North Korea bluffing? Who can afford to risk it? (“This is a crisis from hell.”)

The Australian ^ | February 11, 2005 | Greg Sheridan

[TheForceOfOne]

How you rike hair cut? You rish you had rice hair cuts rike me, ha!

[RexBeach]

I'm so wonwee....

[conserv13]

You're right.

[Strutt9]

Thanks... I agree with you fully.

[USS Alaska]

The USS Alaska, an Ohio class sub is lurking in the deep water awaiting an order. If lil kimmi does something really stupid, good bye.

[Podkayne]

One can only hope that our subs are safe. After the massive technology transfer to China by the CLintons and other new inventions by Russia it's only a matter of time before our subs lose their invisiblity.

[Podkayne]

Since there is no one for them to use nuclear weapons against but South Korea

A Chinese general once said he could send missiles to LA. Maybe the Chinese are giving ballistic technology to the PRK.

[untenured]

It appears to me that the DPRK has played a weak hand (desperate privation, a potential timebomb of dissent) extremely well.

First, the interests of the US and the ROK are no longer congruent. The ROK cares mostly about not getting invaded or overrun with refugees, and the US cares about nuclear exports. The DPRK has allowed itself to be bought off by the ROK via the special economic zones, limited trade and the like in exchange for an implied promise not to invade, and so the ROK policy is now to urge restraint on the US. Meanwhile, it is clear that the DPRK cannot be bought off by the US on nuclear exports, because of the Clinton experience.

It also appears that the DPRK is gambling on the Chinese model - economic reform in a few special zones plus continued tight political control - as a way to stay in power. The chances of it working are probably less than 50/50 (especially if reports about the refugee tide across the Yalu are true), but it's the best shot they have. By providing the ROK and the PRC with opportunities to make money they have neutralized them even further as US partners. I suspect the Chinese are quite willing to string the DPRK along as is, and are not that concerned about nuclear exports to the jihad crowd. In fact, they may actually desire it. The ongoing efforts to throw Kim Jong-Il under the bus are probably part of this effort to make the DPRK regime more stable.

I don't know much about such matters, but it appears to me that the best play for the US has is to encourage a rapid overthrow of the DPRK regime via some sort of uprising. But that's easier said than done.

[Toddsterpatriot]

And Japan and Russia and China. Nuking North Korea could result in radioactive fallout that could de-populate whole parts of any one of those countries. And don't think that the North Koreans don't know that.

We can minimize fallout. And I think you overestimate the danger of fallout. How much of Japan was depopulated after they were nuked?

[Twinkie]

Didn't Wee Willie Winkie give China (and who knows who else) the technology for missile guidance systems? Something was missing with that man. . also with the other half of the Clinton Cabal. In fact, she was Co-President at the time.

[Brian Allen]

<< .... the [United States] Military is already fully extended in Iraq. >>

I wouldn't bet on that if I was you, Mr Murdoch's Mr Sheridan.

And I'd advise you to tell your perverted little matey, Kim Jong-Il, not to bet on it too.

[littlelilac]

but isn't China being foolish to allow Jihadists to get their hands on nukes (thought the rumour is al Queda tried to buy nukes from the Chinese and the only reason the Chinese said no was the fact their nukes could be traced back)

a stable world economy is in their own best interests and while they are not No. 1 on the Islamist hit list, they are apostates in the eyes of the Wahhabbis

and lest we forget India (which does care about Hindu hating Jihadists getting their hands on nukes, after all they hate Hindus even more than Westerners) is China's biggest trading partner at the moment, you'd want to keep India happy I would think, heaven forbid if a Chinese nuke ended up used on India.....or Russia for that matter......

[maro]

That's why we want to move them south and away from the DMZ.

[Question_Assumptions]

I actually want to see Japan go nuclear.

[FreedomPoster]

Be careful what you wish for.

[Question_Assumptions]

Japan was not really defensible in the 1940s and it most certainly isn't defensible today. It's too densely populated and easy to attack so Japan would be insane to fight an offensive war that threatened the United States (it was insane in 1940, too). So long as the United States is the defensive umbrella for Japan, the North Korean Chia-Dictator could threaten Japan and that would give Americans the hard choice of going to war to save Japan. I'd rather let the Japanese decide when nukes are warranted for their own defense.

[Billthedrill]

China has two things keeping them from abetting NK's nuclear program putting devices or material into the hands of terrorists: first, a growing dependence on the markets of the countries they'd be destabilizing; and second, a burgeoning Islamic radicalism in their own far west, specifically among Turkic-speaking Uighurs in the Xinjiang region. (I had to cut and paste that last thing - I can't pronounce it either.) But I like this:

There has always been a minority view in Western intelligence that North Korea is engaged in a great bluff. In this scenario, Kim Jong-Il is behaving like Saddam Hussein - deriving status and power from the aura of weapons of mass destruction.
However, no one can be confident in this analysis.

They can, however, scream "Bush Lied, People Died" in hindsight if it does turn out to be a bluff. To be on the left is never to be wrong.

[HankReardon]

Iraq did not have WMD' and WMD technology and WMD programs? Since when?

[HankReardon]

I do not believe the United States military is even close to fully extended in Iraq. Would be very dangerous for our enemies to think this.

[Solamente]

Guess its time for Jimmy Carter to get his Nobel Prize upgraded!