SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (484343)5/29/2009 7:13:32 PM
From: Tenchusatsu  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1574002
 
JFShepard, > I asked a question earlier which inquired why SK and Japan didn't seem nearly as concerned about NK as American RWnuts are...

The key word is "seem." Of course they're concerned about North Korea. They had to be throughout all of modern history. It's like saying Californians don't seem nearly as concerned about earthquakes, especially The Big One.

The refugee problem you cite is just one of many concerns. You are also correct in saying that Japan and South Korea are less concerned about terrorism than America is, despite the beheading of the Korean missionary (though that was done by Muslims) and the kidnapping of Japanese citizens by NK agents.

As for North Korea not being suicidal, I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. There are people out there who would threaten to commit suicide just to get attention. Reminds me of the Chinese dude who pushed a would-be jumper off a bridge:

washingtonpost.com

> "I pushed him off because jumpers like Chen are very selfish. Their action violates a lot of public interests," Lai was quoted as saying by the China Daily newspaper.

> "They do not really dare to kill themselves. Instead, they just want to raise the relevant government authorities' attention to their appeals."

Tenchusatsu



To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (484343)5/29/2009 7:19:22 PM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1574002
 
A former senior Japanese military official has openly suggested that Japan acquire nuclear weapons, following the North Korean weapons and missile test.

May 29 (Bloomberg) — North Korea’s nuclear test and missile launches have Japan confronting a topic long off-limits: acquiring atomic weapons of its own. “The threat is elevated and Japan should seek to arm itself with nuclear weapons,” former Japanese air force chief Toshio Tamogami said in one of two recent interviews. … “Tamogami’s opinion is still a minority view, but it is no longer a taboo, nor seen as an extreme one,” said Yoichi Shimada, an international-politics professor at Fukui Prefectural University in central Japan.

This came on news that former Secretary of Defense William Perry has publicly called for a viable military option against Pyongyang, should all else fail to disarm it.

Former U.S. Defense Secretary William Perry on Thursday said that the Obama administration has to consider possible military action against Pyongyang if other coercive measures couldn’t frustrate its nuclear ambition. “I’m not recommending military action. But somewhere along in this series of coercive actions, one can imagine an escalation, and if the ones that are less do not succeed, we have to be willing to consider the other ones,” Perry told a forum of the Council on Foreign Relations. … Perry’s comment on the DPRK nuclear crisis echoed a previous claim made by Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who hints the U.S. military has determination and capacity to deal with any threat by the DPRK.

AFP reported Perry as saying that “’somewhere along in this series of coercive actions, one can imagine an escalation, and if the ones that are less do not succeed, we have to be willing to consider the other ones’. … Brent Scowcroft, a former national security adviser and Perry’s co-chair in a study on US nuclear policy, said he agreed with Perry, but cautioned that the use of force was fraught with the risk of unintended consequences.”

In a question and answer session, Perry said the US approach toward North Korea in the six party talks had failed, and there could be no return to business as usual.

“Having said that, I do believe that diplomacy still has a chance of success, but only if it is robust and only if its robustness includes some meaningful coercion on opponents,” he said. “I recognize that diplomacy has a much steeper hill to climb now than it did in 2003 because they now have a bomb,” he said, referring to the last crisis with North Korea. “Then we had the option of stopping the production of plutonium. Now the plutonium has been produced and it is located somewhere we know not where. So that option has now disappeared,” he said.

Perry’s assessment of the six party talks echoed that of John Bolton, who was interviewed by the Huffington Post under the title, “Is John Bolton Right About North Korea?” Bolton called the Obama “absent without leave on North Korea policy” and placed special emphasis on what Perry had independently noted: North Korea now had plutonium. It was a de facto nuclear weapons state, albeit a small one. And that might make all the difference to China.

I don’t think the North Koreans have any intention of negotiating away their nuclear weapons capability. If there was any doubt about that, this nuclear test surely puts that to rest. …I take them [China] at their word that they don’t want a nuclear North Korea. They agree with the U.S. on that. Where they disagree with the U.S. is they are afraid to do anything that would bring down the Kim Jong-il regime. In my view, China should rethink this. It is not in their interest to keep this regime in power if it is going to pursue nuclear weapons. …

Japan will have to do what it has to do. This anxiety reflects a concern about whether the U.S. nuclear umbrella over Japan is as strong as it used to be. I found it extraordinary that Secretary of State Clinton felt she had to publicly assure Japan of the U.S. commitment to their security as this crisis has unfolded. Obviously, the Japanese are worried, and that message is getting through….

The Iranians are watching this very carefully. If the U.S. and the U.N. respond ineffectively, the Iranians will draw the conclusion that if North Korea can get away with it, then they can, too. The stakes are very high.

The North Korean problem goes beyond that of single, poor country seeking its own nuclear weapon. If North Korea were an ordinary state seeking to acquire defensive weapons it would be entirely deterrable. If Pyongyang fired a missile at Japan, then North Korea would be destroyed. At the most, it its nuclear weapons would guarantee the continuation of its dysfunctional regime, something that hurts it much more than it hurts anyone else. But the problem, as both Perry and Bolton have noted, is that North Korea may be linked with the wider breakout: to Iran, Syria and Pakistan. It is a nuclear power without the characteristics of a Great Power state. It’s a rogue, and more significantly, one whose only export is trouble. Hence the problem of the plutonium begins to weigh heavily on the minds of policy makers. Even those who publicly don’t believe in an “Axis of Evil” must must find someone who defend against it.

pajamasmedia.com



To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (484343)5/29/2009 7:22:39 PM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1574002
 
Seoul announced Tuesday it would participate in the Proliferation Security Initiative, which involves intelligence sharing and naval coordination to prevent nuclear and other illegal weapons from being transported. The announcement came one day after the North Korean nuclear test.
....
just a week after taking office in January, pledging that “if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.” But on May 25, North Korea appeared to give a stunning reply.


“Words matter”, but they aren’t everything

VOA reports that North Korea will take military action against South Korea if it cooperates with the US in attempting to inspect ships which may contain WMD materials.

North Korea says it will take military action against South Korea if it participates in a U.S.-led effort to intercept ships suspected of carrying weapons of mass destruction, as tensions increase over Pyongyang’s nuclear test earlier this week. In a statement Wednesday, Pyongyang reaffirmed that it would consider Seoul’s decision an act of war and will no longer be bound by the 1953 armistice that ended the three-year Korean War. Seoul announced Tuesday it would participate in the Proliferation Security Initiative, which involves intelligence sharing and naval coordination to prevent nuclear and other illegal weapons from being transported. The announcement came one day after the North Korean nuclear test.

The UK Telegraph explained that until recently, South Korea had relegated itself to observer status the Proliferation Security Initiative, a Bush-era device for attempting to quarantine North Korea, in order to avoid provoking the North.

Until Tuesday, South Korea had retained an “observer status” in the PSI in an attempt not to provoke its Northern neighbour, whose government had said earlier this year that any decision to join would be considered an “act of war’”. The move by South Korea is largely symbolic, since it has made clear that existing shipping agreements and protocols with the North would not be affected by the move. However Pyongyang, which has test-fired six missiles since Monday’s nuclear test, has used the decision as a pretext to further ramp up tension on the Peninsular as it seeks to force concessions from the international community.

In a related development, UPI reports that “North Korea, continuing its aggressive nuclear posture, may have restarted its Yongbyon nuclear reprocessing facility, a source told Yonhap news agency.” Radio Free Liberty called North Korea’s actions a “challenge to the Obama doctrine”. The Examiner says, “Obama looks for an unclenched hand - gets the finger”. Radio Free Liberty explained why North Korea’s provocation in the face of Obama’s conciliation is so disturbing.

U.S. President Barack Obama came to office promising to explore ways to talk with countries hostile to the United States — such as North Korea and Iran — in what was regarded as a stark contrast to the Bush administration’s labeling them as parts of an “axis of evil.” He reiterated that approach just a week after taking office in January, pledging that “if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.” But on May 25, North Korea appeared to give a stunning reply. It conducted its second nuclear test — its first during Obama’s term — and produced an explosion experts compare with those that flattened Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II.

The New York Times says of the Obama administration that “as much as they understood this was going to be an issue, they weren’t ready for a nuclear test in May,’ Marcus Noland, an expert on North Korea at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said of Mr. Obama and his advisers. ‘They’re in a situation now where they have to contain and manage a crisis.’ … Of the options still on the table, the measures that the Obama administration seems most drawn to would constrain the North Korean government’s access to funds. These steps, which would be carried out by the Treasury Department either openly or covertly, would be directed at banks in Europe and the Middle East that are used by the Kim family, officials said.” Whether North Korea will respond to such pressures is open to question. A North Korean academic, writing in the Asia Times says that Obama may have accidentally insulted Kim Jong Il by calling into question his right to launch a long range missile across the Pacific Ocean and that it proved as “hostile” to Pyongyang as the George Bush. The academic Kim Myong Chol says that “Plan B” may now be in effect. Plan B is a Dr. Evil-like plan to threaten the world.

Plan B envisages the DPRK going it alone as a fully fledged nuclear weapon-armed state, with a military-first policy, and then growing into a mighty and prosperous country. It will put the policy of seeking reconciliation with a tricky US, a helpless superpower with a crippled economy that is losing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, on the back burner. The DPRK is equipped with all types of nuclear warheads, atomic, neutron and hydrogen, and their means of delivery puts the whole of the USA within effective range.

The Times of London wrote on April 24, 2009: “The world’s intelligence agencies and defense experts are quietly acknowledging that North Korea has become a fully fledged nuclear power with the capacity to wipe out entire cities in Japan and South Korea.” The announced vow to quit six-party talks, restart nuclear facilities and conduct additional nuclear and intercontinental ballistic missile tests is a clear message that the Kim Jong-il administration’s decision to shift to plan B is irretrievable.

Whether these blood-curdling emanations from North Korea are simply more posturing or the demented but serious actions of a dictator in poor health with nothing to lose remains to be seen. But it highlights the underlying problem in any attempt to contain North Korea. Behind any serious diplomacy there must always remain the threat of a credible use of force. North Korea has stormed forward, less timidly perhaps when facing Bush than Obama, but forging ahead all the same, because he calculated that America would not risk stopping him by military action. Dashiell Hammett captured the essence of the problem in his classic, The Maltese Falcon.

Spade: If you kill me, how are you gonna get the bird? And if I know you can’t afford to kill me, how are you gonna scare me into giving it to you?
Gutman: Well, sir, there are other means of persuasion besides killing and threatening to kill.
Spade: Yes, that’s, that’s true. But - they’re none of ‘em any good unless the threat of death is behind them - do you see what I mean? If you start something, I’ll make it a matter of your having to kill me or call it off.
Gutman: (chuckling) That’s an attitude, sir, that calls for the most delicate judgment on both sides. ‘Cause as you know, sir, in the heat of action, men are likely to forget where their best interests lie and that their emotions carry them away.
Spade: Then the trick from my angle is to make my play strong enough to tie you up, but not make you mad enough to bump me off against your better judgment.
Gutman: By gad, sir, you are a character.

The North Korean midget dictator simply believes that the sheriff won’t shoot. Kim Jong Il is a bad character; a police character but he is a character. The challenge facing the Obama doctrine isn’t directed against an idea: it is aimed squarely at what Kim thinks is the new President’s lack of it.

pajamasmedia.com



To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (484343)5/29/2009 8:24:13 PM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 1574002
 
I just gave you two articles that show there IS concern in SK and Japan over NK's nukes.

Japanese are discussing developing their own nukes - a big taboo in the past because of their history. And SK is joining the Proliferation Security Initiative.

Will you acknowledge that your claim to be able to read the minds of Japanese and S Koreans was bull?



To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (484343)5/30/2009 9:35:00 AM
From: michael97123  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1574002
 
The Parson and the Shepard---a good book about two morons who work for the enemies of the USA and bring us a world dominated by Kim and Bin their heroes.
You are so frakking dumb to not be concerned about whats going on in NK. You have your head up your arse and worse than that you enjoy having it there. Are you and Parsons Lovers?