Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Looks like N. Korea's on the agenda now too...

jorgelito · 02-10-2005, 04:57 PM

Willravel,
Yes, yes of course...*strokes goatee thoughtfully* It's all speculation. We're all armchair strategists here.

It is possible, even conceivable that N. Korea sees nukes as a defensive posture in a pre-emptive "chess" move antipating US hostility. Kim is probably a paranoiac (sp) which is also what makes him so dangerous.

In critical analysis, it is sometimes useful to ask the question, "qui bono?" or who benefits? Why would Kim make that move, what is he trying to gain? It is difficult especially because of the paucity of intelligence on the N. Koreans. I doubt even the Chinese know what to do.

So, I speculate that, based on past record, he is probably trying to flex a little muscle to squeeze concessions (oil, grain etc) from the rest of us. Additionally, he may be trying to distract his own population from their domestic trouble by focusing attention abroad - "Hey look at me! Kim Jong-Il - I'm looking out for all my Korean children form the evil West" (something like that). Diverting domestic problems away to international ones wrapped in a cloak of nationalism or patriotism or homeland security (hmmm....sounds familiar) is a common tactic politicians everywhere use.

Another possibility is he may be trying to consolidate his power. In autocratic regimes, there is often power struggle. Kim is not the "man" his father was. The poliburo, military elites may not like him or may be trying to circumvent him. In any case, he may be rattling the saber to prove himself and maintain his power.

There is so little we know about that regime. Who are the other players? The ones loyal to his father, the hawks, the reformers? Many variables.

In regards to a nuke-free world: Well, it has been reasoned that bipolarity (dual superpowers), backed by MAD (controlled nukes) kept the Cold War from getting "hot" and kept the peace for 40 years or so. I think status quo (meaning declared powers) should retain, slowly reduce and prevent everyone else from procuring nukes. Non-declared and non-signees (India, Pakistan, Israel, S. Africa, Brazil) well, we must work harder there in our diplomatic process.

One of the dangers in N. Korea or Iran possessing nukes isn't necessarily that they will use it, but rather, nukes will be sold to someone else. Other rogue states, terror organizations or to the guy we we're supposed to catch but forgot about when going to Iraq (Osama!). Nukes in the hands of terrorists is probably way worse than in the hands of the states Iran and N. Korea.

If you want to blame Bush, then you have to look at his foreign policy per se. I suppose you could argue that his Iraq mission was shortsighted, sloppy, not thought out etc. My guess is his advisors had a lot to say about it too etc...it's not just him.

Remember, hindsight is always easy but of the three (evil axis), and if we could only contain one, then it's still obvious we made a bad choice.

China is the x-factor here. They don't want a nuclear N. Korea either and their patience with Kim is wearing thin. Here's a wild one: China goes to the Security Council to authorize ridding N Korea of nukes. Kim either complies or:
China leads a coalition of China, S. Korea, Russia etc and either removes the nukes or removes Kim. N. Korea becomes a UN Mandate governed by China, S. Korea under UN Auspices. Funded by the Six-Nations with heavy emohasis on S. Kore and Japan footing most of the bill.

02-10-2005, 04:57 PM	#27 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Willravel, Yes, yes of course...strokes goatee thoughtfully It's all speculation. We're all armchair strategists here. It is possible, even conceivable that N. Korea sees nukes as a defensive posture in a pre-emptive "chess" move antipating US hostility. Kim is probably a paranoiac (sp) which is also what makes him so dangerous. In critical analysis, it is sometimes useful to ask the question, "qui bono?" or who benefits? Why would Kim make that move, what is he trying to gain? It is difficult especially because of the paucity of intelligence on the N. Koreans. I doubt even the Chinese know what to do. So, I speculate that, based on past record, he is probably trying to flex a little muscle to squeeze concessions (oil, grain etc) from the rest of us. Additionally, he may be trying to distract his own population from their domestic trouble by focusing attention abroad - "Hey look at me! Kim Jong-Il - I'm looking out for all my Korean children form the evil West" (something like that). Diverting domestic problems away to international ones wrapped in a cloak of nationalism or patriotism or homeland security (hmmm....sounds familiar) is a common tactic politicians everywhere use. Another possibility is he may be trying to consolidate his power. In autocratic regimes, there is often power struggle. Kim is not the "man" his father was. The poliburo, military elites may not like him or may be trying to circumvent him. In any case, he may be rattling the saber to prove himself and maintain his power. There is so little we know about that regime. Who are the other players? The ones loyal to his father, the hawks, the reformers? Many variables. In regards to a nuke-free world: Well, it has been reasoned that bipolarity (dual superpowers), backed by MAD (controlled nukes) kept the Cold War from getting "hot" and kept the peace for 40 years or so. I think status quo (meaning declared powers) should retain, slowly reduce and prevent everyone else from procuring nukes. Non-declared and non-signees (India, Pakistan, Israel, S. Africa, Brazil) well, we must work harder there in our diplomatic process. One of the dangers in N. Korea or Iran possessing nukes isn't necessarily that they will use it, but rather, nukes will be sold to someone else. Other rogue states, terror organizations or to the guy we we're supposed to catch but forgot about when going to Iraq (Osama!). Nukes in the hands of terrorists is probably way worse than in the hands of the states Iran and N. Korea. If you want to blame Bush, then you have to look at his foreign policy per se. I suppose you could argue that his Iraq mission was shortsighted, sloppy, not thought out etc. My guess is his advisors had a lot to say about it too etc...it's not just him. Remember, hindsight is always easy but of the three (evil axis), and if we could only contain one, then it's still obvious we made a bad choice. China is the x-factor here. They don't want a nuclear N. Korea either and their patience with Kim is wearing thin. Here's a wild one: China goes to the Security Council to authorize ridding N Korea of nukes. Kim either complies or: China leads a coalition of China, S. Korea, Russia etc and either removes the nukes or removes Kim. N. Korea becomes a UN Mandate governed by China, S. Korea under UN Auspices. Funded by the Six-Nations with heavy emohasis on S. Kore and Japan footing most of the bill.