Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GST who wrote (106787)	7/20/2003 10:40:47 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Discussions of North Korea have to start with acknowledgement of a few simple realities. First, they have a deterrent. They almost certainly have some nukes, and will have more soon. They can't destroy us, but they can make a mess that we cannot tolerate or risk provoking. Second, they had a deterrent even before they went nuclear. The size and positioning of North Korean conventional forces has been an effective deterrent for years. Third, resulting from the above, it is ridiculous to fault past administrations for not taking a more aggressive posture toward N. Korea. The carrot was used instead of the stick because the carrot was available and the stick was not. By the time the N. Koreans were removed from the Russian/Chinese deterrent umbrella, their conventional deterrent was already in place. There was no window of military opportunity. Now the N. Koreans have raised the stakes, and there are no easy options. That's probably the most important realization of all: there is no simple answer, and no solution that is certain to succeed. Anyone who pretends that these things exist is succumbing to dangerous self-delusion.

To: GST who wrote (106787)	7/20/2003 11:05:12 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

What rubbish to compare North Korea to a child and the US as a parent dishing out discipline. It doesn't have to just be children. It can be any personal relationship one is involved in. It's not natural, nor healthy, for people to subjugate themselves to intimidation and threats. Nor is it conducive to building trust and rapport for two nations to enter in an agreement that one of them decides they don't have to abide by. Would you permit a business client to treat you this way? To sign a contract and then renege on it, while using death threats and bluster against yourself and your friends in order to intimidate you into paying "protection" money to him? Whether it be children, or adults, we all reward "good behavior" while punishing (or at least admonishing) bad. We made a direct threat to an extremely dangerous and unstable regime that is both a nuclear power and a sleazy arms merchant -- one that is made more dangerous by virtue of teetering on the verge of collapse. And that regime has been making threats against its southern neighbor and the rest of the region, while also engaging in criminal activities (drug smuggling, weapons proliferation) for decades. His father was just as bad as the son.. And any children he has will likely be the same way... So the cycle will never end. But the question is whether his generals will permit their own positions of influence as leaders of the military to be destroyed by Kim's reckless brinksmanship. He could easily find himself the subject of a military coup, should he threaten their interests by risking the destruction of their army in a needless and unwinnable war. Hitler was the same way... The more he was appeased, the bolder he became with his demands. First the Rhineland, then Austria, then Czechoslovakia, and eventually Danzig (Poland)... Each time the international community protested, but did nothing to stand up to him with the threat of military force. One can only wonder how history would have been different had the world shown some spine and actively opposed Hitler's agenda during those formative years of the Nazi regime. We can meet with the North Koreans and talk about. Sure we can... along with the Chinese, Japanese, and S. Koreans (at a minimum). After all, these are the nations that actually will have to live with the repercussions of any US-N. Korean talks. Multi-Lateralism is the preferred mechanism for dealing with regimes such as N. Korea's. It would have also be preferable with regard to Iraq, had it not been for the fact that two permanent members of the UNSC were on Saddam's "payroll", hoping to land VERY lucrative oil contracts, thus eliminating any chance of a multi-lateral approach. Hawk