What to do about North Korea...?

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.

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

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

In article ,
Jose wrote:

"vandals"???

That is simply the dumbest characterization of the low-life scum
that I've ever heard. You make Mikey look like a genius.

I use that particular charactarization here because I mean to emphasize
that the attack was planned and carried out by a small number of people,
not by a nation, or even a sizable religious group.

Then say so. Calling them vandals grossly misrepresents the problems
and the dangers. It's irresponsible.

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

according to you and others of your ilk, we are already the enemy of the world.

make up your mind

[snip]

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

I use that particular charactarization here because I mean to emphasize
that the attack was planned and carried out by a small number of people,
not by a nation, or even a sizable religious group.

Then say so. Calling them vandals grossly misrepresents the problems
and the dangers. It's irresponsible.

Actually, I am looking from a larger point of view - that of injury to
the country, not to individuals. It is easy to react to the sense that
this minimizes the tragedy of those killed, however we are sending our
children to be killed in response; that is equally tragic.

It is "vandalism" in the sense that the attack was small and isolated
compared to the size and strength of our country, as opposed to, say,
the attack on Pearl Harbor, and also in the sense that it was
perpetrated by a few individuals, rather than by another nation.

As for being an irresponsible choice of words, I disagree. Perhaps
there is a better word, I didn't think of it. But we tend, as the
victims, to use terms that justify our subsequent response. That too is
irresponsible.

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

In article ,
Jose wrote:

Then say so. Calling them vandals grossly misrepresents the problems
and the dangers. It's irresponsible.

Actually, I am looking from a larger point of view - that of injury to
the country, not to individuals.

Perhaps you should consider that protecting a country without
protecting its citizens is useles. Plug that into your alleged
larger view.

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

"Neil Gould" wrote

As I see it, it's a good thing NK doesn't have any oil.

And with this statement, it shows how little you truly understand the whole
issue.

Amazing. Truly amazing.
--
Jim in NC

Perhaps you should consider that protecting a country without
protecting its citizens is useles.

This is true. What is your point? We are not protecting the country
against terrorism by beating the hornet's nest with a baseball bat - our
Iraq debacle is utter folly. The nature of that problem is quite
different than the nature of the North Korea problem.

And no, I don't have a solution. I do know that for diplomacy to work,
our word must be good and our "big stick" must be credible and
effective. To be effective, it must be a stick we are willing to use,
and one we can get away with using.

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