^Nice FUD.

- Just because it will be hard doesn't mean it shouldn't be done
- It is incorrect to assume that NK and E germany will grow at the same rate. In fact, the poorer a country is the faster it grows. As it gets richer, the development rate slows down.
- Likewise, the extreme poverty of NK makes it more likely that the NK people will go along with changes.
- There's going to be more international aid available for a korean unification
- Most of all, SK and the international community will have german reunification as an example to learn from

5/30/2009 6:00:29 PM

Quote :

"Reunification would wreck SK. The per capita income disparity between east and west Germany before the wall came down was 3:1 and their economy is still seeing the effects of reunification. The disparity between north and south Korea is 15:1."

Yeah it'll be hard but they should do it anyway. If NK wasn't in the way, SK and China could become extremely powerful trade partners and the NK half of the country would seek to benefit tremendously from investments in infrastructure that would support new trade links between Korea, China, and Russia. The economic situation there is different enough that I bet that with economic aid SK could handle the increase in expenses and justify a bit of deficit spending (for a decade or two at least) as they work to provide basic services to all of North Korea.

The only real issue I would see in unifying the two Koreas would be the mistrust that has developed over the course of the past 50 years.

5/30/2009 8:22:45 PM

Plus, there has been continuing rhetoric for reunification. Sometimes, money actually isn't everything.

They nations share the same heritage. It's the same people, and before the war, it was one contiguous nation. When the nation was divided families got split up.

Plus: when did NK start to decline and when did SK start to rapidly develop?



The fall of the Soviet Union. During 1990, the nations had been separated for decades, but the reality is that they were not all that different. Just like Cuba, North Korea went into terrible recession at the break up of the Soviet Union which supported them. Furthermore, South Korea had almost all of its rapid industrialization in last 20 years. It's been one of the fastest nations on Earth to develop and emerge as a competitive economy.

With the help of all that nations around it, no language or cultural barrier to SK at least, and the economic conditions of the region and the world today, NK would join the ranks of the developed world in no-time-flat. That happening would be about the greatest moral victory for the South Koreans. They aren't going to say 'oh too expensive' and turn away.

5/31/2009 11:21:20 AM

Quote :

"The per capita income disparity between east and west Germany before the wall came down was 3:1 and their economy is still seeing the effects of reunification. "

The Germans also had elaborate social welfare programs. South Korea doesn't. The citizens of the South won't suddenly get forced into paying for healthcare and unemployment for the North.

5/31/2009 2:26:20 PM

Quote :

"Furthermore, South Korea had almost all of its rapid industrialization in last 20 years."

Yes, but South Korea also started that period with a significantly higher per-capita.

5/31/2009 4:09:05 PM

I realize that reunification would not be easy, but as mrfrog said, sometimes money isn't everything. Sometimes power isn't even everything.

The West Germans weren't stupid. They knew that the East was broke and shitty and an inevitable drag on the rest of the country. They wanted reunification anyway. The Koreans, to an even greater extent than the Germans, are a culturally and ethnically homogeneous people living right next to each other. No sane person would draw an imaginary line halfway through them and expect the two sides to stay separate. The commies and the capitalists both have always assumed that the two halves would eventually rejoin when one side took the upper hand.

Reunification is inevitable, probably within the century. Quite possibly within our lifetimes. Sooner or later during an exchange of power, someone will offer North Korea a tiny glimpse of the outside world, and the dam won't hold long after that.

5/31/2009 8:00:31 PM

Quote :

"Yes, but South Korea also started that period with a significantly higher per-capita."

http://www44.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=compare+North+Korea+per+capita+GDP+to+South+Korea+per+capita+GDP+in+1970

Biznatch!

5/31/2009 9:59:53 PM

Quote :

"Yeah it'll be hard but they should do it anyway. If NK wasn't in the way, SK and China could become extremely powerful trade partners and the NK half of the country would seek to benefit tremendously from investments in infrastructure that would support new trade links between Korea, China, and Russia."

China already has a strong trade with the South and doesn't need the rail systems to move freight. Sure, it would help, but the Chinese state at this time seems to prefer a backwards buffer state versus a direct border with a traditional US ally.

Quote :

"The economic situation there is different enough that I bet that with economic aid SK could handle the increase in expenses and justify a bit of deficit spending (for a decade or two at least) as they work to provide basic services to all of North Korea."

I think you're grossly underestimating just how much money is going to be needed to restore North Korean infrastructure to a functional level let alone one on par with the South. Every number I've seen out of the ROK's think tanks show that it would undermine the South's economy. North Korea isn't at 1980s standards of Eastern Europe, its a complete basket case complete with mass starvation and a near total economic collapse. There isn't enough slack in the South's economy to absorb so many workers let alone pay for their social services even at the meager levels of South Korea.

To put it into perspective, imagine if the United States all of a sudden became responsible for running Mexico and its over 100 million citizens. Except nearly all those citizens were malnourished to the point that their development was impacted and growth stunted, that few had any usable skills, and there was effectively no functioning economy. Agriculture land was ruined because they chopped down every tree for firewood, and the school children were regularly pressed into mining for coal because of the lack of labor. Nearly all factories have ceased to operate because of the lack of fuel and parts. About 5 million lived in gulags and another 5 million knew nothing other than the soldiering profession.

Quote :

"Plus, there has been continuing rhetoric for reunification. Sometimes, money actually isn't everything. They nations share the same heritage. It's the same people, and before the war, it was one contiguous nation. When the nation was divided families got split up."

This is actually a bit murkier despite all the talk about reunification. Few South Koreans, especially younger generations, have any desire for immediate reunification. They don't have memories of relatives in the North nor connections to lost properties. While they call them brothers, there is tremendous discrimination against those North Koreans that actually manage to escape to the South.

Sure, they rally around the idea in theory for various causes, usually when it comes to talking about taking a softer stance towards the North. However, they saw what happened in Germany and they DO NOT want that to happen to them. They don't want hordes of poor North Koreans flooding their streets, taking their jobs, and bankrupting their system. What they would prefer is to simply keep the North separate, let them build up economically and then reunify when they're in a healthier position. The dialogue has shifted from immediate reunification to gradual reunification... say a few decades from now when they're economically healthier.

6/1/2009 1:22:42 AM

Quote :

"Let them throw a temper tantrum, if they step out of bounds knock them down. "

what exactly do you consider "stepping out of bounds?" At what point would you say we need to react? Defying UN resolutions once? twice? 5000 times? Nuking SK? Declaring an end to the truce? Testing nukes? Firing rockets over Japan?

Let's face it: we need to do something. I say we paint targets on all of their nuke plants and for a five mile zone across the 38th with conventional weapons. Just level the entire area. Then let's "invite them to talk."

Quote :

"The war itself was basically over."

Care to learn a little history? The war wasn't going to be over until Japan surrendered. And they had no intention of surrendering. So it wasn't "basically over" in any sense. Revisionist history is fun, though, isn't it?

One more thing, given that the truce was signed with the UN, we should putting a fuck-ton of pressure on the ENTIRE WORLD to do something in a military-fashion against NK. because, you know, the ENTIRE WORLD pretty much makes up the UN. Of course, I guess NK just said it should fight itself, too, with that, but still. The UN needs to stop being a fucking pussy and actually do something. otherwise it is nothing more than a 21st century League of Nations. Appeasement didn't work then, and it won't work now.

6/1/2009 7:06:12 AM

Quote :

"Sure, they rally around the idea in theory for various causes, usually when it comes to talking about taking a softer stance towards the North. However, they saw what happened in Germany and they DO NOT want that to happen to them. They don't want hordes of poor North Koreans flooding their streets, taking their jobs, and bankrupting their system. What they would prefer is to simply keep the North separate, let them build up economically and then reunify when they're in a healthier position. The dialogue has shifted from immediate reunification to gradual reunification... say a few decades from now when they're economically healthier."

Granted, it may not happen like Germany's case where free movement between the countries is immediately allowed. That makes sense. But with a regime change, there is no reason that everyone else can't help NK to make a complete 180 through conventional aid. It's not just SK who would bear the burden, but the US, Japan, and all the world economic heavyweights would have great interest in seeing the NK nation be brought up to a level where true reunification could work.

When the US did the Martial plan we didn't directly allow free movement here from war torn nations. And eventually they did recover. And in that case, it did overwhelmingly work. Development aid has worked in places where there was a strong case to be made that they have the potential to develop. I think you can make this case for NK since many other Asian nations have risen from a similar destitude situation to become productive and educated.

6/1/2009 8:09:22 AM

^^ I think the trick is that NK isn't at the point where we need to level them because we know they're not going to wage a conventional war against the south right now and that they don't have the ability to deliver a nuclear bomb to another country (though I guess they could try to set one off near the border that was mounted on a truck, lol). They're still a few years away from having advanced their tech to the point where they might be able to mount one on one of their crappy missiles, and at that point we would certainly bomb them out of existence. Looking at Gates' take on the situation as not being at a "crisis" level right now, they've probably analyzed every bit of data they could on the nuclear explosion to try to determine how advanced their technology is at this point in time. If intelligence and military officials believe that NK is just saber rattling yet again (although they're getting a bit close to hurting someone this time) they're not going to justify leveling the country just yet.

Honestly, when they said the armistice was nullified and started threatening war like punkasses I would've thought that opposing their rhetoric with equally angry rhetoric threatening nuclear destruction would likely have put them in their place. I think our response was a bit weak, but I bet they're banking on the fact that Kim is old and that this might be his final play before a change in leadership which will be followed by a period of reduced tension between nations (as somebody who isn't addled by a brain disease takes office and starts making orders).

[Edited on June 1, 2009 at 8:10 AM. Reason : ^]

6/1/2009 8:10:37 AM

Looks like he named his son, kim jong-un as next in line

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8078324.stm

6/2/2009 10:36:59 AM

Quote :

"I think the trick is that NK isn't at the point where we need to level them because we know they're not going to wage a conventional war against the south right now and that they don't have the ability to deliver a nuclear bomb to another country"

When do we worry about them, then? when the warhead is being placed on the missile or a bomb into a truck? Seems like it's a little too late, then...

6/2/2009 7:37:20 PM

No, because then we can nuke them flat and launch precision strikes against their missile sites without them being able to retaliate until after their missiles are disabled.

They do not have the ability to mass produce and distribute (or conceal) ICBM launch sites or ICBMs. Just look at the most recent launch they're trying to carry out. There have been days of advance warning with multiple country's intelligence services identifying that NK was preparing a site for a missile launch and that the missile appeared to be coming from a factory in Pyongyang.

These guys are nowhere near as capable as any other nuclear armed (or nearly nuclear armed) nation out there as far as resources go for concealment of their missile capabilities. Their research is very slow and many signs point to all this just being some extreme posturing to allow Kim Jong Il to name a successor of his choosing.

If we react to every military situation like this like the Israelis do (bomb first, ask questions later) we're going to destroy our international reputation and end up being at war with many states all at once. The path right now, given all available intelligence and knowledge of traditional North Korean cat and mouse military games and propaganda, is to pursue sanctions against NK and to work on improving dialogue between North and South Korea to reduce tensions and to reduce the risk of a nuclear arms race in SE asia. Until there is an imminent threat against South Korea or Japan or the United States, we will likely not take any military action against North Korea. What constitutes an imminent threat may be a number of things (including claims of developing nuclear ICBMs and then putting ICBMs on launch pads with no way for us to verify that they have warheads, or a hot war along the DMZ or in the waters off the west coast of Korea, etc), so don't think we're not acting appropriately here. The game these days is to play diplomacy up until the moment where military action is a necessity that has to be executed immediately to prevent catastrophic loss of life and property. If we constantly act like war hawks we're going to be rather despised by our "foes" and their neighbors (like the Israelis are today) and end up damaging our interests abroad.

[Edited on June 2, 2009 at 10:20 PM. Reason : ]

6/2/2009 10:18:56 PM

and yet, the problem with that scenario is that you end up becoming desensitized after a while to true threats. And at the end we end up with "how the fuck did we get here?" That is the problem with appeasement and ignoring threats. Should we go apeshit over NK saying they are gonna declare war? Probably not. Should we be concerned at NK testing a nuke? I'd say "yes."

I say we need to set certain limits that can not be crossed, and these need to be far from "a man crossing the DMZ." It doesn't take a missile to deliver a nuke when a truck or a boat will do the job.

At best, waiting until it's almost too late puts you too terribly close to "too late."

6/2/2009 10:39:43 PM

It's true, but you're not going to get any war hawks to get past all the bureaucrats and politicians currently in control of whether or not we bomb North Korea right now. The classic cycle is that we wait until something awfully bad happens and then we go after the assholes who did it (Pearl Harbor Bombing, 9/11, etc). The primary reason is that military planners and intelligence officials are not directly in control of what a country does in terms of warfare, that's left up to the president, senators, and representatives. All of these people are less likely to act even in the face of what really would be an imminent threat in a situation requiring immediate military action.

My point is that we need to press ahead with the diplomatic shit now because we haven't fully exhausted all of our options yet so that we are better prepared and more willing to commit to military action when we realize that the North Koreans really want to develop nuclear ICBMs with the possible goal of annihilating their neighbors. This will also position us better to appear as if we played by the rules and make it look like we're capable of reacting quickly and appropriately to a situation (i.e. with diplomacy that leads into military action, all of which is legal under international law). It's pretty easy to stay within the boundaries of this situation and end up dealing with the North Korean threat before it turns into something else. The only actual issue we're facing right now is all that we've done is say "bad North Korea" without cutting what little aid they receive and taking whatever financial or commercial action we have left to force them to capitulate or to misstep and give us an opening to kick their military and nuclear threat in the nuts before it hurts anybody.

Again, we can't just let our military go romping around wiping out every threat as it pops up (otherwise we'd have bombed Iran, North Korea, Iraq (moving the war back a few years), Syria, etc) as we need to do our best to deal with these threats diplomatically at first. We need to work on making our diplomatic responses as quick as our military response and to be as potent as possible (not just poo-pooing nations for acting like dicks). In this way we would be able to pursue the peaceful avenues quickly and act faster than the other guy to deal with a situation, and it would probably allow us to come to terms with the other nation's plans a lot quicker (possibly quickly enough that their plans will never fall into place well before we start to realize that their intentions necessitate military action).

Also, though they can just put a nuke into one of their civilian jets or into a truck and fly it to somewhere under the guise of a peaceful diplomatic mission (then setting off the device to cause widespread destruction), we can't really go and bomb them immediately because we have zero evidence to justify this action or to prove that they are willing to resort to terrorism in an attempt to defeat their enemies. Such a move would also be a risky and a stupid waste of what little fissile material they have that's suitable for a nuclear bomb. North Korea doesn't want to start a war of terror because they know it will hurt their cause and that it will cause many nations to turn on them, cut off aid, and very likely to immediately declare war and destroy them. What they want is to try to extort more fuel, food, and financial aid out of us while still making us look like the villains, so what we should do is cut back on what aid we're giving them and tell them to give up the nuke program and the fissile material or all aid will be cut. NK would then suffer even more with an even more severe shortage of food, fuel, and money and would likely face economic collapse and conditions ripe for a general uprising and possible coup. This would then give us a prime opportunity to send military forces into certain areas where we know they have been carrying out nuclear research, seize any devices or fissile material, and to surgically destroy whatever facilities they were using to produce such material. It would also set the stage for South Korea to offer an olive branch to North Korea and to provide a situation that would be ripe for reunification without firing a shot. If the government of North Korea collapsed and dissolved completely, this would all be a lot easier (which is why I like the "starve em out" route).

[Edited on June 2, 2009 at 11:05 PM. Reason : ]

6/2/2009 10:54:00 PM

Quote :

"U.S. reporters Laura Ling and Euna Lee have been sentenced to 12 years hard labor in North Korea after being captured while covering the misery of defectors along the China-North Korea border. They were sentenced for the “grave crime they committed against the Korean nation and their illegal border crossing.” The grave crime included reporting on the conditions of the last Stalinistic regime in the World with its rampant starvation and abuses."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/06/08/nkorea.journalists/index.html

6/8/2009 2:22:28 PM

What if NK put every non-military man, woman, and child in the nation into the downtown of Pyongyang and threatened to nuke its own citizens if we didn't bend to their demands?

6/8/2009 2:38:45 PM

Pretty stupid of those journalists. Sucks for them, but they had to know the risks of what they were doing.

6/8/2009 3:36:51 PM

The lives of the two journalists are worth 100 Kim Jong Ills. Maybe we can buy them back; surely the NK's need hard currency more than they need to make an example of these two?

6/8/2009 3:49:17 PM

I don't know enough about their situation to judge honestly. If they were in China and the NK zipped over the river and nabbed them, then I'd say aggressive negations are in order.
If they were snooping around in NK, fuck em. Cya in 12 years if you survive.

Since we're probably never going to know the exact details of their arrest, this will be a political test of the Obama administration. Since it's 2 no-names, I'm not sure how big of a deal it will really end up being.

6/8/2009 4:05:46 PM

They were right on the China / NK border when they were nabbed, apparently. Border guards brought them in. Maybe it was on a disputed portion of the border, where they thought that they were in China but the guards said they were in NK.

They work for Al Gore's media outlet, Current TV. Maybe Gore can go over there and beg for their release.

6/8/2009 5:15:30 PM

Are they serving enriched beer?

http://www.hulu.com/watch/4925/its-always-sunny-in-philadelphia-the-gang-solves-the-north-korea-situation#s-p1-so-i0

6/8/2009 5:19:03 PM

Okay. Some of you have made it clear--as usual--that you think I'm a warmongering poopyhead.

So, let's get some parameters here: What circumstances would it take for you to support an overwhelming attack on North Korea, whether it be nuclear or otherwise?

6/8/2009 6:56:45 PM

Can you give us scenarios that we could say "yes" or "no" to?

its hard for me to think of random "what if" situations...first thought was "if they attacked us first"...but obviously the point of us attacking them would be so they couldnt attack us.

6/8/2009 10:38:18 PM

^^

I would support a non nuclear regime changing "overwhelming attack" and invasion if they invaded south korea

nukes are a deterrent option ONLY... very specifically for a Mutually Assured Destruction type scenario

nukes are super bad... beyond terrible... they should not be thought of as a reasonably viable option by sane people

6/8/2009 10:52:06 PM

^ Not a bad response.



But this ^ guy looks pretty sober to me.

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=330963

6/9/2009 1:04:58 AM

why would we use nukes? i'd think we'd have the means necessary to do what we wanted and/or needed without them

6/9/2009 1:11:32 AM

Well, if we were to do a first strike with nuclear weapons, it would be to wipe out NK's military forces near Seoul which had trained artillery on the city (they have many artillery pieces in range which could kill a lot of people in Seoul, though the condition of their artillery is likely not good).

Another situation would be if we sit on our asses for a long enough time for NK to develop a stable ICBM and a stable, compact nuclear device that could be mounted on their ICBMs. If NK then issued an ultimatum (e.g. you must reverse all trade embargos, resume shipment of aid, and begin to remove your troops from SK within one hour or we will nuke Seoul and Anchorage, Alaska) and we lacked enough time to respond to locate their nuclear devices directly, maybe we'd consider using a nuclear device in tandem with whatever air units were available in the area.

Outside of that, there wouldn't be a situation where we'd use nukes on the defensive, given NK's limited nuclear capabilities. We'd rather pound the fuck out of them with our air units and ravage their military forces on the ground, then working towards Pyongyang with the eventual goal of capturing whoever the leader is at the time and putting them on trial.

6/9/2009 1:26:45 AM

Don't worry about that. Sarah Palin will defend Alaska.

6/9/2009 1:33:11 AM

Quote :

"why would we use nukes? i'd think we'd have the means necessary to do what we wanted and/or needed without them"

Because North Korea may have the capability of launching a nuke into US soil, and we can never, ever let that happen. If a war breaks out on the Korean peninsula, we have to ensure that we take out NK's nuclear capabilities as the first order of business. Can that be achieved with conventional weaponry? I don't have the answer to that question.

6/9/2009 1:35:10 AM

^^^ and ^ Solid answers. But I think many forget tactical nuclear weapons--all nuclear weapons are not created equal. (A tactical neutron bomb might even be considered.)

I think some people tend to think of the Hiroshima A-bomb and modern-day hydrogen bombs. But the use of tactical nuclear weapons would be quite dissimilar.



[Edited on June 9, 2009 at 1:43 AM. Reason : .]

6/9/2009 1:42:01 AM

Quote :

"But this ^ guy looks pretty sober to me. "

How does the scenario towards the end of WWII resemble this scenario with NK?

6/9/2009 11:57:41 AM

Quote :

"How does the scenario towards the end of WWII resemble this scenario with NK?"

Both NK and Japan from 1940 are in East Asia.
They're both kind of uppity.
They both posed a threat to regional security.
In both cases we're concerned about protecting American interests in the region.
Japan had (and has) an emperor, who was kind of seen as 'the shit' like Kim Jung Il.
There was a threat from both enemies of development or use of a nuclear bomb (yes, yes there was).
Both enemies seemed to exploit its citizens for military service.

No, I don't think comparisons are of much use here. But that doesn't change the fact that your rhetorical question is kind of stupid. yes, they have things in common.

6/9/2009 1:13:47 PM

^ PinkandBlack is just trolling--as usual. He adds nothing to this site but the typical Che set agitprop.

As to your question--such as it is--PandB. . .

Quote :

"How does the scenario towards the end of WWII resemble this scenario with NK?"

. . .I was obviously responding with a Truman reference to the following sentence from nastoute:

Quote :

"nukes are super bad... beyond terrible... they should not be thought of as a reasonably viable option by sane people"

BTW:

1. None of you has addressed the issue of tactical nukes.

2. What about proliferation? We have evidence that North Korea has sold its nuclear weapons technology in the past and probably continues to do so. What if we found out that North Korea has sold/is selling weapons to terrorists and/or terrorist states? Would you still do nothing?

The poor responses by some here make me think that you don't know what the hell you're talking about--beyond, NO NUKES! BIG FIRE BAD!!!1

It looks like even Obama is beginning to understand what some of you apparently don't:

Quote :

"I don't think there should be an assumption that we will continue down a path in which North Korea is constantly destabilizing the region."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=asCQcomxU2dg

6/9/2009 3:19:03 PM

Quote :

"poor responses"

Define poor response. People who disagree with you?

Quote :

"Would you still do nothing?"

Who says do nothing? Does not using nukes equate to doing nothing? Or are you talking to the liberal bogeyman again?

6/9/2009 7:12:38 PM

^

Quote :

"Define poor response. People who disagree with you?"

Poor responses = Incomplete responses

Quote :

"Who says do nothing? Does not using nukes equate to doing nothing? Or are you talking to the liberal bogeyman again?"

Instead of asking questions, why don't you try answering mine first:

Quote :

"What circumstances would it take for you to support an overwhelming attack on North Korea, whether it be nuclear or otherwise?"

Quote :

"What about proliferation? We have evidence that North Korea has sold its nuclear weapons technology in the past and probably continues to do so. What if we found out that North Korea has sold/is selling weapons to terrorists and/or terrorist states? Would you still do nothing?"

And. . .

Quote :

"None of you has addressed the issue of tactical nukes."

6/9/2009 7:21:39 PM

That's right, I forgot. Only hooksaw gets to ask (leading) questions--he's too good thinks so highly of himself that it's too much to ask that he deign to answer questions.

What's an overwhelming attack?

What evidence? Are we talking WMD evidence, or are we talkin' E V I D E N C E?

Again: who says do nothing? Does not using nukes equate to doing nothing? Or are you talking to the liberal bogeyman again?

[Edited on June 9, 2009 at 7:27 PM. Reason : ]

6/9/2009 7:26:24 PM

^ Instead of engaging in Alinsky-style sophistry, would you please just answer the questions? If you do, I'll happily answer yours.

6/9/2009 7:29:02 PM

I'm definitely not going to answer your questions until you at least answer:

What's an overwhelming attack? 'Overwhelming attack' is open to broad interpretation.

I probably won't answer your 'What about proliferation?' question because: (1) I don't like your what-if questions and (2) I still don't know who would do nothing.



plus LOL--you accusing others of engaging sophistry.

6/9/2009 7:39:34 PM

Okay. I'll play.

1. The meaning of the term "overwhelming attack" should be self-evident. For the purposes of this exchange, however, let's just say that it's in line with applicable aspects of the Weinberger Doctrine and the Powell Doctrine.

2.

Quote :

". . .I don't like your what-if questions. . . ."

My question about North Korea's nuclear proliferation is hardly a "what-if." Where do you get your news?

Transcript excerpt: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on 'This Week' - June 7, 2009

Quote :

"[George] STEPHANOPOULOS: With North Korea, it seems like nothing has worked. Engagement doesn't work; isolation doesn't work. They keep on pursuing their nuclear ambitions. And -- and the problem with North Korea is that they've tried to sell every single weapon they've ever made. [Secretary of State Hillary] CLINTON: Right."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Politics/Story?id=7775502&page=2

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=7776482

3.

Quote :

". . .I still don't know who would do nothing."

Fine. What is the "something" you would do concerning North Korea, and what would have to happen for you to do it?

And if you don't answer me now, I'll be forced to assume that you're just playing games and/or you don't have any answers.

6/9/2009 10:32:40 PM

I have no problem with either the Powell or Weinberger Doctrines, though neither one defines overwhelming force. I don't consider 'overwhelming force' obvious, particularly when you seem to be avoiding a definition.

The key word in your news quote is 'tried'--North Korea apparently hasn't actually sold weapons. Anything they may have sold is likely of the small arms variety. Regardless, trying to sell weapons is not something I'm willing go to war for.

6/10/2009 9:05:32 PM

^ Sweet Jesus--you're wrong about everything!

Quote :

"As a military strategist, Powell has advocated an approach to military conflicts that maximizes the potential for success and minimizes casualties. A component of this approach is the use of overwhelming force, which he applied to Operation Desert Storm in 1991. His approach has been dubbed the 'Powell Doctrine.'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Powell

Quote :

"Powell is a retired four-star general who rose to become the first African American chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State. He developed what is known as the 'Powell Doctrine'–using overwhelming force in military interventions."

http://www.democracynow.org/2004/11/16/colin_powell_resigns_from_bush_cabinet

N Korea helping Iran with nuclear testing

Quote :

"Under the terms of a new understanding between the two countries, the North Koreans have agreed to share all the data and information they received from their successful test last October with Teheran's nuclear scientists."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1540429/N-Korea-helping-Iran-with-nuclear-testing.html

North Korea ready to sell nuclear weapons to al-Qaeda, expert warns

Quote :

"NORTH Korea is ready to sell nuclear bombs to al-Qaeda, experts warned yesterday. As the crisis over the rogue regime's nuclear bomb explosion deepened, former diplomats said there was a clear and present danger from the Pyongyang government. Graham Allison, former US defence minister under Bill Clinton, said the international community regularly underestimated North Korean leader Kim Jong Il's willingness to do the unexpected. Sanctions Allinson, now an expert on international affairs at Harvard University, said: 'Could this guy believe he could sell a nuclear bomb to Osama bin Laden? Why not?'"

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2009/05/27/north-korea-ready-to-sell-nuclear-weapons-to-al-qaeda-expert-warns-86908-21392451/

[Edited on June 10, 2009 at 11:54 PM. Reason : .]

6/10/2009 11:53:58 PM

i wish nk would stop pussyfooting around and shoot a missile near us so we could shoot it down

[Edited on June 10, 2009 at 11:57 PM. Reason : if they really wanted to "test" us that is]

6/10/2009 11:56:55 PM

^^I refuse to believe that there's a person named "Sanctions Allinson"

I'm just saying

6/11/2009 12:02:31 AM

Quote :

"'Could this guy believe he could sell a nuclear bomb to Osama bin Laden? Why not?"

why are the North Koreans capable of finding Bin Laden and we aren't?

6/11/2009 12:03:10 AM

Clearly al Qaeda is like the A-Team of evil nations.

6/11/2009 12:04:48 AM

thank you mr joshua

6/11/2009 12:10:42 AM

^^^^ It's a valid point--I hope it's just a misprint--I can find no "Sanctions Allinson" listed at Harvard. The closest name I've been able to find is that of Graham Allison, director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

^^^ Warped minds think alike?

6/11/2009 12:26:43 AM

Quote :

" Sweet Jesus--you're wrong about everything!"

And you think you're right about everything!

That's your problem, jackass--nearly every conversation you have on here is about proving everyone else wrong. As opposed to, you know, simply having a conversation. Given your political views, I suppose it's no surprise you spend a good deal of your time telling everyone else you think they're wrong (or maybe it's the other way around?). Does TWW fill some void in your life? Is it maturbatory for you? Is that why you came back?

--------

I stand corrected with respect to 'overwhelming force' being a component of the Powell Doctrine, though at this point we're nowhere near satisifying all other components of either Doctrine. Also, you have still failed to state what 'overwhelming force' means to you (not Colin Powell) in the context of North Korea. Now that I've answered your questions and you've told me I'm wrong: Define 'overwhelming force' [in the context of North Korea].

Your other articles are still largely about things North Korea could be doing or might be doing (see Iraq for an example of what happens when you go to war based on what others could be or might be doing). North Korea is playing games in return (ultimately) for assistance.

6/11/2009 6:41:56 AM