What to do about North Korea...?

In article ,
Jose wrote:

True, the worst case
is they shoot a couple of nukes off, let's say one in Asia, another to
the US...followed with massive retaliation by the US.

Were the US to even =attempt= to retalliate with nukes would be a
disaster and make us the enemy of the world . . .

I think it is possible to contain the Korea threat. It is simple, it is
based on known principles (nations wanting power over other nations),
and it is basically military.

1) I'd sure like to understand what the South Korean govt and the South
Korean people -- the players who really right up against the DMZ --
really, really think about the whole North Korean situation?

The SK govt is by no means intrinsically stupid or evil, and the SK
people are fairly free, well informed about the world, and quite savvy.
Together they've done very well in other areas; I wonder what their
views on this overwhelming and overhanging situation are.

2) As for the nuclear situation, viewed more broadly: IMHO the US
nuclear policy should be:

a) Decide, state explicitly and openly, and try to make clear we
really mean that our nation's basic nuclear policy is "No first use,
ever";

b) As a corollary of this, openly and verifiably get rid of all
existing tactical nukes (bunker-busters, artillery shells, other
nonsense) and terminate all programs developing such things;

c) At the same time maintain a modest but adequate array of strategic
nukes and especially the means to deliver them anywhere, any time,
worldwide and on quite short notice;

d) And finally let it be known, behind the scenes if not openly,
that the implicit corollary of "no first use" is pretty sure to mean,
for us, "more or less guaranteed (and forceful) second use", whether as
retaliation for a first-use attack on us, or as punishment for a first
use by someone else against someone else (or even, implied between the
lines, as punishment for an "innocent" nation that had let terrorist
elements use their nation as a base for planning or preparing a nuclear
terrorist act carried out against us).

The purpose of (a) and (b) is to set a tone, set an example, get morally
aligned with the rest of the world.

The purpose of (c) and (d) is twofold:

--Make clear to rational rogue governments (e.g., Pakistan) that
spending resources on nuclear weapons will be ultimately worse than
useless; all they can do with them in the end is destroy themselves.

--More important, make clear to *all* governments, friend, foe, or just
on the sidelines that it's essential for their own long-term well-being
to control rogue groups who may try to operate within their borders, and
to join in international efforts to control rogue states, rational or
otherwise.

This last point seems to me probably the most important one of all.

"AES" wrote "Yada Yada Yada"

Mercy! A national defense expert, here on the aviation newsgroup!
What-da-ya think, we'll have next?
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
"AES" wrote "Yada Yada Yada"

Mercy! A national defense expert, here on the aviation newsgroup!
What-da-ya think, we'll have next?

Some-one who posts on topic ?
though we shouldn't hold our breath

a) Decide, state explicitly and openly, and try to make clear we
really mean that our nation's basic nuclear policy is "No first use,
ever";

We did that. We changed our minds.

The purpose of (a) and (b) is to set a tone, set an example, get morally
aligned with the rest of the world.

For this to actually work, our word needs to be believed and respected
by the world. We have squandered whatever credibility we had and it
won't be coming back in the next fifty years.

d) And finally let it be known, behind the scenes if not openly,
that the implicit corollary of "no first use" is pretty sure to mean,
for us, "more or less guaranteed (and forceful) second use", [...]
as punishment for an "innocent" nation that had let terrorist
elements use their nation as a base for planning or preparing a nuclear
terrorist act carried out against us).

This is a morally repugnant position. It requires such nations to
maintain an equally repugnant repression in their homeland, lest we slay
millions of innocents for the momentary security lapse or acts of a
rogue few. We ourselves could not, and should not, live up to that
standard.

More important, make clear to *all* governments, friend, foe, or just
on the sidelines that it's essential for their own long-term well-being
to control rogue groups who may try to operate within their borders, and
to join in international efforts to control rogue states, rational or
otherwise.

This last point seems to me probably the most important one of all.

How would you propose that the United States do this on its own soil,
while preserving the freedoms we are killing our own children to purport
to export?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" == Jose writes:

Jose respected by the world. We have squandered whatever
Jose credibility we had and it won't be coming back in the next
Jose fifty years.

I don't think so. Most of the world recognizes it is Bush and his
team that is acting in a rougish fashion. A level-headed moderate
president, not driven by religous or other dogma, could do a lot for
both the US and its relations with the world.

Alas, we don't seem to produce those candidates, and when we do, the
Midwest and South reject them.

Recently, Bob Fry posted:

"Jose" == Jose writes:

Jose respected by the world. We have squandered whatever
Jose credibility we had and it won't be coming back in the next
Jose fifty years.

I don't think so. Most of the world recognizes it is Bush and his
team that is acting in a rougish fashion. A level-headed moderate
president, not driven by religous or other dogma, could do a lot for
both the US and its relations with the world.

Alas, we don't seem to produce those candidates, and when we do, the
Midwest and South reject them.

As I see it, the problem is that while critical fundamental principles
guiding our nation should not be up to the whim of particular politicians
or political parties, the reality is that they are. Therefore, once we
have shown a willingness to act in ways that are morally repugnant, there
is no guarantee that we won't do it again when the mood suits us. It is
completely reasonable for those outside our borders is to expect that at
some point we will again act in the worst ways that we have in the past.
50 years may not be long enough to provide convince others of our good
intentions, if one considers that we are the only nation on the planet to
nuke somebody, and we are still actively developing ways to nuke somebody
else.

A question to anyone in this discussion: if *you* were the leader of North
Korea, having US troops on your southern border for the last 50+ years;
with the leader of the US calling you one of the "Axis of Evil"; and
having invaded and destroyed a sovereign nation (also on the "Axis of
Evil" list, btw) on the most obviously bogus of pretenses, how would *you*
respond to protect your population? As I see it, it's a good thing NK
doesn't have any oil.

Neil

In article ,
"Neil Gould" wrote:

A question to anyone in this discussion: if *you* were the leader of North
Korea, having US troops on your southern border for the last 50+ years;
with the leader of the US calling you one of the "Axis of Evil"; and
having invaded and destroyed a sovereign nation (also on the "Axis of
Evil" list, btw) on the most obviously bogus of pretenses, how would *you*
respond to protect your population?

do you actually think that the "leader" of NK has any interest in protecting
"his" population?

time for a reality check.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Recently, Bob Noel posted:

In article ,
"Neil Gould" wrote:

A question to anyone in this discussion: if *you* were the leader of
North Korea, having US troops on your southern border for the last
50+ years; with the leader of the US calling you one of the "Axis of
Evil"; and having invaded and destroyed a sovereign nation (also on
the "Axis of Evil" list, btw) on the most obviously bogus of
pretenses, how would *you* respond to protect your population?

do you actually think that the "leader" of NK has any interest in
protecting "his" population?

Irrelevant. I wasn't asking about Kim Jong Il; I asked what *you* would
do.

time for a reality check.

Indeed.

For starters, it would be a good idea to know approximately how wide the
Pacific Ocean is. Then compare that figure with the experts' opinions of
the range of the Taepodong-2 missile sans payload (which though it has
never been successfully flown, its "range" has been somehow increased
about 3x from their original statements). Then try to reconcile the
completely irresponsible claims being made about it being able to deliver
a nuclear weapon that could reach the lower 48 states.

You're being had yet again.

Neil

In article ,
"Neil Gould" wrote:

do you actually think that the "leader" of NK has any interest in
protecting "his" population?

Irrelevant. I wasn't asking about Kim Jong Il; I asked what *you* would
do.

well, such a question isn't relevant. Rationale sane people are not in charge
of the nk government.

but I, for one, wouldn't bother trying to **** off the USA. I wouldn't **** away
government funds on a worthless military weapon systems when millions of
my citizens are starving.


time for a reality check.

Indeed.

For starters, it would be a good idea to know approximately how wide the
Pacific Ocean is.

perhaps you should learn something about missiles, in particular the flight path
for something between nk and the USA.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

In article ,
Bob Noel wrote:

A question to anyone in this discussion: if *you* were the leader of North
Korea, having US troops on your southern border for the last 50+ years;
with the leader of the US calling you one of the "Axis of Evil"; and
having invaded and destroyed a sovereign nation (also on the "Axis of
Evil" list, btw) on the most obviously bogus of pretenses, how would *you*
respond to protect your population?

do you actually think that the "leader" of NK has any interest in protecting
"his" population?

Exactly my response when I read the initial paragraph.