North Korea & Nukes - Solution(s)?

[alchemize]

No P&N (Polarization and Name Calling)...go start your own thread or join one of the others if you want to whine about Bush or Clinton...solutions (and their pros and cons) only...

Here's my suggested solution - we need to dramatically and progressively "raise the stakes" without going military, basically in this order. Hopefully we don't go past #2.

1) Obviously take this to the UN for sanctions.

2) Inform China and Russia that if they veto/block any UN actions, we will retaliate by imposing extremely large tarriffs on their goods coming into the US. Russia won't care, but China sure will. Insist that China support and enforce sanctions.

2a) Inform South Korea that they've stood on the fence for too long - either they are in for the long haul, or remove all US forces from SK post haste.

3) Inform Russia and China that we will begin aggressively sharing nuclear technology with Japan if this is not resolved. Japan could create some pretty damn good stealthy nukes/weapons if they put their mind to it - some serious first strike capabilities.

4) Conduct a naval and air blockade of all goods going into/coming out of NK.

These all require North Korea to be the aggressor for anything military.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: alchemize
4) Conduct a naval and air blockade of all goods going into/coming out of SK.

I don't see how that will solve the North Korea Nukes problem.
That's like Kennedy calling for a naval blockade on USSR during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

 

[43st]

None of the above...

1. North Korea is already isolated, sanctions on a country that has little export is worthless. All it does is create scams and hurt citizens.
2. The US needs to butt out, work the UN behind the scenes, and get China to step up to the plate. China is unhappy with NK right now and that's the best card on the table.
3. UN needs to offer incentives to North Korea, be it light water reactors for power, or whatever, just get them to the table with China.

 

[alchemize]

A naval blockade would enforce sanctions for those who refuse to honor them (Iran, Venezuela, Syria).

 

[techs]

To start with we stop borrowing billions from China to finance the Bush tax loans.
Then we actually apply the laws in place on unfair trading practices.
Then China will do everything it can to reign in N. Korea in order to keeps its economy going.

 

[Todd33]

United States 5,735/9,960[2]
Russia (formerly the Soviet Union) 5,830/16,000[3]
United Kingdom <200[4]
France 350[5]
People's Republic of China 130[6]
India 75-115[7]
Pakistan 65-90[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons

First we have to define the "problem", NK developing nukes in a world ran by countries with nukes?

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: alchemize
A naval blockade would enforce sanctions for those who refuse to honor them (Iran, Venezuela, Syria).

Now I see the mistake...
You meant NK (not SK) in the post I quoted.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: alchemize
A naval blockade would enforce sanctions for those who refuse to honor them (Iran, Venezuela, Syria).

Now I see the mistake...
You meant NK (not SK) in the post I quoted.

My bad, fixed the typo.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: techs
To start with we stop borrowing billions from China to finance the Bush tax loans.
Then we actually apply the laws in place on unfair trading practices.
Then China will do everything it can to reign in N. Korea in order to keeps its economy going.

This is what I suggested in the other thread. We need to play hardball with China. The whole line that China doesn't have any sway with Kim is a cop-out, NK relies 100% on China for everything. Take that away and their regime will crumble.

 

[alchemize]

Yup, we can sustain short term inflation/economic downswing (from tarriffs on chinese goods resulting in higher prices/lower consumer spending) much easier than they could sustain dramatically reduced demand (as demand shifts to other low-cost producers).

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: Todd33

United States 5,735/9,960[2]
Russia (formerly the Soviet Union) 5,830/16,000[3]
United Kingdom <200[4]
France 350[5]
People's Republic of China 130[6]
India 75-115[7]
Pakistan 65-90[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons

First we have to define the "problem", NK developing nukes in a world ran by countes with nukes?

Lets say you are threatend, and buy a gun. A shotgun, maybe. Something lethal. Lets say you have a dispute with your neighbour, and he threatens you, or makes you otherwise feel in some kind of danger. Would you want him to get a shotgun too?

Have you lost any sense of self-defense? You, as a living being, should aspire to be stronger than your adversaries even if that's not "universally right". And when nutjobs such as the ones in NK get nukes, you should feel even worse.

How to deal with it?

Lets see:

* Sanctions - what good will they bring? NK is already sanctioned up to the neck, it's a poor nation with little or no foreign relations. What will isolating it contribute? Maybe push them towards a more aggressive stance?

* Take no action - likely, but you can't predict what'll happen next. Maybe NK will stop playing nice with SK when it feels protected by nuclear arms; And it will, without doubt, endorse other nations to obtain nuclear weapons. Think of Venezuela; I'm sure it won't take long until we see Kim Jong Yil (sp?) and Chavez hugged up, bad mouthing bush and promising a new world order - Stalin's.

* US action - no chance.

* Joint alliance of several Asian countries, led by the US and other members of NATO, completly destroying the NK goverment and rebuilding it as a free country. The stakes are higher than with Iraq, as the North Koreans aren't radically religious Arabs and are likely to be more positive towards such act, although you can't really know for sure

* Assassination of the NK goverment, strike on their nuclear program and army, and let the people do whatever they please afterwards - If they use the situation to form a democracy, good for them, if not, who cares?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: alchemize
No P&N (Polarization and Name Calling)...go start your own thread or join one of the others if you want to whine about Bush or Clinton

How bout going after a Country that really does have WMD like North Korea???

 

[Jetster]

here is idea, why can't US sits this one out and let NK's neighbors take care of this problem themselves? NK is still a long way from making a good ICBM to deliver a nuker to america, but its neighbors are affected right away, so they have more incentive to worry and fix such problem. Large part of world already view US as arrogant and too nosy into other people's affairs, and it's especially so in this part and middle east. America should be more worry about monitoring Osama to apporach little kim to pruchase a bomb at best possible market price.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Todd33

United States 5,735/9,960[2]
Russia (formerly the Soviet Union) 5,830/16,000[3]
United Kingdom <200[4]
France 350[5]
People's Republic of China 130[6]
India 75-115[7]
Pakistan 65-90[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons

First we have to define the "problem", NK developing nukes in a world ran by countries with nukes?

you dont see the problem with a nutjob dictator with nukes?

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: Jetster
here is idea, why can't US sits this one out and let NK's neighbors take care of this problem themselves? NK is still a long way from making a good ICBM to deliver a nuker to america, but its neighbors are affected right away, so they have more incentive to worry and fix such problem. Large part of world already view US as arrogant and too nosy into other people's affairs, and it's especially so in this part and middle east. America should be more worry about monitoring Osama to apporach little kim to pruchase a bomb at best possible market price.

Why shouldn't NK line up with Cuba, Venezula and other sweet little communist countries and give them a tip or two about nuclear weapons? There's a new evil empire forming. Every country that has ever wanted to break free of the claws of the free world will do so now, armed with Nuclear technology. It's easy to see where it's headed.

It's not just Osama, it's a new breed of dictators and religious madmen armed with judgment day weapons. Can't be good.

Besides, no matter where you live on the globe, a nuclear war is against your interests.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Jetster
here is idea, why can't US sits this one out and let NK's neighbors take care of this problem themselves? NK is still a long way from making a good ICBM to deliver a nuker to america, but its neighbors are affected right away, so they have more incentive to worry and fix such problem. Large part of world already view US as arrogant and too nosy into other people's affairs, and it's especially so in this part and middle east. America should be more worry about monitoring Osama to apporach little kim to pruchase a bomb at best possible market price.

That's precisely the reason why I think we need to do something - if NK has nukes, why wouldn't they try to slip one to Osama? And of course letting NK get the nukes only provides encouragment to Iran.

Next we have the following nations with nukes:
Japan, Taiwan, South Korea...what other nations?

And in the middle east:
Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt

This is a critical moment in history, imho...

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: Todd33

United States 5,735/9,960[2]
Russia (formerly the Soviet Union) 5,830/16,000[3]
United Kingdom <200[4]
France 350[5]
People's Republic of China 130[6]
India 75-115[7]
Pakistan 65-90[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons

First we have to define the "problem", NK developing nukes in a world ran by countries with nukes?

you dont see the problem with a nutjob dictator with nukes?

Is that the test for joining the club? If you have normal hair or if your elected you can develop nukes? I'm playing Devil's advocate here and I am waiting for an argument that explains why we can dictate who can and cannot develop the bomb.

So far we have nutjob and or dictators cannot. BTW there is no evidence that Kim Jung Il is "nuts". He is a dictator though, so strike one?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: Todd33

United States 5,735/9,960[2]
Russia (formerly the Soviet Union) 5,830/16,000[3]
United Kingdom <200[4]
France 350[5]
People's Republic of China 130[6]
India 75-115[7]
Pakistan 65-90[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons

First we have to define the "problem", NK developing nukes in a world ran by countries with nukes?

you dont see the problem with a nutjob dictator with nukes?

Is that the test for joining the club? If you have normal hair or if your elected you can develop nukes? I'm playing Devil's advocate here and I am waiting for an argument that explains why we can dictate who can and cannot develop the bomb.

So far we have nutjob and or dictators cannot. BTW there is no evidence that Kim Jung Il is "nuts". He is a dictator though, so strike one?

Because nuclear weapons can kill lots and lots of people? And the more countries that have nuclear weapons, the more likely accidents or purposeful use will occur?

I don't believe "we" have ever dictated who can develop the bomb, rather we've discouraged any country from doing it, some moreso than others. There are a number of factors that should determine how much discouragment "we" should apply...type of government, relations with neighbors, history of war/treaties/stability, economic relationships, nut-jobbiness of leadership,e tc.

 

[Todd33]

So how often has NK attacked others in the last 10-20 years? Have they vowed to invade or attack anyone? If Kim is such a "nutjob" why has he not sent his million+ army south to invade? He is nuts right?

Did they put the US on an axis of evil?

Which leader has said that God told him to invade a sovereign country?

Seems to me it's a regional issue and we have no moral high ground to preach from.

------------------------------------
The OP requested no politics be injected into the thread.

You failed to observe that request.

Come back in 2 weeks

Anandtech Moderator

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Todd33
So how often has NK attacked others in the last 10-20 years? Have they vowed to invade or attack anyone? If Kim is such a "nutjob" why has he not sent his million+ army south to invade? He is nuts right?

Did they put the US on an axis of evil?

Which leader has said that God told him to invade a sovereign country?

Seems to me it's a regional issue and we have no moral high ground to preach from.

Sounds like to me you wanted to backdoor this conversation into an anti-bush tirade. Pretty much what I expected.

 

[yllus]

The issue at hand is that the steadily worsening conditions in North Korea will give them cause to proliferate in exchange for hard cash, am I right? I don't see an actual invasion or attack on South Korea as likely (yet) - there's no winning there. Dude's crazy, but you can be crazy and have a strong sense of self-preservation at the same time.

I think empowerment of South Korea and Japan is the way to go here. Better to term is as a regional issue than inflame the entire world's ire and make this a global conflict that China will feel more obligated to flex its muscle and demostrate it's a major player like the U.S. Mobilize Japan to take care of business in the area on our behalf. Otherwise all we can really do is intensify our contacts in China and use those to spell out clearly to the Chinese that proliferation is in nobody's best interests.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Yup, we can sustain short term inflation/economic downswing (from tarriffs on chinese goods resulting in higher prices/lower consumer spending) much easier than they could sustain dramatically reduced demand (as demand shifts to other low-cost producers).

And we would benefit by more jobs here in America. Which would increase everyones salaries, reduce the tax burden, etc.

 

[Lemon law]

First and formost---understand that N. Korea cannot feed its people---frequent crop failures---and its only exports are basically arms---it can only export or import by sea--or through
China. But N. Korea is the ultimate police State.

But China is the key here---I can only assume that we got nukes N. Korea have been crying for years is to get a stable source of aid and food---with S. Korea a study in contrast.

The only magic wand solution I see is for S. Korea to absorb N. Korea--with elements of the N. Korean communism joining the government as part of the deal---and closer united Koreas trade ties to China to sweeten the deal----but getting there step by step is a hat trick I don't think any magic wand will pull off.

But it can be settled by blood---or by diplomacy---but its time to discard this foolishess of the US only talking to N. Korea through six party talks.

One can moan and groan about N. Koreas right to gate crash the nuclear club--or moan and groan about who dropped the ball in the past---but today is still today.
And we have to deal with new realities.

 

[tommywishbone]

We're (the USA) 5,000 miles away. Russia & China are 5 miles away. Let them handle it. They can 'lay the smacketh down' better than us anyway.

 

[Rainsford]

I think our best bet is to not take the lead on this and let NK's neighbors hash it out. This doesn't mean sitting on the sidelines, however, we have allies in that region and we need to make it clear that we can and will defend them and back them up, but let Japan and South Korea take the lead. This will, IMHO, prevent us from once again looking like "Team America: World Police", which has a fairly negative impact on diplomacy, again in my opinion. Letting our allies take the lead here also has the advantage of pushing China without having to overtly threaten them. While North Korea does not seem to grasp diplomatic concerns, I'm positive China does...they're smart enough to realize that a nuclear armed Japan and/or South Korea, backed by American military might, facing off with North Korea in their backyard is NOT in their best interests. That will draw them to the table without having to overtly threaten them, which would almost certainly polarize the discussion the wrong way.