http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/9024/Noord-Korea/article/detail/3209462/2012/02/29/Noord-Korea-schort-uraniumverrijking-op.dhtml

That's a standard approach to dealing with North Korean nuclear programme. It's going on that way for years.

I know and it's been wrong for years IMHO. Essentially you're rewarding crime.

The west shouldn't do business with regimes like this. The international community doesn't want N-Korea to build nukes,

International community > The great leader

End of discussion. Nuke 'em if they continue building them.

@ulytau what's your stance on this issue? Despite my radical anti-communism I'm happy to hear other opinions, I'm sure the US has its reasons to do this, but it seems so wrong...

The 'do as I say and I'll give you a biscuit' approach ain't perfect, but I'm not sure what a better option would be. We can't fight them, and if we ignore them they die by the thousand with a potentially nasty government collapse.

The point is, the reward is not for stopping the program, the reward is for beginning it: every time the N-Koreans do this, they start up a nuclear program, then stop in exchange for food. The big question here is: what are you rewarding, the fact that they're stopping, or the fact that they're starting it all the time?

Re: potentially nasty government collapse
Personally, I believe with this biscuit system the US government is keeping an evil government in place.

@redhouse:

The whole "nuke 'em if they don't agree" policy doesn't work.

1. A LOT of those people in North Korea are just poor, innocent, and mistreated people under the grip of one of the most tyrannical governments ever...not really fair to nuke them...they're not evil, they're just hungry...and scared--all it takes is for someone to even SUGGEST you are doing something wrong, and you get sent to the North Korean concentration camps...if you're LUCKY.

2. China's RIGHT NEXT DOOR...even if the nuclear fallout somehow didn't affect China...do you really think they'd be either comfortable or happy that the US had nuked a country right on their border...a country they support, no less, and who they count as one of their allies?

It very likely is, yes, but North Korea's a very bad egg and no one's all that keen on dropping it in case the smell released when it smashes is more than we can stomach.

I'm agreed with redhouse in principle but I think the present reality is such that unfortunately we must continue subsidizing it... there isn't, at present, a stable, functional alternative to North Korea, and we need to be working toward such an alternative right now and be very focused on bringing that alternative about, but at the same time we can't afford to implode NK before we have a replacement.

If the Chinese are next door, let them bring the food to N-Korea!! If they're so good friends let them solve it.

Well, they also NEED food, so

even South Korea sends them aid

What if the US and S-Korea simply /provoke/ a war? Not start one, hell no that's the worst thing to do. Do some military "exercises" in a disputed area. Then send some troops, fire up the rhetoric, leak some plans with specific dates etc.. Intimidation, humiliation, then see if they take the bate.

Forgive me for being dense, but how does the US and SK gain from provoking a northern invasion?

Well then you have an excuse to strike back.

@Redhouse, because in all likelyhood we'd lose the war. The U.S. simply doesn't have the manpower to stop the North Koreans right now, and South Korea sure as hell doesn't.

However any such attack by the North would likely end up being met by every high tech weapon the U.S. has short of Nuclear or biological weapons. Which would be just as destructive to resources without the fall out of a nuke. It would however be very expensive, in dollars, and costly, in damage to the South Korean infrastructure and economy.

Such a war would destabilize and disrupt trade throughout the entire area, likely lead to a re-arming of the Japanese, and cost China significant income from trade. Thus the Chinese are also unwilling to allow such a war to break out.

The best policy for now is to maintain a stable status quo, until the South prepares the resources and will to bring an imploded North into union with it similar to what happened in Germany in the 90's, and of course that has to wait until China becomes willing to lose their "ally" (read burden).

Damn, didn't beat Redhouse to the punch

@Puddle that's a very interesting analysis I'm going to chew on that a bit.

If I get time I'll find some figures and sources to accompany it, but between the exam I have today, and the reading for the one I have tomorrow I doubt I'll have time. If anyone else wants to jump in and post some data in support or opposed, feel free, I'd appreciate the help. :)

I just found the argument "they're hungry so we must feed them" too simplistic, but you're probably correct Puddle. Unless of course, you provoke such a large scale conflict that it justifies a nuclear intervention, but how do you provoke a war that large...?

Well Nuclear war at this point is extremely unlikely, and in fact will probably never be used by a stable power. Today we understand what we didn't decades ago, namely that only a few powerful fusion reactions would likely destroy the ecosphere. I've read as few as 6 would be enough to create a nuclear winter. Also the sheer number of first-use retaliation treaties makes it unlikely any nation would use a bomb. I doubt even Iran would attempt to use one in war.

The real threat these days is a dirty bomb which just spreads radiation over a large area, and is relatively easy to create if one can get their hands on the raw materials.

The only way North Korea would get nuked is if it nuked South Korea or Japan first, and even then I am confident China would rather see a conventional invasion, and may even bear the brunt of the cost of doing so in order to avoid any fallout from affecting their territories.

i don't think the problem is not attacking states that have nuclear capability, the problem is attacking states who don't. when libya dismantled their wmd program the west essentially gave them the bs that if you stop building wmd's we won't hit you. then obama launched a war of aggression and destroyed the country. but if they had continued with the program it probably wouldn't have happened. but the leaders don't care. they don't have principles, they just do what the bankers tell them.

"in all likelyhood we'd lose the war. The U.S. simply doesn't have the manpower to stop the North Koreans right now, and South Korea sure as hell doesn't."

Wrong. A war with North Korea would mean the end of North Korea. It would, however, lead to unacceptable damage to South Korea and possibly Japan, and has a huge potential for escalation into a conflict with China. A war is not in America's interests, but not because it would lose.

the cia does not want war with north korea. they use north korea as an excuse to keep their military base in japan for one thing, and just as some fake enemy against the public, like bin laden was. i think rumsfeld provided key components that helped north korea build their reactors. so, what, was that just to make a quick-buck? i doubt that's the whole story.

@Bolshoi, it is worth pointing out that the events you mention occurred over a period of decades, and you are leaving out a significant if not majority of the details and causes for the U.S. intervention in Libya. However actions between those who do, and those who do not have Nuclear weapons is very different than if both had weapons, as you pointed out, and is probably one of the main motivators for Iran's pursuit of the bomb.

@Invictus, I do not doubt that we would eventually win the war, but it would likely mean a major recruitment drive in the U.S. if not a draft, and would cost so much money that the a tax increase would be necessary to pay for it. I merely meant that the current U.S. military resources are insufficient to prevent the total lose of South Korean territory to the North, as it would take the U.S. at least a year, more likely 14-16 months to mobilize and redeploy in such a way as to seriously counter the conventional military of North Korea.

@ Bolshoi, our Japanese bases are there for the same reason we have bases in South Korea, so that any aggression against Japan would result in the lose of U.S. military assets, thus bringing us into the war without requiring congress to formally declare. With the exception of Okinawa I would expect Japan to create quite a fuss if we withdrew all our forces from their territory.

well i think anyone who believes the libyan war was humanitarian is mentally incompetent. but of course the war wasn't just because they dismantled their wmd program, it was because gadaffi refused central banking, was looking to provide oil directly to southeast asia, and was vastly improving the conditions for his people, providing a counter example to the myth of what a country has to do to become successful (go into massive debt and give away all its resources).

While I agree that the war was not for humanitarian purposes, I find you dependence on conspiracy theories, as well as your counter-factual statements, worrisome. I sincerely hope you are not a voting U.S. citizen.

those bases are not supported AT ALL by the japanese people. and america is getting a sweet deal on the land leases for the bases. it's really there to threaten china. just like the new base they put into australia recently. i think north korea is a distraction.

North Korea's government could not survive a sustained attack. The danger isn't a rerun of the Korean War, it's what to do with the country once the wicked regime falls in on itself after the punishment its delivered for attacking the South. That and what choices the desperate regime makes with regard to its nuclear weapons.

ok well... conspiracies do exist. but it can be hard to see because probably not even most of the politicians know the real reason for war. people who are skilled at manipulation convince them of some bs reason as to why war needs to happen but the reasons are lies, basically. the people in charge control the media and the way issues are framed.

@Puddle

Did you not get the memo? bolshoi is the new TC. Feel free to mute without fear of decreasing the value of the conversation.

@Invictus, Hmm, I still disagree with you concerning the way the war would go, but you are certainly right concerning the aftermath as well as the threat that they would simply detonate their nukes as they were losing. North Korea seems to me the only seriously dangerous regime that is actually capable of such completely irrational decisions. I don't think even Iran is that unhinged.

@abge, I saw a few statements to that effect, but I was waiting until I cam into direct contact with the behavior. I'm waiting for an answer to my question as to whether or not he votes in the U.S. before I mute him.

oh that question will never be answered. might as well just mute now.

Too bad, well good bye then Bolshoi, I hope you manage to discern between reality and fantasy at some point.

hahaha sweet! i'm getting pro at this.

"Wrong. A war with North Korea would mean the end of North Korea."

Wrong.

Korea has the largest standing army--1.2 million or so--in the world, and they're so densely packed into their half of the peninsula...

They'd only have to be fighting a defensive war...

They could call on the Chinese next door for help (as they did in the Korean War)...

They're one of the best-trained and most savage armies in the world...



It'd be Vietnam all over again--only worse, as instead of guerrilla Viet Cong ambushing, it'll be an immensely well-trained army that knows every inch of the terrain.

What's more...

The soldier-to-citizen ratio of North Korea is the highest on Earth, nearly 1:3...

If needed, they'd ALL fight.

The USA would either lose, and lose a lot of men doing it, or trigger WWIII by engaging China in the process. (and then EVERYBODY loses.)

Except for the fact that China would support North Korea in an offensive war I'll exPand on that after I take my US Foreign Policy exam, as I'm currently typing from my phone.

Wouldn't *

North Korea is the red headed stepchild of east Asia. Its only ally, the PRC, wouldn't support it if it started a war, though it might support it if it was attacked.
Also, although the fact about how 1/4 of their population is military, that's true, but they don't have the largest standing army in the world. That would be the PRC, closely follwed by the USA. North Korea is fourth.
Also, modern military analysts say that if there was a war fought between the North and South, it would be won by the South in a matter of weeks. They have the advantage of 1) much more modern weaponry available and 2) the ability to, you know, feed and pay their troops.
So, apart from the nuclear thing, the South really doesn't have much to fear from the North.

" the PRC, wouldn't support it if it started a war, though it might support it if it was attacked. "

Exactly--we're talking about if the USA invaded...

If the USA invaded, the DPRK could get help from the PRC while the ROC helped the USA while the UK and EU watched tentatively and the UAE cheered the DPRK and PRC for taking on the USA and ROC...

And Thus Began World Acronym War One, or WAWI! ;)

*ROK