Nuke Politics - Kerry: Bush's North Korea Policy a 'Shocking Failure'

[Satellite Weapon]

I was wondering when the 'blame game' was going to start

The Politics of the Bomb
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1544385,00.html

Newsmax has an Eberhart article which blames the whole thing on Clinton
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/10/9/132140.shtml?s=lh

Kerry blames it all on Bush
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/10/9/230334.shtml
Democratic Sen. John Kerry, the president's rival in 2004 and a potential 2008 candidate, assailed Bush's policy as a "shocking failure," and said, "While we've been bogged down in Iraq where there were no weapons of mass destruction, a madman has apparently tested the ultimate weapon of mass destruction."

[XShipRider]

Ah yes, election year politics. Be careful not to step in it.

Kerry should certainly recognize failure when he sees it.

[Dronetek]

Clintons policy was a complete failure too. I just love how the democrats pretend their policys work, when we know for a fact they dont. Hell, the worl dwe live in now is all thanks to Clinton's policies.

[Snoshi]

Well... Bush really failed with N.K... He should have done everything he could to prevent them from getting the bomb...

I hope that the same wont be repeated with Iran

[D-gin]

Well... Bush really failed with N.K... He should have done everything he could to prevent them from getting the bomb...

I hope that the same wont be repeated with Iran

I agree with you about Iran, We the USA better not screw this one up but I have to say I think (Just my personal feeling on the matter) that NK has had the bomb for a bit longer then most think.

[Geezah]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1070000/images/_1073318_albright300ap.jpg

http://transcripts.cnn.com/2000/ASIANOW/east/10/23/albright.northkorea.ap/story.albright.kim.aptn.jpg

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/e/e6/300px-Great_Leader_Comrade_Kim_Jong_Il_(122).jpg

One of the many steller moments of the Clinton administration and just what exactly did it do?

Why the hell would we want to engage in one on one dialogue with a fruckin madman????

[loganinkosovo]

John Kerry.....a shocking failure!

What a Loser!

Piss off, John. And take that gin swilling trophy hag of your's with you.

[evanfitz]

Well it was a failure to prevent NK from attaining the bomb and now testing it.

[Jobu]

How exactly is the USA supposed to stop these countries from going nuclear?
Invade?
Make a deal? (Carter did, NK broke it)
Support a coup?

I await your wisdom oh wise backseat drivers.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Well... Bush really failed with N.K... He should have done everything he could to prevent them from getting the bomb...

I hope that the same wont be repeated with Iran

Why is it for Bush to solve the problem? There are hundreds of other nations in the UN. Just like NK, Iran is the UN's problem. I would look at those nations who over and over, vetoed and blocked every effort to contain NK/Iran (and it's the same people over and over again).

[Dronetek]

Well it was a failure to prevent NK from attaining the bomb and now testing it.

I dont see anyway to do this outside of invasion. Are you supporting an invasion?

[ryanb]

Well... Bush really failed with N.K... He should have done everything he could to prevent them from getting the bomb...

I hope that the same wont be repeated with Iran

What would you have Bush do? The only thing to stop N.K. from obtaining the Bomb is to invade. I have a feeling that if we invaded N.K. you would be claiming that "Bush really failed with N.K...He should have not invaded...yady dady"

[K-So]

Let's blame everybody but the psycho who is running NK.:roll:

[phoilme]

How exactly is the USA supposed to stop these countries from going nuclear?
Invade?
Make a deal? (Carter did, NK broke it)
Support a coup?

I await your wisdom oh wise backseat drivers.

I agree. The gutless dems will use their media to blame Bush no matter what direction he goes. But if the A's lose I will blame Bush!
Let's Go A's!

[XShipRider]

Well it was a failure to prevent NK from attaining the bomb and now testing it.

There's a couple threads on the forum now with the same basic premise.

People are confusing a test with a viable deliverable weapon.


I await your wisdom oh wise backseat drivers.
I never drive from the backseat.

[MG 3]

Well in my point of view they did not fail cause if a country decides to build a bomb and are willing to go all the way then anything short of an invasion will not deter them.

[Flamming_Python]

[img]

One of the many steller moments of the Clinton administration and just what exactly did it do?

Why the hell would we want to engage in one on one dialogue with a fruckin madman????

Because if you don't he will get even madder p-)

Now if, on the other hand, America were to propose masses of incentives to North Korea for virtually no cost at all, America could then have some leverage over the country, as it could threaten to either withdraw the benefits, or promise to add more if the NK's give compliance to their agreements.

Hard-line policies too often fail, when they are applied as a reflex reaction rather than deep strategic thought about the situation. The best overall foreign policy seems to be a mix of hard/soft in international politics, with the hard or soft applied at various appropriate times.

[Geezah]

Now if, on the other hand, America were to propose masses of incentives to North Korea for virtually no cost at all, America could then have some leverage over the country, as it could threaten to either withdraw the benefits, or promise to add more if the NK's give compliance to their agreements.

Yep, that makes sense, so the bad guy is rewarded for not being a bad guy.

I haven't got an alternative to the above but I do not like giving into bullies.



Hard-line policies too often fail, when they are applied as a reflex reaction rather than deep strategic thought about the situation. The best overall foreign policy seems to be a mix of hard/soft in international politics, with the hard or soft applied at various appropriate times.

I disagree, NK have proven time and again that we are wasting our breath, as NK likes taking the p!ss.

[Flamming_Python]

Yep, that makes sense, so the bad guy is rewarded for not being a bad guy.

I haven't got an alternative to the above but I do not like giving into bullies.



I disagree, NK have proven time and again that we are wasting our breath, as NK likes taking the p!ss.

Your principles are irrelevent, as are everyones in international politics. Every diplomat knows that policies should always be placed on pragmatism, trust, dialog and taking into account your countries interests, in order to achieve the best results.

Blindly outlining your principles to everyone will get a diplomat no-where, just isolated. You must constantly adapt to the situation, be flexible and be willing to compromise and test the other persons trust of you.

The exact mix of these components is a science, of which unfortunately I do not a have a detailed enough knowledge of in order to draft a whole new American Foriegn policy towards NK from scratch.

[Geezah]

Your principles are irrelevent, as are everyones in international politics. Every diplomat knows that policies should always be placed on pragmatism, trust, dialog and taking into account your countries interests, in order to achieve the best results.

So exactly why would we talk to this fruckin madman, after all it won't do anyone any good?

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Your principles are irrelevent, as are everyones in international politics. Every diplomat knows that policies should always be placed on pragmatism, trust, dialog and taking into account your countries interests, in order to achieve the best results.

Blindly outlining your principles to everyone will get a diplomat no-where, just isolated. You must constantly adapt to the situation, be flexible and be willing to compromise and test the other persons trust of you.

The exact mix of these components is a science, of which unfortunately I do not a have a detailed enough knowledge of in order to draft a whole new American Foriegn policy towards NK from scratch.

That may be the most contrived pile of hooey I've read in quite some time. Tell me, exactly how do you arrive at a policy, any policy without principles to base it on? See, your plan is to simply get along - that's called "appeasement". You avoid conflict by simply abandoning your principles, and your policies based upon it, and you give the other guy what he wants. It works great. Not to mention the fact that we are dealing with a nation who time and again has demonstrated that they are not deserving of even a minimal level of trust (for example, NK unilaterally declared the Korean War Armistice null & void back in Aug.).

So yes, your plan would work incredibly well. The only problem is that it would not get us what we are after. It would achieve only the avoidance of conflict, at the price of endless concessions, not the elimination of nuclear weapons from he Korean Peninsula.

Why do you insist on portraying this as an American responsibility? North Korea's obligations are to the world, not to the United States. North Korea signed an armistice with the United Nations, not the United States. Why is it then that the US taxpayer should be the one to offer "masses of incentives to North Korea for virtually no cost at all"? Contrary to all common sense, that's precisely what we did anyway under Clinton, and you see exactly how far it got us. Why do you insist on shifting blame and responsibility for a universally recognized negative onto a party who's been working for 50 years to prevent it from happening? You can hand the schoolyard bully your lunch money today if you want, but he'll only be back tomorrow looking for more.

[SBL]

Because if you don't he will get even madder p-)

Now if, on the other hand, America were to propose masses of incentives to North Korea for virtually no cost at all, America could then have some leverage over the country, as it could threaten to either withdraw the benefits, or promise to add more if the NK's give compliance to their agreements. Kim basically wants Bi-lateral negotiations with the US because he doesn't want to face pressure from those that have the most ability to affect him, namely China and the ROK. These two nations are basically the primary arteries serving Kim's regime. He would prefer to sign yet another deal with the US and not have to face local pressure.



Hard-line policies too often fail, when they are applied as a reflex reaction rather than deep strategic thought about the situation. The best overall foreign policy seems to be a mix of hard/soft in international politics, with the hard or soft applied at various appropriate times.


When it comes to politics, issues can rarely, if ever, be disentangled by superfical analysis.
Kerry is basically stringing together images in an attempt to sway public opinion (as his job requires) and make it look as though the Bush admin. is somehow responsible for the situation in Korea today.


I think there is definately some merit to what you are saying. But such action has not been undertaken for a couple of reasons. First, since about WWII, there has been a kind of precedent set in the minds of policy-makers that the US does not bend to bully-boy tactics. Naturally, the problem this sort of precedent creates is a potential inflexibility and tunnel-vision when it comes to dealing with a crisis. A political precedent is only as useful as the reality of the situation dictates.
NK is essentially a hold-over from the Cold War. In the past, containment has been the policy towards NK in order to keep them out of the ROK, and to communicate US intentions to China and Russia by proxy (North Korea being a kind of satellite of the two).
Another reason for the lack of a "soft approach" to North Korea is the fact that until about the early/mid-Nineties, the ROK was ardently anti-DPRK. Only within the past 10 years or so have we seen an attempt at warming relations between the two. Taking a soft stance would have been somewhat unpopular with the South in decades prior. The USA also has to worry about keeping Japan happy on the issue as has also been on the recieving end of these threatening gestures. Somehow I don't think effectively "rewarding" NK for launching missiles across Japan's bow would sit well with them.
And yet another reason for a lack of incentives to the North is the probability that the introduction of incentives might only encourage Kim to agitate and make trouble in the region. Most would view it (Kim included) was essentially paying off a black-mailer. Not only could this possibly encourage threat-making for payoffs, but also it would potentially make the US appear weak, both to rivals (China, Russia) and allies (Japan, ROK).

I've been hearing some talk on this forum and elsewhere that somehow Bush's rhetoric concerning an axis of evil pushed the DPRK to the edge, or into alliances with Iran etc. While this case is arguable, I'm going to have to take issue with it.
For the past 20 to 30 years or so, NK has already possessed a potent trump card in the form of artillery and No-dong and Taepo-dong missiles aimed at every major population center from Seoul to Tokyo. Many of these missiles and rockets likely armed with biological and chemical warheads. In a situation such as this, what would you have President Bush (or anybody else) do?
Second, NK has claimed nuclear capability since the Clinton years. The escalation in the US's rhetoric has only precipitated in a raising of N.Korean rhetoric, in the form of missile tests, nuke tests, etc. (this presuming it was in fact a nuclear device that was detonated). These most recent threats have most-likely stemmed from the seizure of DPRK monetary assets from a bank in Macao.
The bottom line is that the North has been making threats for years with no follow-through, because Kim know's he's cornered and any lashing out will result in the summary destruction of his regime and probably him.

[pistol]

Contrary to all common sense, that's precisely what we did anyway under Clinton, and you see exactly how far it got us. .

Yea, you take those defeatocrats to school 2Sheds! The Clinton era policy of inspections is really why they have nuclear weapons today! The six party talks have been the greatest success probably of the whole Bush presidency. Its not his fault Clinton let them get their little bomb.

[Jobu]

The six party talks are exactly what the world wanted from Bush, multilateralism.

[SBL]

The deal with the Six-party talks is that it introduces local pressure on the N.Koreans. Up until now, the DPRK has been essientially dealing with the USA bi-laterally. Look back to the Carter agreements, and look at the Clinton deals and we see agreements being made-and then having the Kims disregard them or tear them up with impugnity. North Korea has grown very used to exisiting outside the favor of the US in the past 50 years. And they also know that the USA is unwilling to spark a war unilaterally, and give the North an excuse to bomb Tokyo and Seoul. Because it would subsequently make the US very unpopular in the region.
Having the Six-party talks means that now, nations that have a more direct bearing on NK policy can put in their added pressure. China and the ROK are basically the two lifelines or arteries that feed Kim's regime. Including both in the talks generates real pressure on the N.Koreans.
Kim retracted from the Six-party talks, I suspect, because they were really forcing Kim into compliance. He would much rather go back to the days where he only had to deal with the US and contiunue to merely get-by.

The fact that the "world" is turning on Bush's display of multilateralism is because it's not on their own terms. They would prefer to have somebody a tad more malleable in the White House, methinks.

[pistol]

The six party talks are exactly what the world wanted from Bush, multilateralism.

Oh great. So now France has a veto on our national security.

[ElHombre]

Why is it for Bush to solve the problem? There are hundreds of other nations in the UN. Just like NK, Iran is the UN's problem. I would look at those nations who over and over, vetoed and blocked every effort to contain NK/Iran (and it's the same people over and over again).

It's in the US's interests to keep the planet as nuclear-free as possible. Instability like this causes little problems like interruptions of commerce. As the US currently depends on Asian capital to finance its budget defecit, the US interest is clear. Depending on other countries to take the lead on this would deny the US the chance to influence the outcome to its favor and that cuases further problems down the road. Isolationism doesn't work and neither does blaming the rest of the world for the Bush admin's lack of a NK policy for the last six years.

There are three choices in dealing with a problem country.

1) Invade and force a regime change, or Iraq repeated. This is not a credible threat and NK and the world realize it. Removal of a credible military threat to NK was also one of the warnings given for not invading Iraq. Now those warnings are coming to pass.

2) Engage in diplomacy. What did diplomacy get us? Time. Time has typically favored democracies. Take a look at the Cold War if you have trouble believing it. You just have to be patient (not a Bush admin strong suit). As Winston Churchill once said, 'Talk-talk is better then War-war'.

3) Ignore it. As option 2 was dismissed out of hand (considered too boring, maybe?) and the threat of option 1 is stuck in the sands of Iraq, this was the approach chosen by the Bush admin. This has served to limit our options to begging China to deal with NK. China will be calling the tune and it's likely that they won't consider US interests as a priority. So let's hope Taiwan doesn't come up.

[Jobu]

ElHombre, nobody buys that line.

Bush did engage in diplomacy, it was called the 6-party talks. Did it buy us time? Nope. Did Clinton's one on one talks buy us time? Nope. The NoKos chose to ignore it all and do what they wanted from the start.

Diplomacy without anything to back it up is meaningless and the NoKos know we won't invade so it's just idle talk. We were bribing them to do as we wished but they just took our money and did their own thing anyway.

That leaves option #4)

Arm Japan and South Korea with nuclear weapons as a deterrent.

[SBL]

Oh great. So now France has a veto on our national security.

France is not among the six.

[pistol]

France is not among the six.

See http://www.un.org/sc/members.asp

[SBL]

See http://www.un.org/sc/members.asp

Ah, you were referring to the Security Council. I was speaking of the Six-Party Talks on North Korea.

[evanfitz]

I dont see anyway to do this outside of invasion. Are you supporting an invasion?

invasion is usually the last resort to use though I doubt it will actually happen, I fully understand why NK is testing. However it was a mission by Washington to prevent a nuclear NK and obviously its a failure.

[Hunterhr]

I agree. The gutless dems will use their media to blame Bush no matter what direction he goes. But if the A's lose I will blame Bush!
Let's Go A's!

Word has is it that Steinbrenner has labeled the collapse of the Yankees a 'shocking Bush failure'.

:)

[budgie]

Well... Bush really failed with N.K... He should have done everything he could to prevent them from getting the bomb...

I hope that the same wont be repeated with Iran

The same this is happening in Iran for all we know.

It's very fashionable of the Bushies to blame Clinton for this but we're six years into Bush's presidency now. Who's watch is it? Did NK possess a bomb when Clinton was president? Was Iran any closer?

Stop making excuses for the man. Bush dropped the ball. He dropped the ball with bis bone-headed refusal of bilateral talks. He dropped the ball by diverting his attention to Iraq - a complete waste of lives and treasure - he dropped the ball by refusing to even negotiate with NK in anyway and he dropped the ball by tying US forces up in an unnecessary war in mesopotamia and emboldening enemies of freedom in Asia.

The 'blame it on Bill' rant is tired and simply won't wash this time.

[Will938]

The same this is happening in Iran for all we know.

It's very fashionable of the Bushies to blame Clinton for this but we're six years into Bush's presidency now. Who's watch is it? Did NK possess a bomb when Clinton was president? Was Iran any closer?

Stop making excuses for the man. Bush dropped the ball. He dropped the ball with bis bone-headed refusal of bilateral talks. He dropped the ball by diverting his attention to Iraq - a complete waste of lives and treasure - he dropped the ball by refusing to even negotiate with NK in anyway and he dropped the ball by tying US forces up in an unnecessary war in mesopotamia and emboldening enemies of freedom in Asia.

The 'blame it on Bill' rant is tired and simply won't wash this time.


Um I hate to be the first to break it to you, but yes, they created a nuclear bomb while Clinton was the president. Looks like appeasement and bilateral talks got us pretty far back then right...

[Hollis]

The 'blame it on Bill' rant is tired and simply won't wash this time.


Thanks for the laugh, what about the "blame it on Bush" rant is tired and simply won't wash this time..........


LOLOL............. Billies and Bushies are the same coin, just different sides...... If it was not for one the other would have nothing to live for. rofl

[fantomas]

Democrats are historically much better at appeasing dictators than Republicans are.

[Satellite Weapon]

Well it was a failure to prevent NK from attaining the bomb and now testing it. How long will it be before Iran gets the bomb ?

[Satellite Weapon]

Bill OReilly claimed that "the reason North Korea is causing trouble" by allegedly developing and testing nuclear weapons "is that it wants to influence the November election.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200610100005

[sferrin]

Because if you don't he will get even madder p-)

Now if, on the other hand, America were to propose masses of incentives to North Korea for virtually no cost at all, America could then have some leverage over the country, as it could threaten to either withdraw the benefits, or promise to add more if the NK's give compliance to their agreements.


So basically let them blackmail us? There's an awesome plan :roll:

[sferrin]

It's in the US's interests to keep the planet as nuclear-free as possible. Instability like this causes little problems like interruptions of commerce. As the US currently depends on Asian capital to finance its budget defecit, the US interest is clear. Depending on other countries to take the lead on this would deny the US the chance to influence the outcome to its favor and that cuases further problems down the road. Isolationism doesn't work and neither does blaming the rest of the world for the Bush admin's lack of a NK policy for the last six years.

There are three choices in dealing with a problem country.

1) Invade and force a regime change, or Iraq repeated. This is not a credible threat and NK and the world realize it. Removal of a credible military threat to NK was also one of the warnings given for not invading Iraq. Now those warnings are coming to pass.

2) Engage in diplomacy. What did diplomacy get us? Time. Time has typically favored democracies. Take a look at the Cold War if you have trouble believing it. You just have to be patient (not a Bush admin strong suit). As Winston Churchill once said, 'Talk-talk is better then War-war'.


Would you mind explaining to us how telling The Great Leader what he wants to hear and doing what he wants us to do while he continues to do whatever he wants is a GOOD idea? How is that any different than ignoring him other than it costs us more money to pay the tribute?

[sferrin]

invasion is usually the last resort to use though I doubt it will actually happen, I fully understand why NK is testing. However it was a mission by Washington to prevent a nuclear NK and obviously its a failure.

The only way to prevent it would have been to bomb the test site(s). Is that what you're advocating? Because you can forget "diplomacy" as The Great Leader has demonstrated time and again that it simply ignores any agreements (though he'll be happy to take your money, food, oil, or whatever else you'd like to donate to the cause).

[Satellite Weapon]

‘Threatening the Whole World’
http://www.newsweekinteractive.net/id/15240756/site/newsweek/
On China’s border with North Korea, local villagers fear the fallout from Pyongyang’s nuclear aspirations

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/Newsweek/Components/Photos/Mag/050221_Issue/050212_KongSUB_horiz.jpg


Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe pledged Friday to do as much as possible to implement possible UN Security Council sanctions against North Korea for its declared nuclear test.
http://www.spacewar.com/2006/061013131808.fgeyz4jr.html
"If the United Nations adopts a resolution (on sanctions), Japan will do as much as possible about it as a matter of course," Abe told reporters at his executive office

[Gluten]

i read an article about the nuclerar test in N.K yestrarday in a swedish news paper and there they listed how many nuclear warheads the countries that heve them have(little wierd sentence). but any way there it showed that the US had 10.000! nuclear warheads and that Russia had 17.000! so my question is not if north korea should have nuclear weapons nut who the **** need that many nukelear weapons??? when the cold war is friggn over!
i know that it is a little off topic but any way.

[budgie]

ElHombre, nobody buys that line.

Bush did engage in diplomacy, it was called the 6-party talks. Did it buy us time? Nope. Did Clinton's one on one talks buy us time? Nope. The NoKos chose to ignore it all and do what they wanted from the start.

Diplomacy without anything to back it up is meaningless and the NoKos know we won't invade so it's just idle talk. We were bribing them to do as we wished but they just took our money and did their own thing anyway.

That leaves option #4)

Arm Japan and South Korea with nuclear weapons as a deterrent.

Deterrent against what? Kim is a villain but not so insane he can`t think of self-preservation. Attacking a neighbour would spell the end of his regime, even if he has a few nukes. That said the idea has some merit. After all nuclear armed neighbours might make China think twice about jumping in on Kim`s side.

[budgie]

Bill OReilly claimed that "the reason North Korea is causing trouble" by allegedly developing and testing nuclear weapons "is that it wants to influence the November election.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200610100005

I think all that O`Reilly`s done here is expose his own plot to influence the elections

[budgie]

Um I hate to be the first to break it to you, but yes, they created a nuclear bomb while Clinton was the president. Looks like appeasement and bilateral talks got us pretty far back then right...

Indeed you are the first to break it to me. I was in my mid twenties back then but still followed the news. Don`t recall any tests, any dismantling of warheads or threats to use them. Do tell, it`s really the first I`ve heard of it.

[Asheren]

ElHombre, nobody buys that line.

Bush did engage in diplomacy, it was called the 6-party talks. Did it buy us time? Nope. Did Clinton's one on one talks buy us time? Nope. The NoKos chose to ignore it all and do what they wanted from the start.

Diplomacy without anything to back it up is meaningless and the NoKos know we won't invade so it's just idle talk. We were bribing them to do as we wished but they just took our money and did their own thing anyway.

That leaves option #4)

Arm Japan and South Korea with nuclear weapons as a deterrent.

You know Japan might arm itslef quite fast when i read last time their evaluated ability to produce nuclear weapons was under one year. They got technology and materials they just didn't saw a need to became nuclear armed state. They thinked about doctrinal changes when Kim buzzed them with missiles not long ago. They seriously considered having some conventional preemptive strike ability. If UN will prove to be usless like usual i won't be supprised if Japan decide to incrase size of their army and boost their offensive abilites seriously.

[chauncy republicans]

The same this is happening in Iran for all we know.

It's very fashionable of the Bushies to blame Clinton for this but we're six years into Bush's presidency now. Who's watch is it? Did NK possess a bomb when Clinton was president? Was Iran any closer?

Stop making excuses for the man. Bush dropped the ball. He dropped the ball with bis bone-headed refusal of bilateral talks. He dropped the ball by diverting his attention to Iraq - a complete waste of lives and treasure - he dropped the ball by refusing to even negotiate with NK in anyway and he dropped the ball by tying US forces up in an unnecessary war in mesopotamia and emboldening enemies of freedom in Asia.

The 'blame it on Bill' rant is tired and simply won't wash this time.

Budgie laid it all down right. Bush thought the problem would solve itself, which is pretty funny... Even the most red-necked of hillbillys know if the car is broke you've got to do something about it.

[BearInBunnySuit]

You know Japan might arm itslef quite fast when i read last time their evaluated ability to produce nuclear weapons was under one year. They got technology and materials they just didn't saw a need to became nuclear armed state. They thinked about doctrinal changes when Kim buzzed them with missiles not long ago. They seriously considered having some conventional preemptive strike ability. If UN will prove to be usless like usual i won't be supprised if Japan decide to incrase size of their army and boost their offensive abilites seriously.

Hullo~ I thot they didn't have a nuke because their MacArthur-drafted constitution prevented them from having anything other than a defensive military.
And from what I know of tensions in Asia, I could visually see SK and China having hissy fits if Japan start to rearm itself or even mention nuclear and bomb in the same sentence.

[AOCBravo2004]

Hullo~ I thot they didn't have a nuke because their MacArthur-drafted constitution prevented them from having anything other than a defensive military.
And from what I know of tensions in Asia, I could visually see SK and China having hissy fits if Japan start to rearm itself or even mention nuclear and bomb in the same sentence.

Japan has plenty of nuclear reactors, considering how advanced Japan is it wouldn't take them long to develop a nuclear weapon. With the threat of NK there could be a push to change their constitution, though one could make the argument that hitting NK nuke sites could be preemptive defensive measure.

So anyone here think that what is going on in NK could lead to Japan acquiring the F-22A sooner???

[Asheren]

That was exact argument that with NK armed in missiles that might strike Japan it might be necessary to launch premtive strike aginst NK in future. Soo Japan to defend itself shoud consider ackquiring/developing conventional weapons capable of delivering such strike.

[BearInBunnySuit]

Japan has plenty of nuclear reactors, considering how advanced Japan is it wouldn't take them long to develop a nuclear weapon. With the threat of NK there could be a push to change their constitution, though one could make the argument that hitting NK nuke sites could be preemptive defensive measure.

So anyone here think that what is going on in NK could lead to Japan acquiring the F-22A sooner???

Come to think of it, if Japan does show signs that it will rearm itself and use pre-emptive strike on NK as its excuse, perhaps it might pressure SK and China to step up to the plate and diffuse the NK situation in a more aggressive manner.

[loganinkosovo]

Send Jimmy "The Peanut Pecker" "I pound nails for the Useless" Carter back other there and Ol' Kim will be testing neutron bombs by Christmas!

[Asheren]

Come to think of it, if Japan does show signs that it will rearm itself and use pre-emptive strike on NK as its excuse, perhaps it might pressure SK and China to step up to the plate and diffuse the NK situation in a more aggressive manner.

Well propably but as we all know Japanese are quite pragmatic and UN quite useless and SK/China were unable to stop NK form obtaining nukes propably sitll to big to be delivered by ICMB(it is estimated that NK will need few years to shrink them to proper size) and ICMB tech that would let them hit Japan
Also Japanese are only nation that had "oportunity" to witness evect of nuclear bomb on their own nation. I am prety certain that they will do anything necessary to prevent such event from occuring again.
I see they got three ways to go cos Kim just showed that he has forth way aka diplomacy and sanctions in his (!).
1.Developing first strike abitliy.(lesser evil)
2.Developing and mounting ABM systems to protect their country. (imagine chinese reaction)
3.Developing own Nukes and delivery systems. (again chinese reaction)

[annihilation]

Well propably but as we all know Japanese are quite pragmatic and UN quite useless and SK/China were unable to stop NK form obtaining nukes propably sitll to big to be delivered by ICMB(it is estimated that NK will need few years to shrink them to proper size) and ICMB tech that would let them hit Japan
Also Japanese are only nation that had "oportunity" to witness evect of nuclear bomb on their own nation. I am prety certain that they will do anything necessary to prevent such event from occuring again.
I see they got three ways to go cos Kim just showed that he has forth way aka diplomacy and sanctions in his (!).
1.Developing first strike abitliy.(lesser evil)
2.Developing and mounting ABM systems to protect their country. (imagine chinese reaction)
3.Developing own Nukes and delivery systems. (again chinese reaction)

The Japanese are helping the Americans develop and ABM system. So its only a matter of time that they will be under the shield.
I do see Japan developing (with US help, like they really need that but I imagine we would help) nukes secretly (as most of the public would be upset) and the delivery system that goes with it. Hell they probably could buy a US made ohio class sub. I bet congress would approve of that.

I don't think they would develop a first strike ability. The other objects have a defense posture while the first strike would be too offensive for the public to handle just yet.

[budgie]

I believe that strict and properly enforced sanctions will force Kim to back down on his weapons programs. If he doesn`t then these sanctions will lead to the collapse of his regime from within. Lashing out will only hasten his demise so I see no need to fear a nuclear attack.

Kim is a survivor, not a madman. Just like Saddam was - did he go on the offensive when the UN forced inspection teams back in? Nope, he hunkered down, coperated and hoped it would be enough to save his skin. Perhaps even more wisely he cooperated through most of the nineties and allowed his programs to be dismantled. The same can be forced on Kim

To do this to North Korea we need direct and bilateral talks. Only in a tete-a-tete will the US be in a position to say `Give up the nukes or we`ll starve you out`.

I know the bushies are fond of throwing a childish hissy fit: `We tried to do this multilaterally and look what happened! So now the world wants us to go it alone and talk to Kim directly. You can`t have it both ways, bohoohoo!` But that misses the point. Deliberately I am sure. Direct talks would be biltareal, not unilateral: it is most certainly not `going it alone`, and can involve plenty of stick as well as carrots.

That`s not to say the 6 party talks are dead: all the involved parties need to be kept up to speed. But ultimately the north demanded bilateral talks and these demands were ignored so and they`ve gone ahead and done this on Bush`s watch. Now the administration must do everything in it`s power to reduce the nuclear tensions on the peninsula. This will involve multilateral taks, bilateral talks, hard and heavy sanctions and the threat of force as a last resort.

Our side holds all the cards: North Korea has nothing to offer except acquiescence. They cannot retaliate without being wiped out, so why are we so afraid of engaging a small player like Kim Jong Il?

[budgie]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1070000/images/_1073318_albright300ap.jpg

http://transcripts.cnn.com/2000/ASIANOW/east/10/23/albright.northkorea.ap/story.albright.kim.aptn.jpg

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/e/e6/300px-Great_Leader_Comrade_Kim_Jong_Il_(122).jpg

One of the many steller moments of the Clinton administration and just what exactly did it do?

Why the hell would we want to engage in one on one dialogue with a fruckin madman????

It stopped Kim testing Nuclear weapons on Clinton`s watch.

[Satellite Weapon]

Well in my point of view they did not fail cause if a country decides to build a bomb and are willing to go all the way then anything short of an invasion will not deter them.

South Korea - Satellite images indicate North Korea appears to be getting ready for a second nuclear test, officials said Tuesday, as the defiant communist regime held huge rallies and proclaimed that U.N. sanctions amount to a declaration of war.
http://www.theworldlink.com/articles/2006/10/18/news/news09101806.txt
China, the North's longtime ally, warned Pyongyang not to aggravate tensions. The U.N. has condemned the Oct. 9 atomic blast, and U.S. nuclear envoy Christopher Hill told reporters in Seoul on Tuesday that another nuclear explosion would be “a very belligerent answer” to the world.

North Korea Is Now `Completely Isolated,' Rice Says
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aI.vuDq7MAqI&refer=home

A Chinese envoy met North Korean leader Kim Jong Il and delivered a personal message from China's president on Thursday in the highest-level Chinese visit to its isolated ally since the North's nuclear test last week. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said he had no details of the message conveyed by State Councilor Tang Jiaxuan in Pyongyang. He said Tang and Kim had 'in-depth discussions' about the nuclear dispute, but gave no details of the conversation.
Tang, traveling as an envoy for President Hu Jintao, visited the North amid reports of a possible second test by the North and an Asian tour by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to push for support for U.N. sanctions
http://www.losangeleschronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=15081

Rice to press SKorea on NKorea sanctions
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4271612.html

The USA has not intention to launch a military attack against North Korea and bets on the negotiations to solve the existent crisis, this has been the focus of American Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice's speech, to the Japanese press.
http://www.avionews.com/index.php?corpo=see_news_home.php&news_id=67022&pagina_chiamante=index.php

[sferrin]

It stopped Kim testing Nuclear weapons on Clinton`s watch.

More likely he wasn't ready to test one anyway regardless of what Clinton did or didn't say.

[Satellite Weapon]

North Korea arms trade seen as threat
http://www.belleville.com/mld/belleville/news/breaking_news/15745649.htm

Russian PM to Visit Seoul Amid Pressure on N. Korea
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=adIJFm0JWQ4w&refer=latin_america

[budgie]

More likely he wasn't ready to test one anyway regardless of what Clinton did or didn't say.

Likely? Well, he definitely managed to reach readiness on Bush's watch didn't he?

[SBL]

Likely? Well, he definitely managed to reach readiness on Bush's watch didn't he?


He (Kim) did. But it doesn't change the basic situation.

[phoilme]

Well... Bush really failed with N.K... He should have done everything he could to prevent them from getting the bomb...

I hope that the same wont be repeated with Iran

What the hell are you talking about? Define exactly how Bush "really failed." He didn't have the patented Bi-lateral talks? He should have dropped a bomb? Sanctions on an already starving country? Have the UN take care of it? Pull your head out of your arse and stop repeating the lefty gripping, it's shallow, hollow, incorrect and weak for the most part. He should have gone the Clinton route and gave NK a new washer and dryer combo and a reactor to power them.
Thank You

[budgie]

He (Kim) did. But it doesn't change the basic situation.


What basic situation is that? That it's all Bill Clinton's fault? This is the common whing from neocon circles whenever things don't go their way. 9/11? Clinton's fault. Immigration? Clinton. Hell,they even tried to make up a Clinton failure - the 'failure' to stop Saddam acquiring WMD - as a pretext to invade Iraq.

Yet in reality, the basic situation is- as Kerry said - a failure on the part of the present administration to stop this. Clinton is not the president now. This is Bush's watch and if his bunch thought Clinton's policy on NK was such a massive failure that it might lead to this, he's had SIX YEARS to clean it up. During this time, he'd simply sat by and done nothing sensible or substantial.

the basic situatioin is that this is Bush's failure.

[SBL]

What basic situation is that? That it's all Bill Clinton's fault? This is the common whing from neocon circles whenever things don't go their way. 9/11? Clinton's fault. Immigration? Clinton. Hell,they even tried to make up a Clinton failure - the 'failure' to stop Saddam acquiring WMD - as a pretext to invade Iraq.

Yet in reality, the basic situation is- as Kerry said - a failure on the part of the present administration to stop this. Clinton is not the president now. This is Bush's watch and if his bunch thought Clinton's policy on NK was such a massive failure that it might lead to this, he's had SIX YEARS to clean it up. During this time, he'd simply sat by and done nothing sensible or substantial.

the basic situatioin is that this is Bush's failure.

The basic situation in the region, genius. As I've said many many times before, this latest test is just another political chess-move in Kim's struggle to break-out his suffocating regime on his own terms. He's contained and being constricted and is making threats in order to scare-up some options. Heightened tensions aside, war is no closer now than it was 6 months or 8 years ago. Why? Because there are no forseeable benefits for any of the parties involved- little in the way of positive outcomes.

[Satellite Weapon]

West wants Iran technology sales banned
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/15831724.htm
The U.S. and its allies want the U.N. Security Council to ban the sale of missile and atomic technology to Iran and end most U.N. help for its nuclear programs - moves diplomats said Tuesday are narrowly focused in hopes of winning Russian and Chinese backing for sanctions. The diplomats, who spoke with The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because the draft resolution was not yet public, said the proposal also would commit U.N. member nations to denying entry to Iranian officials involved in developing missiles or nuclear systems.
A Security Council resolution passed last week imposed similar sanctions on the sale or transfer of technology that could contribute to North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs after that nation's test explosion of a nuclear bomb.

[Satellite Weapon]

Kerry's Bush bomb
http://www.youtube.com/v/9iOAX92NVT8

President Bush headlines ABC’s “This Week,” discussing Iraq, North Korea and the Nov. 7 elections.
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/nation/15817601.htm

Seoul Detects Traces of N.Korean Nuke Test (Already confirmed by US)
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200610/200610260019.html
South Korean officials have detected radioactive gas near the Demilitarized Zone in Gangwon Province for the first time since the North Korean nuclear test on Oct. 9. Experts say the Xenon detected is harmless to humans since the radioactivity has abated.

[9mmRifle]

France is not among the six. finally, some good news !

[11 Bravo]

Ah yes, election year politics. Be careful not to step in it.

Kerry should certainly recognize failure when he sees it.

I second the worthlessness of that hypocrite Kerry...he's all about moral failure and foriegn big money. He understands the common man my foot.More like he understands BOTOX treatments for his vanity and how to get on a plane to visit his mansions/properties outside the USA.

[Satellite Weapon]

South Korea and Japan pledged Sunday to coordinate closely with the United States over the resumption of long-delayed negotiations on North Korea's nuclear program, officials said. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4311821.html South Korea's Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon, who will be the next U.N. secretary-general, said the three countries had worked closely together in the past, and would continue to do so at renewed six-nation disarmament talks expected later this year, according to a Japanese Foreign Ministry official. The official, who briefed reporters after Ban met with his counterpart in Tokyo, spoke on condition of anonymity, citing protocol.