Hi michael97123; Re: "But what if appeasement allows them to clandenstinely build nukes that will threaten us big time some time in the near future?"
Does sound like a familiar argument, doesn't it.
Ignore the possible problems of a confrontational and unilateral foreign policy, magnify the possible problems of a negotiated and multilateral foreign policy. And use words like "clandenstinely" to describe the North Korean manufacture of nukes when the (correctly spelled) word is rather inaccurate. North Korea is practically taking out world-wide advertisements to the effect that they're making nukes. Contrast that with the US, which truly did develop nukes "clandenstinely". And where did this phrase "threaten us big time" come from? The US has massive military power and we have refused to promise North Korea that we will not start a war with them and use all our advantages in technology and numbers. It's now obvious that Iraq was never even a small time threat to the US, but that the US was more than just a big time threat to Iraq, it actually did attack. My complaint is that your very choice of words indicate that you are pursuing one-sided propaganda rather than rational discourse. I agree that propaganda is a wonderful tool for use against the enemy, but believing ones own BS tends to be detrimental to figuring out the best policy.
The basic problem with a confrontational policy with North Korea is that it is unnecessary. All that NK is asking of Bush is a treaty agreeing that neither party will attack the other. It should be a no-brainer to sign that piece of paper, even if such agreements have been proven by history to be worthless.
The Teddy Roosevelt strategy is to "walk softly and carry a big stick". What Bush is doing is "walking loudly and swinging a big stick". This is not a successful foreign policy for a peaceful democracy, as there is never a continuing political will to make the sacrifices necessary to keep the stick swinging.
The truth is that there is not a single stick of evidence that suggests that North Korea would attack the US with its nuclear weapons. Not a single shred of evidence. The NK/SK border has been stable for 50 years. The US has a massive preponderance of WMDs, far more than North Korea could ever put together. The US would survive a few nuclear bomb impacts from North Korea far better than North Korea would survive a few hundred nuclear bomb impacts from the US. Conclusion: there will never be a war between the US and North Korea, so there is no danger of North Korea owning nukes.
But despite this simple logic, logic that is nothing more than a continuation of the MAD strategy that kept this planet unnuked for many decades, there will be people demanding perfect safety who will demand that something be done about North Korea. The sad truth is that there is nothing that can be done about North Korea.
As far as the logic about inducing a coup there, I say go for it. The planet would be improved if the NK government fell and was replaced by even a right wing dictatorship. But that is something that can be pursued at the same time as a diplomatic policy of negotiation is pursued.
Neither the US nor the USSR gave up on their attempts to influence each other during the Cold War. MAD does not imply no competition / confrontation. It only implies that you agree to leave the other guy's homeland alone. For example, the US could still board vessels and take NK weapons on the high seas. North Korea could still try to sneak weapons past US embargoes. None of this is incompatible with MAD, which has to do with attacks against each others homeland, not with stuff like supplying rebel fighters against each other.
There are times when a policy of "preemption" is a good idea, but it's obvious now that Iraq wasn't one of them. And with the Administration having made that error, there's not a snowball's chance in Hell that they are going to be allowed to roll the dice again.
The logic that North Korea would suddenly possess great power if they had nukes is disproved by the fact that so many nations already have nukes and have not obtained great power with them. The USSR is gone. China is only still around because they embraced capitalism. France, according to the neocons, is on the ashcan of history. Neither Pakistan nor India has obtained the slightest utility from nukes. Israel hasn't taken over the Middle East. As far as extending power goes, nukes are useless in the modern environment.
Maybe the underlying fear is that an American president could be forced to sign over Hawaii to North Korea because of a threat of being nuked. The implicit assumption is that the President is a pussy who wouldn't have the guts to say "you nuke me, and I'll nuke you back ten times as hard".
-- Carl |
