words expressing the will to make policy switchover, the United States put the prospect of the next talks at peril.

http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm

[The Mad Monk]

In this regard we made it clear that we have no secret nuclear program but we are entitled to have weapons more powerful than those based on enriched uranium.

In this case the DPRK can not dismantle its nuclear deterrent force but will have no option but to increase it.

Okay...I'm confused.

edit -- the "while you wait" message for this post was:
Power corrupts. And atomic power corrupts atomically.

[PLATO]

Well at least there not threatening war. That's something I guess.