Replies

N. Korea is destroying a status quo in E. Asia, which neither U.S. nor China really wants. U.S. would not back away from non-proliferation stance, arguing that nuclear umbrella would be enough. However, many doubt U.S. could make such a costly commitment brought by the use of nuclear weapons on behalf of its allies. China also clings to a status quo: N. Korea as a solid buffer against U.S. and its allies. When N. Korea ceases to be a buffer and become an active agent of destabilization, it puts Beijing to an extreme test. Unfortunately, Beijing still clings to the notion, and even goes so far as to say that they are willing to live with N. Korean nukes.

Now we are into a mind game. U.S. hints that it may not be able to restrain its E. Asian allies’ quest for nukes if China does not make serious commitment to stop N. Korea. S. Korea vows that it would level Pyongyang if there is any indication that N. Korea is about to use nuke against it. I suspect their hope is that their hardened stance would bring change in China’s attitude. However, it is far from certain that will happen. China may ignore them again.

If China believes the status quo is better than any change, it probably rests on their firm belief that U.S. would never allow their allies to go nuclear. Contrary to its wish, it is likely that this would turn a mere mind game into a real action.

There would be less public support in U.S. making full commitment to allies with nuclear umbrella. Public in E. Asian countries become restive due to the increasing nuclear threat from N. Korea and stonewalling from China. If this change of public mood leads to nuclear S. Korea and Japan in turn, would China still believe that it is preferable to any change in the current status quo? If so, China should not object to their new nuclear neighbors and embrace them as well.

It is absurd policy to allow the enemies of the “free world”, whether Marxists or Moslems, to possess nuclear weapons and to not allow the putative “allies” of freedom, such as Japan, South Korea, Germany, Italy, or any other country that may be threatened, to possess them as well. We already live in a world where the Russians, British, French, Chinese, Indians, Pakistanis, Israelis, and North Koreans have nukes. We may shortly see that Iran has them, too. There is no way this world will avoid a nuclear exchange in the future anymore. It is better to limit the damage of such an action to the aggrieved parties and not bring every conflict home to the American mainland as a universal target. 9/11 should have shown us the folly of being the spokesman and agent for “the world” and its troubles. The era of the US as “world policeman” must come to an end. Get the US out of the UN. Get the UN out of the US.

The biggest Obama mistake has been to tell foreign leaders what he WON’T DO.

He should speak softly and carry a big stick. He should make everyone think that everything is on the table, even if it isn’t.

No president should tell others what cards he does not have in his hand.

The Obama administration is debating a declaration of no first use of nuclear weapons.

With only 4 months left in his term, what exactly is the point of this? Obama acts like he’s going to be POTUS for the foreseeable future. Or that, somehow, future Presidents will have no alternative but to follow his edicts. And THAT is the most disconcerting thing.

From the article: “However, Seoul is well able to deter and defeat the North”

Perhaps so, but do not the Norks possess now the capability to basically level Seoul in three to four hours via artillery, missiles and now short range nukes? Can they get off pre-emptive strikes large enough to cripple a considerable percentage of the South’s economy and shipping before being blasted back to the Joseon dynasty? How many agents can they infiltrate into Seoul via tunnels in short order? Do the Norks have the capability to make suitcase nukes? Have they bought them from some other country?