N. Korea Says It Has, Plans to Test Nukes

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by PLATO


This is true. We should have done something about DPRK in December 02. We should have done something about DPRK in Dec 94 also. We probably should have done something about DPRK in Dec of just about any year.

[Imran Siddiqui]

We should have done something about DPRK in December 02.

Such as? Second question is what do you about China?

[Joseph]

Originally posted by PLATO


This is true. We should have done something about DPRK in December 02. We should have done something about DPRK in Dec 94 also. We probably should have done something about DPRK in Dec of just about any year.

Agree 100%

[GePap]

NK gets its kicks from scarrying people. The thing is, once it is fully out of the NPT, the US and others have no more reason to demand an end to the NK nuclear porgram than they do for Pak and India (and Israel), who never joined. After all, the only reason why NK could not legaly create nukes was the NPT, and very soon they will be out of it, just like we pulled out of the ABM treaty.

As for China: I seriously doubt they would back NK under any circumstance. Any war is bad for the leadership, and the longer it went on, the more damage it would do to China, thus the best possible ending under a circumstance were war does occur is to let it end quickly and letting it be as contained as possible.

[Imran Siddiqui]

As for China: I seriously doubt they would back NK under any circumstance.

They ain't gonna let the US just come in, and even if they wouldn't join in, they would undermine the US every chance it got.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

As for China: I seriously doubt they would back NK under any circumstance.

They ain't gonna let the US just come in, and even if they wouldn't join in, they would undermine the US every chance it got.

Why?

Lets see: China trade with US: several hundread billion
China trade with SK, Japan: tens of billions
Investement into China by US, SK, Japan: tens of billions

China trade with NK: under 1 billion
Investement into China by NK: 0.

China's leaders need economic growth to quell possible internal dissent, which is a far greater threat to their hides than all the trogladites and/or neo-cons in the US. If NK falls, it is SK that moves in, not the US: and SK is a growing trade ally, plus that annoying flood of NK refugees ends as well.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It ain't all about trade... or else why would China raise so much stink about Taiwan? Money ain't everything, and power politics is something China knows.

[GePap]

A bigger SK does not hurt China significantly: after all, the only reason you can count SK as a US ally is NK. If North Korea was to be dealt with, you get a sea change: first, one possible reason for Japanese militarist to arm up again ends. The reason for US troops in korea ends. The new Korea is weak, due to the war, and has to build up: this hurts China's economy short term, might help long term.

Taiwain is a historical issue (thanks to Japan and the Nationalists) more than it is a geopolitical power issue. NK is a geo-political power issue, an in the end, no NK is as good for China in the current reality than having an NK: plus China knows in the end, it's true power comes from economic growth and wealth, and tense reations with the US hurts that far more than keeping that dinky Stalinist state will ever help China.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Listen, the only reason North Korea exists today and has nuclear know how is because of China. China ain't just going to sit by and see it get taken over. It may not mind if it is done peacefully, but any force, and China will not stand for it.

[GePap]

Please: NK exists becuase it's paranoid leadership does everything it can to maintain power, and becuase it knows it has just enought power to make huge trouble for everyone in the neighborhood (I guess you ignore incidents of NK and Chinese forces traiding potshots), so no one is too eager for a showdown (including the US).

the idea that without Chinese aid NK would just collapese is a fantasy predicated on a naive view of just how much misery for its people a state can ride along. If the Khmer Rouge could wipe out 1/4 of the pop in a few years and still keep power (only to be driven from power by outside invasion), I fail to see how NK is bound to collapse.

next time Imran, try some fact with your rant

[Imran Siddiqui]

The fact is that North Korea would probably not exist at this point without the PRC (You have heard of the Korean War, right?), and would definetly not have any nukes without them. The main reason the US hasn't tried anything with North Korea is because of the big lumbering giant just over their shoulder.

NK is China's puppet state. They may not always agree, but NK knows who to kow-tow too.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Wasn't in Dec02 though

Yeah sure... and India didn't have nukes until the late 90s

India developed nukes in the early 70s, but then sat on it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The fact is that North Korea would probably not exist at this point without the PRC (You have heard of the Korean War, right?), and would definetly not have any nukes without them. The main reason the US hasn't tried anything with North Korea is because of the big lumbering giant just over their shoulder.

NK is China's puppet state. They may not always agree, but NK knows who to kow-tow too.

Well, since you are about to become a lawyer, I must assume that you know things like reason:, so lets try this question:

Becuase China intervened in 1950 to drive the US army from the Yalu, it will intervene in 200X to save NK because..Y.

Your problem Imran is articulating a realitic Y based on the facts of TODAY, not 1950. A quick check shows that..hmmm, Mao is no longer the head of the Chinese communist party, the uS has relation with Communist China, and ambassador, significant trade (none of which were true in 1950), there is no more SU, and the leaders of the US no longer talk about "who lost China" or talk about bombing China, or about some huge global Communist conspiracy.

If NK was a puppet of China, why did they have their own delegation at the peace talks in 1953 (soemthing Sk didn;t get to do)..why did China not position forces in NK? After the Sino_Soviet split..did NK kick out Soviet influence? This is a biggie: in the late 70';s and 80's China and the SU were enemies: can you tell me on which side NK was? After all, if it is nothing mroe than a mere Chinese puppet, obviosuly they moved far from the Sovietrs at the time, no?

And if NK is a puppet, why the nuclear porgram? If the NK leradership knew it could count on China to save it when a war begun, why attempt to have it's own nuclear program? Repeat...if NK;s leadershipo knows in the event of any war 400 middle range nuclear warheads are there to keep them safe, why go for nukes? And if NK is puppet, how does a nuclear NK help China in any way? Can you answer any of those?

NK is not a puppet of China, if it were we would not be having this little problem with them becuase their Chinese masters would have reeled them in, and no, I find no realistic assumptions based on China's current aims (more specifically, those of their leaders) to explain why it would help China to allow for a nuclear NK.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If you really think that China intervened in the Korean war to drive US away from Yalu, you are kidding yourself. Chinese army forces were in the Korean war as soon as the US joined the war. Only when the US came close to the Yalu, did the Chinese come over in force, but US forces ran into the Chinese well before that.

Secondly, WHERE did the nuclear program come from? It isn't easy to get uranium or plutonium or the technology. The North Korean technology came from China. If China was against NK, why would they provide them with the technology to build nukes?

China has NO reason to reel in NK. It isn't hurting them any. If NK was hurting China, they would have instituted a little change in leadership.

[SlowwHand]

The bottom line, to me?

While Che was stomping around in protest and GePap and Sava and et al banged their chests, I told you.
Get off Iraq. It's way too late.
You remember?
You remember me telling you to start thinking about maybe how North Korea, Japan, and China's relations were going?
You remember?
Guess what ?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If you really think that China intervened in the Korean war to drive US away from Yalu, you are kidding yourself. Chinese army forces were in the Korean war as soon as the US joined the war. Only when the US came close to the Yalu, did the Chinese come over in force, but US forces ran into the Chinese well before that.

Whatever their reasons in 1950, that was 1950. You have failed to give anyr easons why anything of this srt is even remotely true today.

Secondly, WHERE did the nuclear program come from? It isn't easy to get uranium or plutonium or the technology. The North Korean technology came from China. If China was against NK, why would they provide them with the technology to build nukes?

First of all, nuclear physics is universal, so any state can, if they spend enough, develop nuclear power on their own (yes, shocking but true!). second, as a signatory of the NPT, NK had the right to buy nuclear materials and develop nuclear power for itself. Lets take your pupet test> most Easterrn european regimes were soviet puppets. Many of them have Soviet developed nuclear power plants. None of them ever had a nuclear weapons program....why, the Chinese are so much more egalitarian with their puppet, no?

China has NO reason to reel in NK. It isn't hurting them any. If NK was hurting China, they would have instituted a little change in leadership.

China has several reasons to reel NK in: one, the NK issue gives fuel to Japanese right-wingers who want to re-militarize. And a new Japanese military is a far rgeater threat to long term Chinese interest than the US ever will be. Second, SK is an increasing trade ally, and torubles with NK undermine that. Thirdly, NK regugees are an economic problem for China.

For the third time, you have failed completely to give any rationale the chinese might have..are you fezzing yourself up?

[chequita guevara]

Actually, I was mentioning the growing problem in Korea before the war and how Bush was ignoring it to have his pet war in Iraq.

[Kuciwalker]

I have to disagree with Imram here. China doesn't particularly want or need NK.

[Zylka]

Time to finish ye old ballistic missle intercept program, lend a couple hundred thousand Amtrack amphibious assault vehicles to Japan, and utterly humiliate one backwards Asian despotism!

[Imran Siddiqui]

second, as a signatory of the NPT, NK had the right to buy nuclear materials and develop nuclear power for itself.

And where would they get the tech and materials from?

China has several reasons to reel NK in: one, the NK issue gives fuel to Japanese right-wingers who want to re-militarize. And a new Japanese military is a far rgeater threat to long term Chinese interest than the US ever will be. Second, SK is an increasing trade ally, and torubles with NK undermine that. Thirdly, NK regugees are an economic problem for China.

A tiny Japanese military (which will be the only result) does not present a great threat to China, especially compared to a US tookover NK. Two, SK will continue to trade with China, no matter what NK does (why would they not?). Thirdly, would the refugee problem change significantly with a new regime? Doubtful.

For the third time, you have failed completely to give any rationale the chinese might have

What other rationale do you need? A forceful takeover of North Korea by the US would totally undermine Chinese power, especially in their own sphere of influence.

[SlowwHand]

Moon over Miami; and Nukes over North Korea.

[Kuciwalker]

Why would the US station troops in the reunified Korea? You have US leaving.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Moon over Miami; and Nukes over North Korea.

That's really disgusting.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why would the US station troops in the reunified Korea? You have US leaving.

What else would the US 'doing something' about North Korea mean?

[Kuciwalker]

South Korea would be the one to have troops stationed there permanently.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
South Korea would be the one to have troops stationed there permanently.

You think the U.S. would leave? We're still in Japan, the only reason we left the Phils is because they refused to renew the leases.

China is a rival power, and will only continue to grow in power. The U.S. will want to "contain" that power, i.e., make sure that China recognizes American supremacy. We aren't leaving Korea unless we're thrown out.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


And where would they get the tech and materials from?

from china, the SU, and pakistan.

A tiny Japanese military (which will be the only result) does not present a great threat to China, especially compared to a US tookover NK. Two, SK will continue to trade with China, no matter what NK does (why would they not?). Thirdly, would the refugee problem change significantly with a new regime? Doubtful.

Since when do Japanese right-wingers advocate a tiny, worthelss military? (sepcially iven that Japan already, for example, has a far more powerfull navy than China will have for decades, and a far better airforce). Besides, the idea of a US takeover of NK is laughable. Even if the Us started the war, it would fall on The Republic of Korea to unify itself and create a single Republic of Korea. So there is no "third regime", only either 2 koreas, or one.

What other rationale do you need? A forceful takeover of North Korea by the US would totally undermine Chinese power, especially in their own sphere of influence.

Since your sceenrio for what a US attack would be is absurd, it is not a surprise you have a falalcious idea of a Chinese response. If the Us sought to do an "Iraq" on NK, China would greatly object..but still not go to war. The likelyhood of the US doing an "Iraq" on Nk are nill (specially since it would take a huge number of land forces, something that could onyl happen with SK approval, which would NOT be forthcoming for such a US plan).

[Imran Siddiqui]

China is a rival power, and will only continue to grow in power. The U.S. will want to "contain" that power, i.e., make sure that China recognizes American supremacy. We aren't leaving Korea unless we're thrown out.

Bingo.

I still want people to specify what they mean by 'deal with North Korea' without meaning US force.

[GePap]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
China is a rival power, and will only continue to grow in power. The U.S. will want to "contain" that power, i.e., make sure that China recognizes American supremacy. We aren't leaving Korea unless we're thrown out.

That's the point, we would be, once there was no NK. Koreans are not eager to have a permament significant US military presence.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Since when do Japanese right-wingers advocate a tiny, worthelss military?

Since when will the Japanese public let them get any greater than that? IIRC, their Constitution specifies a small defense force.

The likelyhood of the US doing an "Iraq" on Nk are nill

So what does 'deal with North Korea' mean then?