We have Nukes: DPRK - Strategic Impact Analysis

Vamsee
BRFite
Posts: 534
Joined: 16 Mar 2001 12:31

We have Nukes: DPRK - Strategic Impact Analysis

Postby Vamsee » 10 Feb 2005 17:17

http://www.keralanext.com/news/indexread.asp?id=111086

[Asia News]: SEOUL - North Korea declared on Thursday for the first time it possessed nuclear weapons and pulled out indefinitely from six-party talks on its atomic ambitions, saying it needed a defense against a hostile United States.


http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/02/10/nkorea.talks/index.html

RajGuru
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 15 Sep 2004 11:41
Location: South of Musi, Deccan Plateau

Re: "We have Nukes"says DPRK-Strategic Impact Anal

Postby RajGuru » 10 Feb 2005 17:29

This March is going to be REEEYALLEY HOT.
If we see the pattern emerging for the last few weeks It is not impossible to guess whats cooking behind the curtain.I am curious where Mush and AQK will figure in this unfolding saga.
Last Hint
N.Korea Has Bought Complete Nuclear Bomb - Report

SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea (news - web sites) appears to have bought a complete nuclear weapon from either Pakistan or a former Soviet Union state, a South Korean newspaper said on Thursday quoting a source in Washington.

Seoul Shinmun quoted the source as saying the United States was checking the intelligence.

The purchase was apparently intended to avoid nuclear weapons testing that could be detected from the outside, the source was quoted as saying.

North Korea is believed to have one or two nuclear weapons and possibly more than eight.

U.S. Congressman Curt Weldon said after a visit to the North this month that its second-ranked leader had told his delegation that it possessed nuclear weapons.

Pyongyang has declared that a nuclear reactor at Yongbyon, sealed under a 1994 agreement with the United States, had been restarted. Spent nuclear fuel from that reactor could be converted to weapons-grade material.

North Korea has never officially declared that it possessed atomic weapons, speaking instead of its "nuclear deterrent."

jrjrao
BRFite
Posts: 869
Joined: 01 Jul 2001 11:31

Postby jrjrao » 10 Feb 2005 18:25

No yaar. All this is zimble onlee.

This is just a manifestation of the insecurity and powerlessness against hegemony that the North Koreans feel.

There is only one easy solution -- upgrade, rapidly, their military.

Give the North Koreans ample F-16s and F-15s and AWACS and TOW missiles. All of which, after all, can only raise their nuke use threshold, which means happy happy.

Which in turn will lead to greater stability and balance in the region. As I said, this is zimble onlee...

RajGuru
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 15 Sep 2004 11:41
Location: South of Musi, Deccan Plateau

Postby RajGuru » 10 Feb 2005 18:42

Arre o! ujadey huey riyasath key lootey huey sultan!Aunty pehley se hi jaanthee thee!

LUXEMBOURG (Reuters) - The United States has assumed since the mid-1990s that North Korean is able to make nuclear weapons, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) said Thursday, playing down a dramatic announcement from Pyongyang.


"We have for some time taken account of the capability of the North Koreans to perhaps have a few nuclear weapons," Rice told a news conference after talks with the European Union (news - web sites).


She said Washington and South Korea (news - web sites) had a sufficient deterrent on the Korean peninsula to "deal with any potential threat from North Korea (news - web sites)."


Rice urged Pyongyang to reconsider its decision to withdraw indefinitely from six-party talks on its atomic ambitions, saying the North Koreans would only receive security assurances if they dismantled their nuclear program verifiably.

Umrao
BRFite
Posts: 547
Joined: 30 May 2001 11:31

Postby Umrao » 10 Feb 2005 19:09

Engagement not War is the answer.
Look how well Mushy has been tamed,
so will Dear leader Kim, just appease him

The Chinese and Saudis must be Laughing away to glory at uncle sam's Academic Asian Experts and Terrorism experts advice to the GOTUS.


BR where tomorrow comes today while...

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 10 Feb 2005 19:30

There are some inconsistencies in the NoKo story.

The early 90s program was supposed to be based on extracting Pu for a research reactor(euphemism for weapons grade reactor not power grade reactor). The Clinton admin deal (Robert Galluci was the negotiator) was to shut that down and provide oil for energy and light water reactors which dont produce weapons grade Pu.
Then things get murkier. The TSP-NoKo deal for nuke technology for NoDongs was started in 1993 per Benazir Bhutto. The AQK purloined technology is HEU based a totally different material and path for bulky weapons. Then we have another revelation in Atlantic Monthly that the NoKo were elated with the TSP second test assumed to be Pu based. So it is all murky as to what NoKo have and what the US wants to acknowledge as they have.
The bottomline I think is that NoKo has some Pu based weapons which are similar to those tested in Chagai in May 30, 1998. They also have some HEU based designs that they are busy trying to make from the centirfuges obtained by TSP barter. The difficult part is that both the Pu and HEU have to be implosion based for compactness and that is not something that Noko can come up with on its own. So the basic design is from China. However all these could be cover for actual Chinese weapons in their possession.

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Postby Rangudu » 10 Feb 2005 19:34

Ramana,

What is the Atlantic Monthly thing? Can someone post that article/report? Thanks

Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Johann » 10 Feb 2005 19:42

This declaration changes nothing in terms of what is known, or more accurately, what is guessed about DPRK capabilities. The only way for the North Koreans to actually change that is by conducting a succesful nuclear test - but that is something they are probably reluctant to do. It is by holding out the possibiliy of disarming that they hope to wring concessions out of the Americans, Japanese and South Koreans. On the other hand no one will imagine that country that has tested will disarm itself unilaterally. A nuclear test would be a mark of desperation. In some ways the NK nuclear strategy seems very similar to the one adopted by the South Africans, but the problem is that DPRK demands are open ended, and the chances of internal change appear minimal.

There are certainly those in the US who favour a course of confrontation. However, South Korea does not have a public consensus in favour of risking a hugely destructive war to disarm North Korea, and the Japanese remain cautious.

The only way that the US can or will take a tougher line is if the Japanese, or particularly South Korean public develop greater determination on this issue. They remain unconvinced that the consequences of DPRK nuclearisation are worse for the RoK than war.

This is very different from Israel which has made it clear for some time that they consider an Iranian nuclear capability unacceptable, and that they will act unless the rest of the world addresses its concerns.

Iraq was supposed to be the case example to encourage the 'rogues' to co-operate, but it doesnt seem to have worked on the toughest nuts. Even Iraq however would have been impossible without the strong Kuwaiti national consesnus in favour of removing Saddam.

Sunil
BRFite
Posts: 634
Joined: 21 Sep 1999 11:31

Postby Sunil » 10 Feb 2005 20:12

So a "Terrorist State" now officially has nuclear weapoms.

Well might as well sell them F-16s, F-15s and AWACS to help raise their conventional use thresholds. Hey I mean like the Pakistanis I am sure that the North Koreans won't use the bomb if they have conventional parity with their nuclear adversaries.

I feel North Korea should be declared Most Allied Non NATO Ally.

Can I now officially call Korea - a nuclear flashpoint? Is that going to change the investment climate in Korea? I mean "nuclear war" could break out at any moment.

Once again.. Kudos to JEM for pointing this out almost two years ago.

1) Terrorist state: Someone who refuses to stop making terrorists when they are politely asked to do so.

2) States of concern: Someone who might have made one nuclear weapon.

3) Rogue state: Someone who might be making atleast a few nuclear weapons.

4) Not a Nuclear State: Someone who has a stockpile that exceeds a few weapons and enough fissile material to make many more if desired but fundamentally doesn't really want more nukes or to actually use one.

5) Most Allied NATO Ally: A terrorist state that accepts payoffs in cash, arms etc... to not use its weapons right away but will definetely use it given half the chance.

6) P5 state: A state with a huge nuclear arsenal and with no concievable use for it.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16420
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 10 Feb 2005 20:23

Sunil,

Not "sell". Uncle should provide them aid under PL-420.

Free of cost. We do not want Uncle after 40-50 years writing that debt off. Let him do it from the start.

Sunil
BRFite
Posts: 634
Joined: 21 Sep 1999 11:31

Postby Sunil » 10 Feb 2005 20:24

NRao,

(slapping my head)

Ofcourse you are right!!

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16420
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 10 Feb 2005 20:29

On a more serious note (oh yeah!) has Chicom made any statements?

This and Nepal is coming too close for comfort.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 10 Feb 2005 20:37

N^3 had made an observation that the NoKo shenanigans are related to remaking East Asia a Chinese sphere of influence.


However to assure the SoKo and Japan uncle has to make the security umbrella more definite and no more threats to remove umbrella for economic reasons.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36394
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 10 Feb 2005 20:57

an accidental flight went over japan once.. it could happen again, and who knows might land up in delhi too. how are we prepared for these type of situation. i don't want to hear, ddm say: recent NK accident that landed in delhi, exposes our defence preparedness towards accidental nuclear launch by our nuclear neighbourd community. i hope, we don't want to handle that incident like we are handling the tsunami.

Umrao
BRFite
Posts: 547
Joined: 30 May 2001 11:31

Postby Umrao » 10 Feb 2005 20:59

Well that eloquent summary of why things are different is yet another way of spinning.

The very same intelligence couldnt decide wether Saddam had it or not, if he did how long was his reach?

So N Korea has it or not was all along known :P . Then why talk to India about Shitty Bitty in the 90s and coerce?

It was all along known that NK and TSP and Chin Coms were operating hand in glove, then why the hipocracy.

Lets get to the root cause, why this sudden rush of Iran N Korea S Korea Japan, KSA all wanting to have ?

Basically KiM ill Jong is singing this

Now I'm the king of the swingers
Oh, the jungle VIP
I've reached the top and had to stop
And that's what botherin' me
I wanna be a man, mancub
And stroll right into town
And be just like the other men
I'm tired of monkeyin' around!

Oh, oobee doo
I wanna be like you
I wanna walk like you
Talk like you, too
You'll see it's true
An ape like me
Can learn to be human too

( Gee, cousin Louie
You're doin' real good
Now here's your part of the deal, cuz
Lay the secret on me of man's red fire
But I don't know how to make fire )

Now don't try to kid me, mancub
I made a deal with you
What I desire is man's red fire
To make my dream come true
Give me the secret, mancub
Clue me what to do
Give me the power of man's red flower
So I can be like you

You!
I wanna be like you
I wanna talk like you
Walk like you, too
You'll see it's true
Someone like me
Can learn to be
Like someone like me
Can learn to be
Like someone like you
Can learn to be
Like someone like me!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 10 Feb 2005 22:11

Why now this NoKo declaration? Maybe someone decided to shift uncle's focus from Mid-East?

Also wonder what will "Not"war Singh advise the South Koreans now? Shows how irrelevant and gratitous his advice to South Korea was. Or could he have been carrying uncle's brief? He seems to show up in DC quite often.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16420
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 10 Feb 2005 23:40

I do not think it is to divert from ME. I think this is a "signature" collecting act on the part of Chicom. ("signature" as in radar signatures.) This and Nepal.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 10 Feb 2005 23:49

Asia Times prespective article: [url=http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/GB11Dg05.html]'We have nukes': The six-party failure
By Aidan Foster-Carter [/url]

'We have nukes': The six-party failure
By Aidan Foster-Carter

When the six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear issue were first held in 2003, this seemed the way to go. China's keenness to host them showed a welcome proactiveness by its new leaders, after long passivity to the nasty crisis brewing on its borders. Also, this was a full house: both Koreas plus all four powers - China, the United States, Japan and Russia - bound to the Korean Peninsula by geography or history. Hopes ran high that this format would get somewhere.

Two years and three rounds later, optimism is harder to maintain. In fact, it was shattered on Thursday. After Pyongyang's announcement for the first time that it has nuclear weapons and is abandoning the talks, it is time to be honest about the many ways in which this forum has failed.

From the first, it was unwieldy. Former US negotiator Jack Pritchard complained that 48 interpreters were needed. Despite US insistence that North Korea is not just a bilateral concern, we all know who the two principals are. Rather than facilitating direct dialogue between Washington and Pyongyang, this sextet has in practice allowed both to avoid it.

Second, we risked mistaking process for progress. In what one might call "mission shrink" - the opposite of mission creep - the policy goal retreated to merely trying to drag the North Korean horse to water, regardless of whether it would drink if it ever got there. So if a long-delayed fourth round of talks is announced in spite of Thursday's development, hold the champagne. Pyongyang has played this will-they-won't-they game for decades: one step forward, two steps back.

Third, there was bad faith all around. The six-party charade created an illusion of motion, which suited everyone. The administration of US President George W Bush could pretend it was engaging North Korea, when in fact it is internally divided - and preoccupied elsewhere. Not until last June was secretary of state Colin Powell allowed to offer a detailed plan: too late, with the US elections due. There is no sign that Bush II will be any readier to focus seriously (not just rhetorically) on Korea.

Fourth, for the other parties, the six-party talks were a fig leaf. China, Russia and the new South Korea form a post-Cold War axis of carrot. Like the three monkeys of fable, they see, hear and speak no evil of North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. Tact is one thing, but Panglossian complacency another. Does this troika really believe their own smiley assurances that everything will turn out fine? (Only Japan, pursuing its own abductions agenda - North Korea abducted its citizens - wields a balanced mix of stick and carrot.)

Fifth, fetishizing the six-party (non-)process is a dangerous diversion. The ways North Korea is a threat have long been legion. Two nuclear programs - both now out of control, thanks to Bush's bungling - are just for starters. Add in chemical and biological weapons, missile development and proliferation (addressed by former president Bill Clinton - Bush broke this off), huge conventional and special forces; not to mention counterfeiting, trafficking, refugees, and human-rights abuses. Just to list this dire litany is to despair of ever resolving it all - unless Kim Jong-il emulates Libya's Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and strikes the mother of all grand bargains.

Even if he may want to, none is on offer. But the Dear Leader has trouble at home too. Six-party fixations have also distracted us from internal North Korean politics: a murky area, but one where hidden eruptions begin to ruffle the bland theatrical veneer. Last year Kim purged his brother-in-law and ex-right-hand man Chang Song-taek. Three sons vie to be dauphin, with rumors of murder plots (in Vienna, even). This struggle may be over policy - hawks versus doves - or simply power. Either way, stability can no longer be taken for granted.

The grassroots are restive too. A Seoul non-governmental organization (NGO) lately released the first-ever video of dissidents in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Sunshine cheerleaders rubbished this, but the real question is: What took them so long? Half-baked reforms have seen inflation soar and rations slashed. Yet if the state no longer provides, the old social contract is dead. Ever more North Koreans will start to ask the Janet Jackson question of their rulers: What have you done for me, lately?

It is crucial to see the big picture and take the long view. The key North Korea question is how and when - not whether - this ghastly failed regime will cease to be. Just possibly it might manage to morph into something more sensible, like China and Vietnam. But that looks a long shot. It is only prudent to guard against and plan for much bumpier landings.

Here, the sagging six-party process just might have a use after all. As Professor Francis Fukuyama has argued, the other five could reconstitute themselves as a permanent regional security body, which Northeast Asia has sorely lacked hitherto. Item 1 on the agenda, urgently, is to agree who will or will not intervene if North Korea blows, or collapses into chaos.

That will be a moment of peril. A century ago, Korea's three neighbors fought two wars for control of a dying kingdom. A terrible war also followed the superpowers' partition of the peninsula in 1945. Now, as another Korean dynasty looks moribund, it is vital that all concerned cooperate to prevent a tough transition becoming a third cataclysm. That is the real issue in Korea now; not just nukes, still less the fate of a hexagonal table in Beijing.

Aidan Foster-Carter is honorary senior research fellow in sociology and modern Korea at Leeds University, England. He has followed North Korean affairs for 35 years.

(Copyright 2005 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us for information on sales, syndication and republishing.)



Some lessons applicable to talks with TSP. Need to tell outsiders to stay their distance to avoid a Noko mess in South Asia. TSP has all the negatives of NoKo and more.

Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Johann » 11 Feb 2005 08:25

ramana wrote:Why now this NoKo declaration? Maybe someone decided to shift uncle's focus from Mid-East?

Also wonder what will "Not"war Singh advise the South Koreans now? Shows how irrelevant and gratitous his advice to South Korea was. Or could he have been carrying uncle's brief? He seems to show up in DC quite often.


The DPRK always likes to seize the initiative whenever they feel a crisis coming over something they've done - discrepencies in inventory, failure to allow inspections, undeclared programmes and facilities, etc. They have done this regularly since 1993, usually threatening to end IAEA safeguards, etc, threatening to weaponise etc. It is a tactic meant to discourage collective punitive action, and instead encourage conciliation and appeasement.

This time there are two triggers. The first is the publication that there is evidence that North Korean uranium got to the Libyans via the Pakistanis in 2001. The second is the renewed Bush emphasis on 'spreading liberty', which must make a regime as paranoid as the DPRK *extremely* nervous.

North Korea has an unwitting ally in the earnest hope of many South Koreans for peace at almost cost- I dont know if this has been noted here but the RoK Minister for Unification announced recently DPRK defectors would henceforth be returned to the North as a confidence building measure, to prove to the communists that the South were no longer pursuing any sort of destabilisation programme!

Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Johann » 11 Feb 2005 08:46

The USSR had a long history of internal party intrigues (often violent - Trotsky killed by an icepick to his skull, Beria arrested at gunpoint by Khrushchev and Malenkov, etc), but that wasnt what destroyed the regime.

Nor were economic conditions alone the cause - the Soviet Onion collapsed because people were allowed to express dissent at a time when the leadership was struggling under the weight of enormous problems. The situation in 1989-91 was nothing like the terrible famines of the 1930s - the difference is that people werent afraid of being shot. The Stalinist system survived the famines and went on to become a superpower.

The DPRK is not going to give up Stalinism, and dissidents will continue to be crushed. If they do change it will probably look a great deal like the PRC - economic reform while maintaining strict party control.

If the DPRK regime is to be overthrown the South Koreans have to be at the front, but at this point the second last thing they want to see is collapse and chaos in the North. .

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 11 Feb 2005 21:20

So maybe NoKo thought the recent Bush statement was a signal of a planned soft coup? Maybe this declaration is a regime protection artifice? Afterall no one wants to dismantle the TSP with its nukes despite its egregious role in incubating jihadic terrorism. I dont want to use the term Islamic terrrorism.

P Babu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 23
Joined: 24 Nov 1999 12:31
Location: USA

Postby P Babu » 11 Feb 2005 22:02

In NPR, it was reported that NK was looking for some positive signal in speach [State of Union Address]. They were expecting some recognition of the regime or some friendly gesture. Lack of it, pushed them to declare Nuke presence.

vinodv
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 18
Joined: 19 Apr 2003 11:31
Location: USA

Postby vinodv » 11 Feb 2005 23:16

Could it be possible that they are smarter than that.. that they follow the Bush Adminstration very closely. There is a marked shift in the focus in the second term toward domestic issues. Notice how Bush hasn't said a word on this so far. The spin is that they don't want to appear to care all that much, but methinks it because Bush doesn't want to lose focus on the social security issue. Just a thought.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16420
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Postby NRao » 11 Feb 2005 23:29

NK wants direct talks.

Unlce has said no. He wants 6 party talks. Uncle has responded.

Umrao
BRFite
Posts: 547
Joined: 30 May 2001 11:31

Postby Umrao » 11 Feb 2005 23:38

Threatned party and threatening party should hold the talks.

If one doesnt talk directly , one can always negate the negotiated settlement. Thats the advantge of no

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 12 Feb 2005 00:01

The six nation's talks might originally be a charade to give the dragon some importance and stake in bringing the NoKo around. Its very clear that the two parties are US and NoKo. Then why this enlargement except to try to bring more pressure on NoKo?

The hope was NoKo would get lectured by the other four. Turned out the other four had different agenda. SoKo has a blind spot to NoKo intranseigence and might even harbor hope that after unification Korea could have legitimate WMD. Japan wants to pursue the kidnapping of its nationals and might even hope for a breakout once NoKo nucelarization is overt. China hopes to remake the East Asia its domain and needs to drive uncel back. Besides it might be the main source of NoKo belligerence. Any way one sees it NPT is again in shambles. A new NPT taking into account the nuke possessors is needed. This time it should have real security garuantees.

Raju

Postby Raju » 12 Feb 2005 00:29

In a country like Iran, both the extremists and moderates seem to agree and come together only one issue and that is the nookulear programme (weaponisation I presume is implicit, something like a secret agenda to which the whole country agrees to, but never admits in the open much like the likes of a TSP or Bangladesh always denying sponsoring terror). Attack on Iraq has just made the matter more obvious. And when the Iranians look towards to the east they see the greatest proliferator in the world. Makes matters sorta obvious for them.

Now the big question is, if Iran turns out to be completely democratic tomorrow and yet refuses to give up it's nuclear programme (weaponisation obviously is implicit) and has the complete and wholehearted consent of it's people then what argument can anyone have against it.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36394
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 12 Feb 2005 00:51

china is undemocratic nuclear power? but as things are moving, like unkil is enhancing nuclear weapons and its sotrage life, making it more rubust, and better guidence systems, smart weapons etc.. while russia is also on the similar mode, it does makes a point that the so far big-5 treaties are slowly being put in trash without any advertisement but everything is proceeding smoothly and finely and the whole world it appears that the treaties are in place.

NK is smarter.. it knows whats happening, and this playing its trumph card. Iran either has not guts nor brains to create fine handles like how NK does. Democracy can't help the iranians to get a green signal on Nukes from the intl or specifically from the big-5.

its better they re-write the whole treaty including ABM, NMD, MAD, etc.

Raju

Postby Raju » 12 Feb 2005 01:00

unlike North korea, Iran does not have a strong backer like China.

So Iran might have brains, but can it afford guts ?

AJay
BRFite
Posts: 107
Joined: 09 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Postby AJay » 12 Feb 2005 04:41

del
Last edited by AJay on 12 Feb 2005 04:42, edited 1 time in total.

AJay
BRFite
Posts: 107
Joined: 09 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Postby AJay » 12 Feb 2005 04:41

krsna wrote:.big-5


Make it big-3 or even big-2. Poodles and "food and wine"rs are not that big on their nuc arsenal as of now. Whether Russia can afford all that much is a question. So that leaves only 2 out of P5.

Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Johann » 12 Feb 2005 15:44

The Japanese are very concerned by North Korea - over the last few years they have launched a rapidly maturing military space based recce programme, moving towards ballistic missile defence, etc, but these are low profile actions by nature.

The Japanese dont want to appear too far out of step with South Korea and the PRC, given the degree of unresolved but strong and negative feelings left over from the occupation and war. Provoking latent fears about new Japanese militarism and creating a new set of regional tensions is something they want to keep to a minimum as far as possible.

South Korean public opinion can change if they decide that the North is cynical and acting in bad faith, rather than a victim of mutual misunderstanding and miscommunication. There does seem to be a feeling that the Northern action at this point is unjustified. Nevertheless South Koreans will remain reluctant to risk their magnificent progress by rocking the boat. They know from their own parents and grandparents how devastating war in the peninsula can be. There are parallels here to European unwilingness to confront the Soviets to the same extent as the Americans in the Cold War, especially over issues that were seen as extra-regional.
Last edited by Johann on 12 Feb 2005 18:59, edited 1 time in total.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11632
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Postby A_Gupta » 12 Feb 2005 18:41

The lesson most will draw from the Iraq war is that it is better to have nukes than not, and it is worst to have the reputation of having nukes and not having them.

RajGuru
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 15 Sep 2004 11:41
Location: South of Musi, Deccan Plateau

N.Korea voices support for Iran, sees closer ties

Postby RajGuru » 12 Feb 2005 22:59

Voila!

N.Korea voices support for Iran, sees closer ties

Fri February 11, 2005 8:19 AM GMT+02:00

SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea has sent a message of solidarity to Iran amid suspicions the reclusive communist state had boasted of having nuclear weapons to raise the stakes while U.S. attention is focused on Iran's nuclear programmes.

North Korea declared on Thursday for the first time it possessed nuclear weapons and pulled out indefinitely from six-party talks on its weapons programme, saying it needed a defence against a hostile United States.

The North's official news agency reported on Friday that two top officials had sent messages of congratulations to Tehran on the 26th anniversary of the Islamic Republic, which took power after the fall of the Shah's U.S.-backed government.

"The Iranian government and people have gained a great success in their work for defending the gains of the Islamic revolution and building independent and prosperous Iran, bravely shattering all sorts of trials and challenges in the past 26 years," said a message from the number two in North Korea's hierarchy, head of parliament Kim Yong-nam.

A second message from the North Korean prime minister, Pak Pong-ju, praised Iran's success in its work to defend its sovereignty.

"The friendly and cooperative relations between the two countries would invariably grow stronger," the message said.

The administration of U.S. President George W. Bush now faces two nations he once named as part of an "axis of evil" being openly defiant about their nuclear programmes -- North Korea and Iran. He went to war with Iraq, the third of his "axis" nations.

REUTERS 8)

Raju

Re: N.Korea voices support for Iran, sees closer ties

Postby Raju » 12 Feb 2005 23:09

RajGuru wrote:A second message from the North Korean prime minister, Pak Pong-ju, praised Iran's success in its work to defend its sovereignty.



how come this name pops up at all fishy places ? :lol:

RajGuru
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 15 Sep 2004 11:41
Location: South of Musi, Deccan Plateau

Re: N.Korea voices support for Iran, sees closer ties

Postby RajGuru » 12 Feb 2005 23:18

To put it a rather crude way,I think NoKO has just shown Uncle the finger Come Get me Yo Yankees! I am pi$$ing you off! I winked at your fiance! Come on! be a man!
It is a classical trap,would love to see how the yankees play ball.

Prateek
BRFite
Posts: 310
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31

Postby Prateek » 13 Feb 2005 00:03

May be that the NKorea thinks that since a man(CP) couldn't do anything, now with a woman (CRice) in his place, they have become more aggressive and bold and are coming out publicly. :wink:

Roop
BRFite
Posts: 258
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Roop » 13 Feb 2005 04:10

A_Gupta wrote:The lesson most will draw from the Iraq war is that it is better to have nukes than not, and it is worst to have the reputation of having nukes and not having them.


Well said, and true. But of course, this lesson was drawn even earlier -- in the Kosovo War, to be precise. The lesson drawn from that all over the world was -- have an effective nuclear weapon program if you want to avoid the tender ministrations of "peace-loving" Western countries who want to invade your country to protect your ethnic minorities.

As for North Korea, don't worry, Bush and the neocons have a simple solution: bomb Iran and invade Cuba.

Prateek
BRFite
Posts: 310
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31

Postby Prateek » 13 Feb 2005 12:51

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6960513/site/newsweek/

Nuclear Offense
Kim Jong Il has one thing going for him: his ability to threaten the world with doomsday weapons. So how should the Bush administration respond to that threat? The 2006 budget calls for the United States to develop new 'bunker busting' nukes of its own.


Feb. 21 issue - What does Kim Jong Il really want? No one knows, of course—even the best intelligence on North Korea is sketchy—but it's a fair bet that the diminutive dictator wants to stay alive. Kim is said to be desperately worried. He is believed to move around a lot, traveling from palace to palace as Saddam Hussein once did. He disappears entirely from view for weeks. Kim even occasionally removes his pictures from buildings in Pyongyang, the capital city, in order to promote the idea that collective leadership is displacing his "Great Leader" cult. (He may be hoping to avoid a U.S. smart bomb with his name on it.) The one thing Kim has going for him is that most of the world fears that he has doomsday weapons. According to a visitor who met the dictator in Pyongyang recently, Kim said he could not give up his nuclear bombs because his million-man Army is hopelessly outmoded—leaving him at the mercy of the American military.

Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby Johann » 14 Feb 2005 18:40

Mohan Raju wrote:But of course, this lesson was drawn even earlier -- in the Kosovo War, to be precise. The lesson drawn from that all over the world was -- have an effective nuclear weapon program if you want to avoid the tender ministrations of "peace-loving" Western countries who want to invade your country to protect your ethnic minorities.


Really, thats funny. I didnt know Syria had nukes when they rolled in to Lebanon in 1976, or Tanzania when they marched in to Uganda to throw out Idi Amin, or India when they intervened to end the Pakistani civil war in Bangladesh, or...ad finitum

The fact is all kinds of countries intervene when the 'internal problems' of neighboring countries are man-made disasters that have a serious effect on your own stability and security as well as perhaps representing an opportunity to straighten out other long standing matters. NATO intervention in the Balkans 1995- falls very much in to that category. The powder keg of Europe and all of that. NATO is as we speak restructuring itself because intervening in the Middle East is a very different matter from intervening in the Balkans

What distinguishes the West for better and for worse is the ability and wilingness to intervene decisively outside its immediate regional environment. Despite that its mostly been the regional factor that seems the most decisive in nuclear acquisition. How do I trump my dangerous rival of a neighbour? Iraq and North Korea I think are unusual because of the degree to which these weapons are about the dictator's personal survival as much as national needs.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests