Bush administration faces wide choices, none guaranteed to offset nuclear threat

AP ^ | 12/25/02 1:28 AM | BARRY SCHWEID

[FourPeas]

Bush administration faces wide choices, none guaranteed to offset nuclear threat

By BARRY SCHWEID
The Associated Press
12/25/02 1:28 AM

WASHINGTON (AP) -- North Korea's decision to abandon its policy of nuclear restraint leaves the Bush administration with a range of options, none of which is guaranteed to stem the threat from Pyongyang.

Distracted by its fixation on Iraq and that country's suspected caches of biological and chemical weapons, the administration is trying to regroup and sort out its choices on the escalating North Korea crisis.

They range from a U.S. military attack to full-fledged unconditional negotiations. Top administration officials are signaling in a number of directions as the debate continues about how to handle what could become President Bush's toughest foreign policy problem.

Typically, Secretary of State Colin Powell is testing a moderate line, offering public assurances to North Korea that the United States has no plan to attack. In fact, Powell said last week, the administration was ready to move forward and forge a better relationship with North Korea's communist government.

At the same time, Powell is ruling out rewards for North Korea to reverse its decision to restart a nuclear reactor and resume plutonium production, which U.S. officials say is a step toward building new atomic weapons.

Over the weekend, Kim Jong Il's government began removing U.N. seals and surveillance cameras from three Soviet-designed nuclear facilities. The State Department and the South Korean foreign ministry said Tuesday that North Korean technicians removed seals and cameras from a plant that makes fuel rods.

The department, offering no concessions, said, "Pyongyang needs to completely and verifiably dismantle its nuclear weapons program and abide by existing commitments."

Powell is rejecting North Korea's bid for a nonaggression pact with the United States and comparing notes by telephone with officials in Japan, Russia, China, South Korea, Britain and France.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, by contrast, is taking a tough public stand, warning North Korea it would be a mistake to feel emboldened because the United States was focused on Iraq.

The U.S. military has the might to counter threats from North Korea and Iraq simultaneously, Rumsfeld said Monday, and "we are perfectly capable of doing that which is necessary."

North Korea's decision to stop honoring the agreement it reached with the former Clinton administration in 1994 to freeze its nuclear weapons program poses two main dangers: North Korea might add to the one or two nuclear bombs it is believed already to possess; and it might supply nuclear materials to terrorists or other hostile states.

Robert Einhorn, a former assistant secretary of state who negotiated missiles with North Korea in the 1990s, said Tuesday, "One might be tempted to use the military option if North Korea were seen moving toward reprocessing 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods that contain enough plutonium for an additional five or so nuclear weapons."

But Einhorn, now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, said North Korea could respond to an attack by firing thousands of already deployed weapons at South Korea and cause mass casualties in the first few hours.

A second option, Einhorn said in an interview, is to negotiate directly or through third parties to have North Korea terminate its enrichment program in a way that can be verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

In exchange, the United States would assure North Korea that it had no designs on its sovereignty or security, Einhorn said.

That, he said, could lead to broader negotiations to deal with other U.S. concerns about North Korea's missiles and about its energy and food shortages.

A third option, Einhorn said, is pressure and isolation, which the Bush administration is pursuing now.

"It assumes the North Koreans would eventually capitulate without U.S. security assurances," he said. "This is a risky approach," he said, noting that China and other neighbors do not seem willing to apply strong pressure on Pyongyang.

Also, Einhorn said, North Korea might go ahead and reactivate its plutonium program anyhow.

Wendy Sherman, special adviser on North Korea policy to former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, said one option is a unilateral, pre-emptive U.S. attack on Pyongyang. That probably would start a war with catastrophic consequences for hundreds of thousands of South Koreans and the 37,000 U.S. troops in South Korea, she said.

Or, Sherman said, the administration could try to contain North Korea to keep it from "going over the edge."

Yet another option, she said, would be to ignore the North Koreans and let them have their nuclear weapons, as the United States has not acted to remove nuclear weapons from Pakistan.

Sherman agrees with Einhorn that full-fledged negotiations is an option that must be considered. She suggested they could be conducted even in secret, if necessary, to stop the crisis from escalating.

Whatever choice the administration makes, Sherman said, "I think we are really in a very difficult place," made more difficult by two years of Bush administration inaction.

------

On the Net: Library of Congress' country study on North Korea: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/kptoc.html

Copyright 2002 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

[dalebert]

No one can be 100% sure of no nuke threat.

[Dog Gone]

This is a fairly good analysis until we get to the mandatory final sentence zinger.

[Unmarked Package]

Yet another option, she said, would be to ignore the North Koreans and let them have their nuclear weapons, as the United States has not acted to remove nuclear weapons from Pakistan.

This describes Clinton's foreign policy and his personal conduct all in a nutshell: What's the big deal? Everybody does it!

[Question_Assumptions]

The Bush administration should restate the the US policy on nuclear weapons falling on American soil is still mutual assured destruction. If the other side is unable to assure the destruction of the US, that is their problem but we should fire enough of our arsenal to assure their total destruction.

[templar]

If the other side is unable to assure the destruction of the US, that is their problem but we should fire enough of our arsenal to assure their total destruction.

There's a good chance the first nuclear strike on American soil will be delivered via common carrier from an unidentifiable shipper. So who do we totally destroy? Federal Express maybe?

[Maynerd]

"Whatever choice the administration makes, Sherman said, "I think we are really in a very difficult place," made more difficult by two years of Bush administration inaction. "

I think this article is typical liberal bias BS. They quote two Clintonoids who are in part responsible for this potential disaster. Even the most intellectual honest individuals will instinctively go into CYA mode.

The mainstream media is as usual amnestic in regards to the genesis of this crisis. Another gift from the feckless foreign policy team of Clinton and company.

[tomahawk]

Wipe out the reactor. Then, we know for sure. No "deal" can be trusted with Kim Jong Il, as they mean nothing to him. He understands only force. Appeasement will bring war and more death later.

[Ruger1099]

I agree totally. The North Koreans need to be told in no uncertain terms that they can threaten the U.S. and her allies with war but if they take that step their country will be nuked into oblivion. Come across the DMZ and cease to exist.

[VetoBill]

So who do we totally destroy?

I would bet that whatever group that managed to plan, deliver and execute a plan against American interests, will not be able to contain their shear joy. In fact the main problem with an attack is not finding someone to take credit for it, but to sift out the one that actually did from the inflated number of groups claiming they did it.

[USNBandit]

One problem wiht that is you don't know how much you are destroying. One thing we know about the NK's is that they love to dig. They have some of the most complex underground defense facilities in the world.

What is frustrating about the news coverage on North Korea is that none of the news services why we cut off the oil shipments. North Korea admitted that they had been in violation of the 1994 treaties the entire time. All they wanted was a couple of light water reactors...and all Hitler wanted was a small piece of Czechoslovakia.

[rwfromkansas]

What do you mean there is no way to definitely eliminate the nuclear threat??

I would say sending a dozen Hiroshima bombs on N. Korea at the same time would do the trick.

[Sabertooth]

Wendy Sherman, special adviser on North Korea policy to former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, said one option is a unilateral, pre-emptive U.S. attack on Pyongyang. That probably would start a war with catastrophic consequences for hundreds of thousands of South Koreans and the 37,000 U.S. troops in South Korea, she said.

Or, Sherman said, the administration could try to contain North Korea to keep it from "going over the edge."

Yet another option, she said, would be to ignore the North Koreans and let them have their nuclear weapons, as the United States has not acted to remove nuclear weapons from Pakistan.

Sherman agrees with Einhorn that full-fledged negotiations is an option that must be considered. She suggested they could be conducted even in secret, if necessary, to stop the crisis from escalating.

Whatever choice the administration makes, Sherman said, "I think we are really in a very difficult place," made more difficult by two years of Bush administration inaction.

Wendy Sherman shall not remain a faceless Clintonista liar. She is a partner in crime with Clinton, Carter, and Albright in allowing the North Korean nuclear situation to fester. In fact, the Democrats rewarded Kim Jong Il by giving him two light water nuclear reactors to stop his weapons program.

Gee, why didn't that work Ms Sherman?.

[SAMWolf]

Whatever choice the administration makes, Sherman said, "I think we are really in a very difficult place," made more difficult by two years of Bush administration inaction.

Gee, no mention of 8 years of Clinton basically giving them the go ahead and having us pay for it?

[Woodstock]

Wendy Sherman, SPECIAL ADVISOR on North Korea policy to former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, said one option is a unilateral, pre-emptive U.S. attack on Pyongyang. That probably would start a war with catastrophic consequences for hundreds of thousands of South Koreans and the 37,000 U.S. troops in South Korea, she said.

Or, Sherman said, the administration could try to contain North Korea to keep it from "going over the edge."

Yet another option, she said, would be to ignore the North Koreans and let them have their nuclear weapons, as the United States has not acted to remove nuclear weapons from Pakistan.

Sherman agrees with Einhorn that full-fledged negotiations is an option, that must be considered. She suggested they could be conducted even in secret, if necessary, to stop the crisis from escalating.

Is this person an analyst or an advisor?

[Woodstock]

Wendy Sherman shall not remain a faceless Clintonista liar. She is a partner in crime with Clinton, Carter, and Albright in allowing the North Korean nuclear situation to fester. In fact, the Democrats rewarded Kim Jong Il by giving him two light water nuclear reactors to stop his weapons program.

Exactly!

[SkyPilot]

Saber,

That is not the Hillary!, Cindy McCain, Albright, Pelosi, Landieu secret-feminist-club-pin she is wearing. What is it?

Here, I'll try to get a close up:

[Sabertooth]

Is this person an analyst or an advisor?

She's Clinton damage control.

[Woodstock]

I was sure those were the wings of the Flying Monkeys from the Wizard of OZ.

[Nick Danger]

What is this new term "full-fledged negotiations"? And why would we bother to negotiate anything with guys who signed Clinton and Carter's "historic agreement" and then proceeded to go right ahead and make nuclear bombs anyway? What good is an "agreement" with such people?

OK, so Clinton and Carter got snookered. That doesn't mean we have to fall for it again.

Kim Jong-Il is like Saddam Hussein in that he cannot be pressured with sanctions and whatnot, because he does not care if his people starve. They're already starving, and he spends his money on weapons programs anyway, just like Hussein does.

I don't think we're going to be going through the UN on this one. This is the kind of thing that you fix in the dead of night, by surprise. The challenge is to make sure that you get enough of the leadership that whoever has the bombs doesn't know for sure what to do. It all has to happen realQuick, and completely by surprise.