Korea v's Iraq

Politics International Politics
1

It seems that while the US has been banding about in the dessert looking for non-existent WMD’s as a political excuse to invade a country (for whatever reason), North Korea has been biding its time under a cloud of impenetrable communism, developing real weapons potentially capable of mass destruction which really do pose a threat to the US.

News just in:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3531956.stm

Quote:

Roughly translating to: “Oh, I’m sorry but we don’t really know anything about it, but thanks for letting us know.”

Perhaps the US needs to re-shuffle it’s priorities and concentrate on what could be real future threats to the US, instead of attacking countries out of a knee jerk reaction to a terrorist attack.

While the world watches the US in Iraq, the North Korean situation could quite easily simmer out of control. North Korea’s nuclear weapons program was once used as a “bargaining chip” with the US: Nuclear weapons used as blackmail to force security concessions from the US. However ballistic missile developments seem to suggest a marked movement in the willingness to use such weapons, should N. Korea so be inclined.

Some US officials were hopeful that the tough US line in Iraq would have a “demonstration effect” on other regimes, persuading them to moderate their positions without the need to resort to force.

No luck there, then. Infact, maybe it has spurred N.Korea on.

In regards to North Korea’s supposed nuclear capability, the US and its regional allies - South Korea and Japan - are worried that the North Korean nuclear plant could also be used as part of a wider nuclear weapons programme, which North Korea has regularly stated the “right” to possess. Future sales to Iran and other "rogue " or “not so rogue” states is not out of the question.

The very fact that North Korea is perfecting missiles which are more than capable of delivering a nuclear surprise to the US and it’s allies is more worrying than anything Iraq could have dreamt up.

So which country poses more of a real threat?

2

Why Iraq and not North Korea?

One word: Oil

This is actually pretty old news.

3

Well the other difference is the Kim Jong Il never threaten to assassinate GW Bush’s daddy.

4

Korea’s nuclear ability is old news, but Korea’s willingness to develop the means to develop a nuclear package seems to be getting stronger, more defined and more determined.

The developments and advancements of new strike packages by North Korea surely count as “new” news and surely should ammount to rising concern.

5

and you think the us should do what exactly?

6

They didn’t piss about taking out Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction-related program activites, why arse about when it’s abundantly clear North Korea’s dealing with nukes?

7

you want an invasion? sanctions? what do you want? oh, i get it. you have no clue what should be done and are criticizing the us because you can’t think of anything else to do.

8

Me? Hardly. I genuinely think they should deal with the Korean issue. I have no idea of specific plans, but I’m not a politician, and I’m not too proud to admit I really don’t know what valid options would be. But if they’re genuinely concerned about dealing with imminent threats and dictators armed with WMDs, Kim should definitely be on the agenda. I am a bit concerned that the possibility that Saddam had WMDs was enough to warrant a full invasion and occupation, but Korea doesn’t even seem to be a concern to the powers that be.

9

how can you say the us isn’t doing enough when you can’t even describe what “enough” would be? the argument here isn’t that the us is failing to do what it needs to do. nobody here can even articulate what exactly the us needs to do. the gripe here is that the us is not magically thinking up some wonderful solution to the problem that critics of the us have not even imagined yet.

10

Okay the USA needs to return to supporting the “Sunshine Policy” like during the Clinton administration. Once SK and NK have closer economic ties and projects. Perhaps NK will not need to sell nuclear weapons or threaten to sell nukes for economic assistance.

I would also like to add that ever since Bush label NK as the “axis of evil,” PRC has done a wonderful job of ensuring some sort of stability in the region by taking the lead on a ongoing multi-lateral conference to hopefully get NK to stop producing nuclear weapons. I would also like to add it was a Bush’s blunder in labeling “axis of evil” of NK which caused the anti-American President Roh to be elected in SK.

To USA credit, at least they have not sold ROC down the river over the NK issue.

11

[quote=“ac_dropout”]Okay the USA needs to return to supporting the “Sunshine Policy” like during the Clinton administration. Once SK and NK have closer economic ties and projects. Perhaps NK will not need to sell nuclear weapons or threaten to sell nukes for economic assistance.
[/quote]
Oh, would that be the sunshine policy under which North Korea continued to develop nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles (thus breaking the agreement they made in 1994) and continued to sell ballistic missiles to undesirable countries to finance their nuclear projects? Yeah, that was a really effective policy. :unamused:

In hindsight, it may just have been better to go in and knock the fuck out of them in '94. The very worst that could have happened was Seoul getting gassed. Everything we hear in the news about how much China is helping to restrain N Korea is bullshit. Behind closed doors, they are trying to use the Korean nuclear issue to force the US to turn its back on Taiwan. The situation is almost entirely of their making. If China cut off all aid to N Korea, the North Koreans would be loading their nuclear material on the first US and Japanese ships that arrived to delivery grain. The main reason N Korea has a nuclear program right now is because Beijing still thinks they can use the issue to screw Taiwan.

12

Tetsuo wrote:

To me, in very basic and simple terms, it seems the US took the easy option and invaded Iraq for the following reasons:

a). For oil.
b). Because it was pissed off with terrorists and had no one else to shout at.
c). For something to do.
d). because they thought Iraq would be an easy walk over and other rogue states would simply fall in line.

Unfortunately, in relation to point “d”, the US has proved to the world how crap it can be at fighting a war and so called “rogue states” in Bush’s cleverly, non-antagonist labelled “axis of evil” now realise that the US isn’t as powerful as it makes itself out to be in the movies.

Flipper wrote:

What does it matter? The US usually does what it wants regardless of what anyone else thinks, which is part of the reason why we have situations like this.

Jive Turkey wrote:

China, once again, is probably the main instigator in all this. But if China cut off all aid to North Korea and North Korea accepted Japanese and US aid, do you still think there would be a nuclear program?
Behind closed doors perhaps?

13

i thought this situation occurred because of a belligerent north korea pursuing weapons?

so you post this thread just to rant against the us. you have nothing contructive to say regarding the situation nor do you have any suggestions for what the us could do better.

typical.

14

Flipper:

[quote]I thought this situation occurred because of a belligerent north Korea pursuing weapons?

so you post this thread just to rant against the us. you have nothing contructive to say regarding the situation nor do you have any suggestions for what the us could do better. [/quote]

Well, actually no.

I did say it was only part of the reason. I’m not ranting against the US either and I feel my posts have been constuctive in outling the fact that the US faces a direct threat TO ITSELF from Korea, which in the long term if left unchecked as it is now, will be a bigger threat than Iraq ever was.
I posted this thread not to rant at the US, but to determine which is the bigger long term threat - Iraq or Korea.

My ultimate point is that I don’t think the US is in a situation to do anything, nor is it capable of doing anything about Korea because of the situation with China.
However, the threat remains and is real and serious. If Korea starts selling weapons to other nations which don’t like the US, the I’m afraid the US and it’s allies will be in serious trouble.

My argument here is that the US can’t really do anything about Korea. In a round about sort of way, it looks like the US had a tantrum, attacked Iraq and made things alot worse for itself worldwide.

15

Given the Bush administrations policy of unilateralism, the only consistent course of action would be to invade North Korea. WMD = nukes, yes? Anything less would confirm to the world that the Iraq war not about security, was about oil, was about targetting Muslims (and their heathen way of life). Actually, the world doesn’t need any more confirmation of that, only the US is in denial.

If the US doesn’t act, then the individual powers that be, such as Japan may be forced to take regional security matter into their own hands. Since the US is so pre-occupied with the Muslim world, South Korean, Japan, Taiwan need to be more proactive about regional security and develop their own policies for containment or {whatever}. Leaving it up to the US will mean they’ll be sold out in the long run because the US will sooner or later view the US-Sino relationship as more critical than all three combined.

16

First, why does the US have to be the one to do anything about North Korea? Why doesn’t China? Russia? the UN? France? Germany?

Second, is the risk of war with missiles hitting Tokyo and Seoul worth it? Are you willing to take that risk? We took out Iraq BEFORE it reached that stage. That was Bush’s whole point BEFORE it became an IMMINENT threat.

Third, we do not have to satisfy simple minds but ensuring that each and every of our policies seems “consistent” to them. Each country and each leader and each timeframe present new and varying conditions. It is the job of the State department, intelligence services, military and White House to weigh and judge these risks and opportunities.

Fourth, how can anyone have such a simplistic view of security strategies?

17

The U.S. is on the forefront of anything with the North Koreans because they’ve propagandized their citizens for ages that one of their major aims is to get the U.S. out of the peninsula and (we’ve all heard this tune before) reunify with their wayward brothers. The Russians and Chinese probably love seeing us being held by the short hairs by the North Koreans.

We should have skipped action in Iraq so we’d have the military resources ready to deal with the North Koreans. They know our attention and resources are divided and that they can now milk the situation for everything they can get. By the time they’re done, they’ll have Bush bending over backwards (or forwards…) to please them.

18

Every serious security assessment that I have seen suggests otherwise. We lost the opportunity back in 1994 when Clinton and Carter “negotiated” European style with Kim. Now, they have the bomb and we have no way to stop them from lobbing one at Tokyo or Seoul until we get the Missile Theater Defense system in place that the Democrats scoffed as “star wars.”

We do not have the support of China or Russia for an invasion and I doubt that we could convince the Japanese or Koreans either.

Our only option is to wait and to contain North Korea. As long as we can prevent it from exporting weapons, we have a good chance of waiting it out.

I see no other realistic alternatives at present.

That said, we stopped Iraq whether you believe that it had wmds or not. Now, we are going to be faced with a similar decision in the next six months about what to do with Iran.

European style dialogue has been fruitless but who has the balls to take out their nuclear sites? Will we be supported if we choose to do so or shot down again as a guntoting unilateralist cowboy?

19

Probably the former - I’d say there’d be very few countries who would oppose the idea, because there is a very clear, obvious, and proven - before the event - threat posed by North Korea. Odds are good the coalition for that attack would be more substantial than the “Coalition of the Willing”.

20

Tetsuo:

Wanna bet? I would take that wager and like to see how many hit the streets protesting in South Korea, Japan and even China. Doubtless, we can count on staunch support from our European allies who will be supplying at least 50% of the weaponry, troops and money since they recognize full well the “gravity” of the situation.