Posted on 12/29/2002 9:27:50 PM PST by ItsBacon
As usual, the Europeans are wrong. In their determination to convict President George Bush of serial naivety, a number of European commentators have been accusing the United States of concentrating on the wrong enemy. Why go to war against Saddam, on the suspicion that he might eventually acquire weapons of mass destruction, while ignoring North Korea which is on the verge of possessing nuclear weapons and already has the missiles to deliver them?
But this charge against the Americans is based on two false assumptions. It underestimates both their realism and their power. It seems as if some Europeans only became aware of the North Korean threat within the past few weeks. That was not true in Washington. I was told in late 2001 that the administration was fully apprised of the need to keep one eye on Kim Jong Il, and North Korea was included in the "axis of evil". The Americans are fully aware of the risk that Kim Jong Il might decide to indulge in some provocation during the invasion of Iraq. If so, he would be underestimating his adversary. The Americans possess more than enough firepower to make war on North Korea and Iraq simultaneously – though North Korea would be the harder target.
From the outset, the Bushites were unhappy with the North Korea strategy which they inherited from President Clinton: a Koreageld policy. In return for Kim Jong agreeing not to press ahead with a nuclear programme, the US would give him aid to help avoid the worst effects of the famine which his economic policies had created. There were moments in the late Nineties when millions of North Koreans were virtually starving. Mr Bush and his team rapidly concluded that the Clinton policy was weak, immoral – and likely to fail. They have been proved right, so only the little problem of what to do next remains.
The historical profession must take some of the blame for the West's intellectual confusion over North Korea and our reluctance to take early, decisive and ruthless measures to crush the threat. Historians' rationalist propaganda has undermined political will. From the mid-19th century onwards, most historians became increasingly preoccupied with social and economic forces, while convincing themselves that the "great men" school of history was hopelessly unsophisticated. If only.
Such historical delusions have now been refuted by much of the history of the 20th century, itself hopelessly unsophisticated. That bloodstained century was overshadowed by the determining influence of great, evil men: Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, who all fused statecraft and mass murder. Had they never lived, the world would be different and better.
Their lesser imitations still afflict us: Mugabe, Saddam, Kim Jong Il. Those who would like to see history as a backward projection of the social sciences do have one point in their favour. The science of psychopathology should yield insights, into the present as well as the past. It might help teach us how to deal with such deranged dictators.
In Mugabe's case, little can be done as long as his fellow African leaders refuse to face up to his destructive malice. It would be hard to create a military option without the local equivalents of Kuwait and Qatar. Moreover, containment is an option in Zimbabwe, albeit a profoundly uninspiring one. After all, Mugabe can do no more than wreck his own country and bring discredit on sub-Saharan Africa (which its governments deserve, unfair though it is to their peoples).
But containment has not worked against Saddam, nor against Kim Jong Il. It appears that the latter has set himself on a course which can have only one outcome: a collision with America. If so, we will be facing a war that makes Desert Storm II seem like a picnic in the desert. There is every reason to hope for another walkover against Saddam. There is no hope of a walkover against North Korea.
The military options are already being considered in Washington, and they all involve great risks. Even if the answers are secret, some of the crucial questions are obvious. Does the administration know where Kim Jong Il's nasties are stored? If so, could they be destroyed in an Osirak-type raid – as in the Israelis' destruction of Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981 – or would it be necessary to use small nuclear weapons in order to guarantee the destruction of hardened silos? Equally, when would it be possible to deploy an anti-missile defence system within reach of North Korea's coast, to ensure that any missiles fired by Kim Jong Il would be shot down?
But North Korea also poses a grave conventional threat. Kim Jong II has said that if attacked, he would consign South Korea to the flames, and he has the capabilities to do so. North Korea has overwhelming conventional forces massed along the border with the south, plus artillery which could pound South Korea to pieces in a matter of hours.
So, how quickly could the Americans throw back the onslaught and destroy the artillery? Is it not inevitable that any conventional war lasting more than a few hours would involve thousands of American casualties, tens of thousands of South Korean casualties, and many tens of billions worth of destruction of property? In short, is there any sensible way of fighting a war with North Korea without a massive pre-emptive attack, and would conventional weaponry be enough to make that attack effective?
Apart from the military hazards in North Korea, there could also be diplomatic complications. The Chinese regard Korea as part of their sphere of influence, and would be disturbed by any dramatic manifestation of American power there.
Some Chinese leaders would be tempted to bargain a trade-off: North Korea for Taiwan. Here, the Korean imbroglio connects with the general issues of American/Chinese relations. The US view is simple. These days, there is little sentimental attachment to Taiwan and no reluctance to contemplate a long-term reunion of the two Chinas, but only on the right terms. Rape will not be permitted; no union by force.
The Chinese use aggressive language, especially when they believe that they are merely asserting their rights. Unlike North Korea, however, China is a rational power. They may want Taiwan back, but they are not going to provoke a clash with the US. So any diplomatic problems of China are resolvable. In US/Chinese relations, clarity is the enemy of conflict, while mutual self-interest could be the basis of a weary alliance.
Self-interest is a concept unknown in North Korea. If it were possible to draw Kim Jong Il's nuclear fangs, it might also be possible to revert to containment, and thus stabilise the situation until the Stalinist theme park was eventually overthrown.
At present, however, there seems no hope of such a benign outcome. Kim Jong Il is bent on provoking America, and America has no alternative but to respond. There seems no way of avoiding a terrible war on the Korean peninsula.
First, tell North Korea that if one of their weapons, including any they sell, is every used against us, then we will wipe out their entire population. Second, build an Alaska-based missle defense capability, sit back, and let the rest of Asia deal with them directly.
Worth an American life ?
Not for these ingrates.
Nice, simple, and to the point. One problem: How would we know where the Nuc originated that took out, for example, LA, NY, or DC? If N. Korea has or obtain's nucs, and successfully miniturizes them, sells them or directs their own third parties (preserving deniability), getting them into the US and detonating them is no major problem.
We (U.S.Navy) used to say that the first thermo-nuc weapon used in war will occur at sea. One of our carrier task forces will simply "go missing". That is also a viable option for the N. Koreans.
The U.S. had good intelligence on Al-Quaida and their connection to the Taliban. What if we didn't? What if they had been a bit more deliberate and circumspect? What would this country be doing today if we had no way of knowing who authorized the attack on the WTC?
You are far too optimistic to expect that we will know if Korea or Iraq hits an American target. Beyond that, what sort of policy is it that in effect, allows a "first strike" on American soil. It might be a suicidal, even insane act by Korea or Iraq, yet they might do it anyway. The U.S. Government has an absolute obligation to prevent a first strike, but preemption if necessary. It's not as though these guys are "we are the world" peace-loving dictators. They have both (i.e. Kim & Hussein) promised death and destruction upon America. We should take them at their word, along with their most consistent actions. If they have NBC weapons, they will use them to either kill their preceived enemies (especially Americans), or to black mail them.
The U.S. can allow neither to occur.
Nice, simple, and to the point. One problem: How would we know where the Nuc originated that took out, for example, LA, NY, or DC? If N. Korea has or obtain's nucs, and successfully miniturizes them, sells them or directs their own third parties (preserving deniability), getting them into the US and detonating them is no major problem.
Your question is a good one. How would we know where the nuke originated from that took out one of our cities? Or even worse, how would we know where the nukes were from that took out our 20 largest cities (assuming that if terrorists could get one inside our porous borders they could get 20 in)?
The pressure to retaliate would be enormous. I believe that it would be "round up the usual suspects" time for the Arrmagedon type retaliation that would result. Our enemies should realize this, and join us in preventing such an incident.
This is not correct. We could just simply allow ourselves to be blackmailed, which by the way, looks like it has become the official policy now.
Yes it is, which undercuts the idea that war is inevitable. The USA will not start a war with NK at that cost.
I also think it is mistaken to think that Kim Jong Il is simply producing nukes so he can bargain them away for economic reasons. Having them is the end in itself for the status and power that having them gives him. So he won't give them up voluntarily.
So Kim will develop nukes and eventually missiles that can reach America, unless the NK regime colapses from within. We will develop our ABM system in Alaska, but especially mobile systems that can shoot down missile on their upward trajectory when they are most vulnerable. That means ship based and air based systems. Obital systems deployed directly over likely launch areas would be best, but pretty far off. Let's hope they are deployed soon, and that they work.
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.