North Korea nuke test

[Phaeton]

Reminds me of a slightly dated, yet relevant Tom Lehrer song:

First we got the bomb, and that was good
'Cause we love peace and motherhood
Then Russia got the bomb, but that's okay
'Cause the balance of power's maintained that way
Who's next

France got the bomb, but don't you grieve
'Cause they're on our side, I believe
China got the bomb, but have no fears
They can't wipe us out for at least five years
Who's next

Then Indonesia claimed that they
Were gonna get one any day
South Africa wants two, that's right
One for the black and one for the white
Who's next

Egypt's gonna get one too
Just to use on you know who
So Israel's getting tense
Wants one in self defense
"The Lord's our shepherd," says the psalm
But just in case, we better get a bomb
Who's next

Luxembourg is next to go
And, who knows, maybe Monaco
We'll try to stay serene and calm
When Alabama gets the bomb
Who's next, who's next, who's next, who's next

[pigeonmeister]

Well, today the Chinese and the Russians are, again, dragging their heels on sanctions. Big surprise. If North Korea set of nuclear devices along the DMZ and annihilated our trops there, I suspect that China and Russia would immediately call for "more diplomacy".

The problem is that the only sanctions that would litarally draw N Korea to a standstill (say China cuts of all the oil or food that NK depends on) are the ones that would cause an unprecedented humanitarian disaster. In terms of refugees this is something China must avoid.

There are no smart sanctions that will inhibit N Koreas ability to set off a crude nuclear devise on the DMZ- I think that China and Russia realise this and would rather not make this prospect more likely through sustained hostility.

The fundamentaly different approach Russia and China have to diplomacy is that they view their aims as an end goal, achievable through any means necessary. If you can't stop an aggressive policy, don't encourage it to be more aggressive. America's approach is: 'Fulfill all our aims and then we will talk about diplomacy.' Same in Iran- America wants Iran to fulfill all its aims before relations can improve. Europe generally want to improve relations in order to achieve their aims. It thus appears that Russia and China are indifferent to global security, it's more a case that they just don't believe America's methods improve global security, support their interest, or even achieve US foreign policy goals.

In terms of China, if North Korea collapses into a pro-American united Korea, then China suddenly has a completely different neighbour and the prospect of US troops on their border. If N korea collapses into civil war then that's not good either. If N Korea collapses into a humanitarian disaster then that is against Chinese interests as well. It is not, therefore, difficult to see why China is unwilling to support sanctions that could cause N Korea to collapse. That's not to say they don't want rid of N Korea's nuclear arsenal.

One thing I don't understand is that Ahamadinejad has an opportunity to say: 'N Korea nuclear weapons programme is bad- we oppose it because we see nuke weapons as unislamic and that is not our interest or objective.' Instead (by his support of the test) its another own goal induced by a puerile sense of glee he cannot resist- i.e. that someone else is standing up to the Americans.

I never thought I would say it, but it seems clear to me that missille defence systems might warrent serious (non star wars related!) consideration. I think we can convincingly deduce that it is impossible to stop a determined nuclear program, the only logical conclusion is to stop us being hit by one through interception, deviation or disablement. It seems to me that this will be the only way Japan will be persuaded not to join the nuclear club. Much much easier said than done, but if an equal amount of resources, time and political support was placed into this technology (as was placed into the design and expansion of nuclear weaponary). Then we might have a chance in the next 20 years. I gues this would just provoke another generation of 'shield busting' nukes. Is this an insolvable problem?

The focus has clearly changed from- how do we stop people building nuclear weapons? it's now- how do we stop them using them, transfering them or hitting us? Perhaps Russia and China have already made the shift? It represents a huge change, one that could quickly transfer to- how can we live with a nuclear Iran.

I don't have a huge problem with this shift, we have been living with the prospect of nuclear armageddon for 60 years. I don't buy into the view that an Iranian bomb is more dangerous than a Pakistani one.

[daeceg]

I still think we should buy them off.

[umbrella]

I don't feel threatened by Korea, I think they have a right to test. But I'm not happy with any testing. Remember how Greenpeace used to try to get france to stop testing in the Pacific in the 1980's it was horrible and they kept saying "well, we are only testing underwater".......now ask me about underwater volcanoes.

[Slim]

I still think we should buy them off.

We tried. Worked pretty well, didnt it?.

[umbrella]

Slim: Yes it looked nice, and especially since she only had a little glass of wine. It did show that the cultural taboo's of one country doesn't necessarily translate into another culture. Next is the Japanese Saki Ceremony -

It used to be as our friend below who quotes Shakespear so well has noted inadvertently.......that raising the glass together is sometimes a good thing. In Shakespear's time there was intermarrying of Princesses and Prince's and they toasted as so forth. Maybe our lordships [the thousands of millionares out there] should consider marrying other lordships from abroad and toasting them as well, but make sure you invite the hoy-palloy. That's what's missing. When the local folks party, the lordships don't come; when the lordships party the local folks don't come. They have to mix it up more togther.


___________________________________________
I never thought I would say it, but it seems clear to me that missille defence systems might warrent serious (non star wars related!) consideration. I think we can convincingly deduce that it is impossible to stop a determined nuclear program,
I think it's Practically impossible, but not impossilbe. It would take a global determination and we'd all have to follow steps together, step 1. stop producing xyz 2. stop producing abc 3. plant such and such will reduce by
4. plant so and so will reduce by 5. and finally reach a level at which everyone is comfortable and agrees.


the only logical conclusion is to stop us being hit by one through interception, deviation or disablement. It seems to me that this will be the only way Japan will be persuaded not to join the nuclear club.
We need to have more social get togethers with leaderships and middle leaderships.


Much much easier said than done, but if an equal amount of resources, time and political support was placed into this technology (as was placed into the design and expansion of nuclear weaponary). Then we might have a chance in the next 20 years. I gues this would just provoke another generation of 'shield busting' nukes. Is this an insolvable problem?

Again, your suggestion of making a 20 year plan makes better sense. The plan needs to include : Europe, Asia, North and South America as well as Scandanavia/East Europe/Russia, and the Middle East. I bet we could come up with a decent plan.

The focus has clearly changed from- how do we stop people building nuclear weapons? it's now- how do we stop them using them, transfering them or hitting us? Perhaps Russia and China have already made the shift? It represents a huge change, one that could quickly transfer to- how can we live with a nuclear Iran.
If we are ever to come to a peaceful co-existence with anyone, we will have to accept their nuclear plans as we have accepted other countries nuclear plans in the past. Recall Japan's building of Nuclear enery plants - albeit a failure as ours were...It smacks of technology ahead of humans' development as a species

we are here: It is there:"Bright"

__________________

[mrbiggs]

We tried. Worked pretty well, didnt it?.

Well, they didn't have nukes back when she was secretary of state...

Which, I assume, is when the picture is from.

[Have At You]

This is my take on what happened with North Korea:

1) North Korea says it wants to develop nukes.
2) US and UN say they don't want North Korea to develop nukes.
3) North Korea signs the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
4) North Korea keeps things going at its Yongban facility anyway.
5) US has unilateral talks with North Korea. North Korea is thrilled to not have China or any other countries that could actually punish it involved, and is secured by the knowledge that, if past is prologue, the US won't really do anything.
6) In unilateral talks, North Korea promises not to build nukes (with its fingers crossed behind its back). But they get to keep their plutonium stockpiles.
7) North Korea lets inspectors visit the Yongban facility. Of course, in the meantime they'd moved everything to other facilities.
8) Everyone finds out about their secret nuclear program anyway.
9) The UN dithers, because if they enforce the NPT, North Korea would just back out of it, making the treaty unenforceable, and then they wouldn't be able to enforce it. Heavens!
10) North Korea saves them the trouble and withdraws from the NPT anyway. A loud Bronx cheer is audible from Pyongyang.
11) North Korea kicks the UN out of its Yongban facility, and keeps trying to make nukes with all the plutonium that they were allowed to keep.
12) North Korea claims to have exploded a nuclear device last week, though it was either very tiny or a dud.
13) Everyone who yipped and yapped at the US for acting "unilaterally" in its multinational actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, now sharply criticizes the US for saying China and other countries who could actually punish North Korea be involved in any future talks.
14) The UN says it is very angry, and if North Korea doesn't shape up, it might get even angrier.

Sounds to me like North Korea's not as stupid as their leader looks. The US is hamstrung by its apparent willingness to believe any lie if it sounds good, and its history of not doing anything about it. The UN is hamstrung by its inability to do anything to enforce its treaties and positions. And China's not about to cut off the lifeline to its vassal state. So NK can just keep doing whatever it wants, yah boo sucks to you.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

North Korea is smart as it gets. We're the dumb ones, for relying on diplomacy to solve this.

We let this get way too far, and now the world has a really big problem on its hands.

You have to stop things before the problem becomes explosive, and its too damn late.

[Mauler]

What we need is an actor..... A Top Gun Actor......

[umbrella]

I understand what you're saying, but maybe we should also look at good actors. I can't watch anything anymore, they don't look good anymore, that's why they want to nuke us....does anyone get this yet?

In the meanwhile, I saw their recent 'protest'> It tells me something, it says: they are conservative, they are organizied and can act in unity together, they weren't messy, they conveyed their ideas without getting overly angry. That is what they want. It's the same with most conservatives, they want a certain look and anything too far out of the box, is perceived negatively.

I can't blame them, when we think about the 1968-1972 period of time, while the anti-war protests were great, and I love Abby Hoffman [read: Steal This Book] - it also created a generation of many burnouts.

[Have At You]

Hooray for the return of the master of non sequitur!

On that note, I want a cheeseburger. No, a shoe!

[umbrella]

Thank you
[modest bow]

[Inquartata]

If you can't stop an aggressive policy, don't encourage it to be more aggressive.

I don't think China or Russia take such a defeatist position. Of course they can stop NK whenever they like---I mean, NK's artillery is not pointed north, is it? They are only concerned with the COSTS of stopping it..which is not the same things as impossibility.

America's approach is: 'Fulfill all our aims and then we will talk about diplomacy.'

You're describing the NK stance as well.

Europe generally want to improve relations in order to achieve their aims.

Yes, endless "diplomacy". Also known as "delay is the deadliest form of denial".

In terms of China, if North Korea collapses into a pro-American united Korea, then China suddenly has a completely different neighbour and the prospect of US troops on their border. If N korea collapses into civil war then that's not good either. If N Korea collapses into a humanitarian disaster then that is against Chinese interests as well.

Yeah, those are all so much worse than what would happen to it if it got drawn into a war when it's ally nukes Japan or sells a few traceable warheads to Al Qaeda.

The solution, you know, is really quite simple: replace Kim with more reasonable, more tractable men. China could do this any time it wanted. The stability of the regime is maintained, minus the paranoid delusions of a little megalomaniac dictator.

Hell, China could even take control of the country itself, though that would earn it the condemnation of the "international community", which apparently is the worst fate that any country can envision.

One thing I don't understand is that Ahamadinejad has an opportunity to say: 'N Korea nuclear weapons programme is bad- we oppose it because we see nuke weapons as unislamic and that is not our interest or objective.' Instead (by his support of the test) its another own goal induced by a puerile sense of glee he cannot resist- i.e. that someone else is standing up to the Americans.

Ahmedinejad and Kim are like a wrestling tag-team. Whenever world attention gets too sharply critical of one, the other pulls a grandstanding stunt to drag focus back to itself...and away from the other. And vice versa.

Occasionally, Hugo Chavez and Al Zawahiri join in just to change things up a little.

[umbrella]

In general, maybe all nations should consider some of the agreements that were in place many years ago, instead of continuously trying to reinvent the wheel.

I feel that in every administration, whether it's democrat or republican, the constant additional legislation, re-writing of bills, submitting of bills, offering 'new' solutions is the actual cause of so much confusion.

It would be far better for everyone to take a look at legislation and agreements that have worked in the past, re-read them and put them into action.

As I had mentioned before that the Geneva Convention was humanities Guidepost during the European conflict, it was reveiwed for this most recent conflict. It was drawn up by people of high moral and ethical fiber. By adhering to these Guideposts we may be able to 'turn back the clock' to a more rational time. A time where men and women sacrificed luxury and struggled for humanity. I was most distressed to note that while in some regions these higher thoughts were upheld, while in other regions, they were not.

The truth is: if we go back to some higher ideals, and stay with them without dumping them like an out of fashion dress; all of us will eventually be on the same page.