Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ex-US defense chief suggests military action against North Korea
AFP ^ | 01/18/07 | P. Parameswaran

Posted on 01/18/2007 6:12:40 PM PST by TigerLikesRooster

Ex-US defense chief suggests military action against North Korea

by P. Parameswaran

2 hours, 50 minutes ago

The United States should consider military action against North Korea if China and South Korea refuse to prod Pyongyang to end its nuclear weapons program, former US defense secretary William Perry proposed.

Although the move is dangerous, there is no alternative left if China and South Korea, the two key economic lifelines to North Korea, do not join any US-led "diplomatic coercive" action against Pyongyang, he told a Congressional hearing.

Perry, the Pentagon chief under former president Bill Clinton, said the United States should consider destroying a large reactor under construction in North Korea capable of making about 10 nuclear bombs a year.

In addition to the Yongbyon reactor, which produces spent fuel that can be "reprocessed" to yield plutonium for a nuclear weapon, Pyongyang is reportedly building a large reactor in Taechon.

Perry said that the danger of the North Korean nuclear weapons program was by now obvious to China and South Korea and that they should be willing to join the United States in any concerted diplomatic initiative.

"An additional inducement for China and South Korea would be the concern that if they did not provide the coercion, the United States might take the only meaningful coercive action available to it -- destroying the reactor before it could come on line," Perry said.

"Clearly, this is a dangerous alternative," he said. "If China and South Korea do not agree to applying coercion, the United States may be forced to military action which, while it certainly would be successful, could lead to dangerous unintended consequences," he said.

But, he said, there were no alternatives left that were not dangerous.

"Allowing North Korea to move ahead with a robust program that is building 10 nuclear bombs a year could prove to be even more dangerous that exercising coercive diplomacy," he said.

But Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said Perry was "being imprudent" when he suggested threatening bombing the North Korean nuclear facility.

"The reality is that the North Korean nuclear program is a grave security threat but threatening to bomb a reactor that is not yet completed could itself trigger a deeper crisis, impede diplomacy that still has the potential to free North Korea's existing and still limited nuclear program," he said.

Furthermore, Kimball said, a pre-emptive strike on any North Korean facility risked a war on the Korean peninsula that was sure to take tens of thousands of lives in South Korea and among US troops deployed there.

Together with China, South Korea, Japan and Russia, the United States has been involved in three years of six-party talks with North Korea aimed at disbanding its nuclear program but to no avail.

But Perry said the talks were necessary but not a sufficient condition for success.

The United States, he said, should return to these talks with a "viable negotiating strategy, which includes a credible coercive element, and which included significant buy-in from the other parties.

"The most feasible form of coercion could come from the Chinese and South Koreans, who could threaten to cut off their supply of grain and fuel oil if North Korea does not stop work on the large reactor," he said.

But this alternative has been resisted by the two nations.

North Korea agreed in principle during the six-party talks in September 2005 to abandon its nuclear weapons program in return for diplomatic, financial and security guarantees.

But it walked out in protest at US financial sanctions imposed on a Macau bank accused of illicit dealings on behalf of Pyongyang and carried out its first nuclear test explosion on October 9 last year.

The talks resumed in December last year but ended in deadlock as Pyongyang insisted the financial sanctions be lifted before it would discuss nuclear disarmament.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: korea; militarystrike; nuke; sanction
On the one hand, John Bolton asserts that the only way to resolve N. Korean nuclear crisis is the regime 'collapse' in N. Korea and ensuing peaceful reunification with the South. On the other hand, Perry steps up and says that U.S. should launch military strike against N. Korea if U.S. fails to get necessary cooperation from S. Korea and China.

There was a meeting between U.S. Assistant Secretary of State and N. Korea's Vice Foreign Minister in Berlin a few days ago. U.S. also hinted that it might unfreeze part of N. Korean bank accounts at BDA in Macau.

It seems that U.S. is trying to get a tangible result from N. Korea, by showing both carrot and stick. Actually more stick than carrot on balance. On the flip side, this could turn into yet one more rationale for U.S. to go unilaterally against N. Korea.

There is also N. Korea's second nuke test in the waiting.

On another front, there could be political changes in China and S. Korea. S. Korea would have presidential election this December. The ruling leftwing government will do its best to perpetuate left's hold on power. It could resort to some extreme measures such as another inter-Korean summit to restart left's sagging political momentum, or Roh Moo-hyun stepping down ahead of his term, trying to force the early election in order for his favorite candidate to win. In China, Hu will to consolidate his power by booting out old Shanghai faction and install people loyal to him.

Depending on timing and ordering of these events, it could get dramatic.

1 posted on 01/18/2007 6:12:42 PM PST by TigerLikesRooster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster; AmericanInTokyo; OahuBreeze; yonif; risk; Steel Wolf; nuconvert; MizSterious; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 01/18/2007 6:13:10 PM PST by TigerLikesRooster (kim jong-il, kae jong-il, chia head, pogri, midget sh*tbag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster; Jet Jaguar; AmericanInTokyo; txradioguy; monkapotamus; All

OH OH Chia Pet won't be roaney any more ROFL


3 posted on 01/18/2007 6:16:41 PM PST by SevenofNine ("Step aside Jefe"=Det Lennie Briscoe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

Let me get this straight:

Attacking non-nuclear Iraq was a mistake according to the Dems.

Attacking a (possibly) nuclear-armed North Korea is a good idea, or at least advisable, according to none other than WJC's Defense Secretary?

All I can say is WOW! Keep the pointy objects away from these amateurs.


4 posted on 01/18/2007 6:17:03 PM PST by Tallguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SevenofNine

5 posted on 01/18/2007 6:27:03 PM PST by monkapotamus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy
Re #4

I don't think this is from Dem's talking points. Perry is doing his own talk, I think.

6 posted on 01/18/2007 6:28:41 PM PST by TigerLikesRooster (kim jong-il, kae jong-il, chia head, pogri, midget sh*tbag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: monkapotamus

HI MONK i was hoping you do capiton or Chia Pet in middle of Dark North KOrea who Dick Cheney suppose to be Sean Astin


7 posted on 01/18/2007 6:28:56 PM PST by SevenofNine ("Step aside Jefe"=Det Lennie Briscoe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SevenofNine

8 posted on 01/18/2007 6:30:23 PM PST by monkapotamus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: monkapotamus

That map that former Secretary of Defense Rummy had map contrast difference between South and North Korea but I think Chia Pet won't be that roaney if we go after him


9 posted on 01/18/2007 6:32:14 PM PST by SevenofNine ("Step aside Jefe"=Det Lennie Briscoe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

This guy was Secretary of Defense under Clinton? Why didn't he advocate military action back then? Oh, I know, Hillary wouldn't have heard of it, or Sandy Berger opposed it.


10 posted on 01/18/2007 6:37:30 PM PST by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

somewhere in the haze and maze, recall reading that people...countries divided by East-West...North-South are messed up individuals until they get it Together.
United States....


11 posted on 01/18/2007 6:38:07 PM PST by Gunny P (Gunny P)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: popdonnelly
This guy was Secretary of Defense under Clinton? Why didn't he advocate military action back then? Oh, I know, Hillary wouldn't have heard of it, or Sandy Berger opposed it.

The Clintons pretty much threw him under a bus, so I doubt he ever even came close to proposing this.

I'm not to fond of him, but Perry did get a pretty bad deal from serving under the clintons.

Loyalty to them, gets you a knife in the back.

12 posted on 01/18/2007 6:42:36 PM PST by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

The article said -- "Ex-US defense chief suggests military action against North Korea"

Man..., it's just getting too troublesome keeping the world "straight" these days.

I mean, first it's Afghanistan, then it's Iraq, now we're talking about "in your face" Iran, and along with them, their cohorts, Syria. Add to that North Korea.

Have we upped our capabilities now -- to engage in a "six-front war"? [gotta have "one to spare" in case something else comes up...]

I'm all for "whacking" these guys, but how are we going to do it all?

Regards,
Star Traveler


13 posted on 01/18/2007 6:42:44 PM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: monkapotamus
I thought Bush said we wouldn't accept a nuclear NK.

Now?

14 posted on 01/18/2007 9:24:08 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson