North Korea Rejects US Nuclear Proposal

North Korea has described last week's talks on its nuclear weapons program as "positive," but said a U.S. proposal to defuse the issue was unacceptable.

A statement by North Korea's Foreign Ministry Monday described last week's talks in Beijing as positive. But Pyongyang said the wide differences that remain between it and Washington still stand in the way of real progress.

While praising U.S. negotiators for their flexibility, the statement said an American proposal that North Korea shut down and seal its nuclear facilities over a three-month period lacked a "scientific and realistic nature."

The statement said Washington had still not responded adequately to Pyongyang's demands for energy aid and security guarantees, and again called on the Bush Administration to drop its "hostile" policy towards the North.

During last week's talks, North and South Korea, the United States, China, Japan and Russia agreed that an initial "freeze" of North Korea's nuclear development would be a first step toward an eventual dismantling of the programs. Professor Gavan McCormack of The Australian National University, the author of a book on North Korea, says the United States backed away from demanding a "complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement" under pressure from the other parties.

"I think what's happened is that the United States feared that at the table in Beijing it would be sitting by itself with the other five countries, all opposed to that extreme demand," he said. "Therefore the United States had to back off."

However, Professor Yoichi Shimada, a Japanese national security expert at Fukui Prefectural University, believes only an even tougher line by Washington and its allies will lead to change on Pyongyang's part.

"I think the important point at this stage is to squeeze North Korea economically using any means practical," said Professor Shimada. "The regime change would be the only way to resolve the nuclear issue, abduction issue and many other issues."

The North Korean statement indicated that Washington's allegation that Pyongyang has a uranium-enrichment program, as well as a plutonium program, remains a major sticking point. Pyongyang has denied having a uranium program, and its statement Monday called this an "unreasonable assertion" by Washington.

Japan has said no aid will be given to North Korea until Pyongyang's nuclear weapons development has ended, and more credible details about Japanese abducted during the Cold War by North Korean agents are made available.

The six parties agreed in principle Saturday to hold a fourth round of discussions on the nuclear weapons issue by the end of September.

"How do you see our withdrawal of troops playing into this? Are we pulling troops simply to better support our effort in Iraq, or, are we in a sense dangling a carrot? Trying to get Il to do something stupid."

In all honesty? I think we're so desperate for troops right now that we're pulling them out of wherever we can find them. If you're read anything I've said about the topic, you'll know that I think we should pull our troops out of about 80% of the countries they're currently in, but I don't think we can do that overnight without seriously compromising the stability of much of the world. I think pulling those troops out was a very bad idea for precisely the reason you speculated: it dangles a carrot in front of Kim Jong-il. It shows that we're weak, short of troops, and unserious about our defense of South Korea. It gives North Korea more confidence at the bargaining table.

If you look through the history of what's happened with North Korea, starting especially in '93 and '94, you see that most of what North Korea says and does is centered around strengthening their position at the bargaining table. They'll push you to the brink of war because they know you'll give up more to avoid that war. Right now, North Korea has a million regular troops and two million reserves. They also have an enormous arsenal of artillery and missiles. They have the capacity to manufacture large numbers of ballistic missiles. They also have tons of small arms. The real wildcard is the number of nuclear weapons they actually have. Estimates now range anywhere from two to ten functional, ready nuclear weapons. The Tae-po Dong II missile is nuclear-capable, has had at least its engine tested, and is capable of hitting anywhere in Japan or South Korea, and as far away as the western United States. If the number of working nukes is under a certain number, roughly four or five, then they'd most likely be used only for defensive purposes, such as taking out primary military bases and such. If it's more than that, they start getting tacked on to the tips of those TPDIIs and set to fire at whatever they don't want to be there any more.

Some have pointed out that our intelligence community believes the guidance system of the TPDII is not very accurate. Others point out that South Korea has 650,000, better-trained, better-armed troops than North Korea's. They go further in pointing out that many South Korean citizens have protested our very presence in that country, even though they don't like the North. Well, first of all, we have only vague intelligence data on NK's TPDII guidance systems. NK is a totalitarian state with a domestic intelligence capability that would have brought the commander of the KGB to tears. Getting good intelligence out of NK is difficult at best. We can't even say for certain that they have a nuclear capability at all. They've said they do, we've said we think they probably do, and just about everyone in the area of NK also believes they do - but no one has claimed to know. The guidance system on the TPDII could be plenty accurate to hit, say, Los Angeles. It most likely is accurate enough to hit Tokyo or Seoul. That 650,000-troop South Korean army becomes little more than paper toys when the artillery and missile arsenal of the North starts raining from the sky. It becomes nothing at all if North Korea's nuclear weapons go into use. Unless that well-equiped South Korean army dishes out SPF-100,000 to their troops, they're not going to last long at all. As for South Koreans not wanting us in their country, I can't say as though I give a damn. So long as the government doesn't throw us out, we're staying. Let's face facts - if we pull out, and lose our only foothold in the area, we have no way of stopping North Korea from taking control of the Korean peninsula. Once Kim Jong-Il has control of the peninsula, the first thing he's going to do is use South Korea's money and resources to build up his army and his nuclear arsenal. Development is already underway on the Tae-po Dong III, which is a nuclear-capabile ICBM with a range sufficient to hit anywhere in North America. Should NK take the peninsula, our options are either to engage them in full nuclear war, losing a few west-coast cities along the way (along with millions of American lives), or wait for Kim Jong-il to give his deathbed order to launch every nuke they have at Washington, DC.

Personally, I don't think the 12k extra troops we get in Iraq out of this deal are worth it, but that's just me. Keep in mind that I present the worst-case, but plausible scenario based on the non-classified data presented to me and Congress. I was always taught to plan for the worst and hope for the best. Right now, we have ~37,000 troops based in South Korea. After the transfer (the date is unknown to me), we're left with ~25,000 troops. That's probably still a relatively safe number to keep there, but it does weaken our position at the bargaining table. What I see as happening, assuming North Korea were to attack, would be those 25,000 troops converging on a coastal point and establishing a secured base where we can land ground troops once we're able to do so. We have subs in the area and stealth bombers at Diego Garcia. If the worst were to happen, the TPD IIs do take approx 30 mins to fuel (they're liquid-fuel propelled), so we're likely to have a small window to hit anything we see fueling. Beyond that, the best we can really do for South Korea is give air support while we attempt to muster the troops necessary to take care of North Korea once and for all. To get troops on the ground, we need a secure landing position. If we lose the last of those troops based in South Korea, we risk losing the entire peninsula. China's another wildcard in all this (I think they could very well decide to hit NK in the event of an attack on SK), but this post is already way too long. North Korea remains, to this day, the single greatest threat to American lives on the face of the Earth. Kim Jong-il has a greater capacity to kill Americans than Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban, Saddam, and all the Palestinian terror groups combined. Why it is that we hit Iraq before taking care of NK (either at the bargaining table or on the battlefield) is simply way, way beyond me.

"If they have the goods, the clock is ticking on how long it takes them get a missile that can fling it this far."

The TPDII is here now, and with it, the capacity to hit the western US with a nuclear warhead. Judging by the time it took them to get from the TDP I to the TDP II, my best guess (I've seen no estimates on this, and I'd guess any estimates are very classified) would be within 5 years, they can have a handfull of working TPD IIIs.

"Don't forget, we are busy creating the capability to shoot a missile right out the sky"

This assumes numerous facts not in evidence. It assumes such a system is currently functional. As of yet, we have little to no anti-ballistic missile capabiliy. If NK fired a missile at Los Angeles tomorrow, it's unlikely we'd be able to stop it. Our only capability would be hitting the missile on the ground as it fuels with stealth bombers based in Diego Garcia, or with a sub-launched ballistic missile, or hitting the launch vehicle using anti-missile weapons on a nearby Aegis cruiser (and I have no idea if we even have any Aegis cruisers in the Sea of Japan). In five years? We'll probably have something of a system in place, but they'll likely have sufficient numbers of weapons, missiles, and countermeasures to overwhelm it. Our anti-missile system development does not occurr in a vaccuum, and it doesn't really protect us from a China or Russia.

"1) close is bad enough"

Absolutely, I agree. The point others try to make when it comes to accuracy is that if you aim for Los Angeles and it drops into the Pacific fifty miles short, then all you get is a great day for surfing. That being said, if it hits land, it's tough to find a spot to drop a nuke in the US that doesn't kill a lot of people.

"2) if they don't even know where it is going, how could we possible hit it?"

Assuming the flight path is relatively constant (even if inaccurate for the target location), we can plot speed and trajectory and possibly hit it. Personally, when it comes to nuclear weapons flying towards the US, I'm not real big on using words like "maybe", "possibly", and "hopefully".

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.