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: michael97123 who wrote (110547)	8/8/2003 10:13:08 AM
From: Rascal	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Not that Bad? These guys are hammers always looking for nails. N. Korea next to hear U.S. war drum By GEOFFREY YORK From Thursday's Globe and Mail UPDATED AT 2:00 AM EDT Thursday, Aug. 7, 2003 Beijing — A senior Pentagon adviser has given details of a war strategy for invading North Korea and toppling its regime within 30 to 60 days, adding muscle to a lobbying campaign by U.S. hawks urging a pre-emptive military strike against Pyongyang's nuclear facilities. Less than four months after the end of the Iraq war, the war drums in Washington have begun pounding again. A growing number of influential U.S. leaders are talking openly of military action against North Korea to destroy its nuclear-weapons program, and even those who prefer negotiations are warning of the mounting danger of war. Some analysts predict that North Korea could test a nuclear warhead by the end of this year — an event that could cross the "red line" that would provoke a U.S. attack. The tensions were heightened by a recent exchange of gunfire across the border between North Korean and South Korean soldiers. Talks between U.S. and North Korean officials are expected to be held in Beijing soon, but nobody is predicting an imminent diplomatic agreement, especially after North Korea denounced a U.S. negotiator as a "bloodsucker" and "human scum." Military conflict in the Korean peninsula could trigger a catastrophe, not only because of the suspected presence of nuclear bombs in North Korea, but also because of the 11,000 North Korean artillery weapons along the border that could inflict death and destruction on millions of people in the South Korean capital, Seoul, which is within artillery range of the North's guns. Former CIA director James Woolsey, a Pentagon adviser and close ally of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, gave the most explicit glimpse into the thinking of U.S. military planners this week when he revealed the details of a possible plan of attack against North Korea. The plan would include 4,000 daily air strikes against North Korean targets, the deployment of cruise missiles and stealth aircraft to destroy the Yongbyon nuclear plant and other nuclear facilities, the stationing of U.S. Marine forces off the coasts of North Korea to threaten a land attack on Pyongyang, the deployment of two additional U.S. Army divisions to bolster South Korean troops in a land offensive against North Korea, and the call-up of National Guard and Reserve units to replace U.S. combat forces that are currently bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Massive air power is the key to being able both to destroy Yongbyon and to protect South Korea from attack by missile or artillery," Mr. Woolsey wrote this week in the Wall Street Journal in an article co-written by retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant-General Thomas McInerney. "We believe the use of air power in such a war would be swifter and more devastating than it was in Iraq," the article said. "We judge that the U.S. and South Korea could defeat North Korea decisively in 30 to 60 days with such a strategy." Mr. Woolsey and Lt.-Gen. McInerney said the U.S. should already be preparing "to assess realistically what it would take to conduct a successful military operation to change the North Korean regime." They acknowledged the risk that U.S. military strikes could trigger an explosion of radiation from North Korean nuclear plants, along with massive artillery attacks against Seoul by the North Korean heavy guns that are hidden in hardened underground bunkers on the border. But U.S. cruise missiles and stealth aircraft could launch precision bombing attacks that would "minimize radiation leakage" at Yongbyon, while also sealing shut the underground bunkers where the artillery pieces are hidden, they said. They warned that a war could soon become necessary to prevent North Korea from selling weapons-grade plutonium to "rogue states" and terrorist organizations. "The world has weeks to months, at most, to deal with this issue, not months to years," Mr. Woolsey and Lt.-Gen. McInerney wrote. Similar warnings were issued recently by William Perry, the former U.S. defence secretary, who said North Korea and the United States were drifting toward war — perhaps as early as this year. Mr. Perry said the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush is "losing control" of the North Korean nuclear crisis, making it possible for Pyongyang to begin selling nuclear weapons to terrorists soon. "The nuclear program now under way in North Korea poses an imminent danger of nuclear weapons being detonated in American cities," he told The Washington Post. He said North Korea seems to have begun reprocessing some of the 8,000 spent fuel rods from a closed nuclear plant. This could allow Pyongyang to build up to six nuclear bombs in the next six months. "I have thought for some months that if the North Koreans moved toward processing," he said, "then we are on a path toward war." theglobeandmail.com Rascal @WhoopsThereItIs.com

To: michael97123 who wrote (110547)	8/9/2003 12:57:41 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

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