Utopia Talk / Politics / North Korea Launches Artillery barrage 2

earthpig GTFO HOer	Tue Nov 23 16:10:56 were we left off - some are making the case that s. korea intentionally provoked this response by firing arty in what n. korea considers it's territory. war-hawks are calling for war. i asked about the (lack?) of counter-battery radars on the s. korean side.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Nov 23 16:12:18 SK said they fired 80 rounds in counterbattery fire. I don't know if it was radar guided or not. You'd think it would be. Also DOS JB forever please.
jergul Member	Tue Nov 23 16:25:39 EP Sort of redundant under the circumstances. Both NK and SK were firing from known positions. A safe assumption at least.
john stark Member	Tue Nov 23 17:12:51 Seb was saying that the nll boundry isn't justifiable since its so close to NK. He can elaborate on this as I don't want to put words in his mouth. My reply to that is it would be political suicide for any SK leader to abandon the nll without concessions from NK as it would allow NK forces closer to SK population centers. Sometime applying right/wrong arguments to international politics just won't work.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Tue Nov 23 17:15:24 "it would allow NK forces closer to SK population centers." is that really even a concern, with millions of S. Koreans in N. Korean chemical artillery range?
Aeros Member	Tue Nov 23 17:42:10 The NLL exists because at the end of the Korean war, US and South Korean soldiers had possession of INHABITED Islands. Neither country was about to surrender the residents of those Islands to the North Koreans, and thus they became part of South Korean. But I'm sure Seb can illuminate us on why he wants those Fishermen and their homes annexed by the North.
Camaban The Overseer	Tue Nov 23 17:43:13 Plus, those islands are below the 38th parallel. Pretty sure that's SK's side of that line.
john stark Member	Tue Nov 23 17:47:13 "is that really even a concern, with millions of S. Koreans in N. Korean chemical artillery range? " Maybe not from a military perspective, but definetly from a psycological and political standpoint.
PhunkyPhishStyle Member	Tue Nov 23 19:31:49 Well this was an interesting surprise when I just got home from work today (been gone since 5:30am). NK 'attacked' SK apparently? From what very little i've read so far I do have to wonder...why the fuck is SK running 'military drills' so close to the border?
Aeros Member	Tue Nov 23 19:34:25 To show they are not intimidated by the North Koreans, who incidentally, also drill close to the border.
Milton Bradley Member	Tue Nov 23 19:34:30 Why is south korea running military drills not in north koreas territory. They deserved to have civilian areas shelled.
jergul Member	Tue Nov 23 19:42:40 Seems pretty clear military installations were targeted. Prolly not a good idea to aim arty in the direction of NK, then fire it. And Aeros, we are starting to get the picture that SK is indeed very intimidated by the North.
Garyd Member	Tue Nov 23 20:31:21 Wouldn't you be if you only a few kilometers from your capital and had one of the largest armies in the world?
Aeros Member	Tue Nov 23 20:45:45 "Seems pretty clear military installations were targeted." Yeah, with 1950's era Soviet Rocket artillery. Let me tell you a little something about those. You point in the general area you want to hit, and you are guaranteed to hit something within a square kilometer of where you aimed.
mexicantornado Member	Tue Nov 23 22:54:38 jergul why do you keep spreading the bogus claim that "military installations" were targeted? There is video of shells hitting the village. civilians were hurt. houses in the village were blown a part. Shut the fuck up already.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Nov 23 23:02:15 primitive soviet weaponry actually is more accurate than anything in the western arsenal. -jergul
freaky boy Member	Tue Nov 23 23:11:43 oh will someone just blow something up already. we've been waiting for this for 40 years.
mexicantornado Member	Wed Nov 24 00:05:21 a sunk navy vessel didn't quench your thirst for blood?
Nimatzo Member	Wed Nov 24 00:51:15 I find it highly interesting that Seb talks about interventionism in one thread and then defends North Koreas territorial rights in another thread. NORTH KOREA, you know the closest thing we have to Mordor.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Nov 24 01:08:03 "a sunk navy vessel didn't quench your thirst for blood? " We need more than a patrol ship and this little artillery duel for that. ------------ Seb follows the jergul path of pretty much taking the opposite view of whatever the US does, just not as extreme.
Nimatzo Member	Wed Nov 24 01:10:17 Apparently everything, but interventionism.
jergul Member	Wed Nov 24 02:41:13 Sammy What exactly is the opposite view of doing nothing? Did not look like MIRVs to me. MT Pretty clear military was being targeted.
MrPresident07 Member	Wed Nov 24 04:21:57 "Seb follows the jergul path of pretty much taking the opposite view of whatever the US does, just not as extreme." Didn't used to be that way.
jergul Member	Wed Nov 24 04:42:14 Not that the US is doing anything of course.
Seb Member	Wed Nov 24 06:52:55 Aeros: Aeros, do you think the village is floating or something? The Island is not sea. The maritime border should then go at the median line where there is less than 12 miles of water between coastline. All this covered in various treaties, no need to be a tit about it. Also, man up and indicate you have taken on board nuclear points so that next time you make it, I can hit you over the head harder (metaphorically speaking) for not having taken it on board for a third time.
jergul Member	Wed Nov 24 07:00:12 Saint Pierre and Michelant (sp?) use a weighted median with boundary 1/3 from France and 2/3ds from Canada. So there are variations on the theme.
Seb Member	Wed Nov 24 07:00:23 John Stark: "My reply to that is it would be political suicide for any SK leader to abandon the nll without concessions from NK as it would allow NK forces closer to SK population centers. " Options: 1. Conduct an agreement to demilitarise. 2. Avoid hostile firing. Recent hostilities have tended to arise from South Korea using live ammunition and deadly force at North Korean military in the disputed region. "we have to kill you for political reasons" doesn't win much sympathy. Nimatzo: You notice though, that when our troops die as a consequence of the wars of intervention, I don't go weeping to the international community citing the deaths as examples of acts of aggression by the person we are intervening against. F.ex I think the no fly zone was a good idea. I do think the bombing of obsolete AAA sites that offered no threat to our jets during operation Desert Fox was pretty much wrong. Equally, I note that you are generally unsupportive of Israel's use of casualties incurred defending their settlements as justification for further aggression. Does that make you a hypocrite? If I were advancing that, I feel I probably have a stronger case there than you do with this point.
Seb Member	Wed Nov 24 07:00:56 Sam: US wasn't even involved here, so take the poor little super power thing elsewhere.
Seb Member	Wed Nov 24 07:01:47 jergul: Negotiated in that case, no?
jergul Member	Wed Nov 24 07:10:36 Actually I think the french stuff got the 4 mile limit and kept that instead of the median when sea territory rules changed later.
Aeros Member	Wed Nov 24 07:24:24 They've found the bodies of two civilians. Apparently the village has also been partially destroyed by Jergul's pin point accuracy artillery.
LazyCommunist Member	Wed Nov 24 07:39:40 The TRUTH about the south korean aggression: http://www...1011/news23/20101123-19ee.html KPA Supreme Command Issues Communique Pyongyang, November 23 (KCNA) -- The Supreme Command of the Korean People's Army Tuesday released the following communique: The south Korean puppet group perpetrated such reckless military provocation as firing dozens of shells inside the territorial waters of the DPRK side around Yonphyong Islet in the West Sea of Korea from 13:00 on Nov. 23 despite the repeated warnings of the DPRK while staging the war maneuvers for a war of aggression on it codenamed Hoguk, escalating the tension on the Korean Peninsula. The above-said military provocation is part of its sinister attempt to defend the brigandish "northern limit line," while frequently infiltrating its naval warships into the territorial waters of the DPRK side under the pretext of "intercepting fishing boats." The revolutionary armed forces of the DPRK standing guard over the inviolable territorial waters of the country took such decisive military step as reacting to the military provocation of the puppet group with a prompt powerful physical strike. It is a traditional mode of counter-action of the army of the DPRK to counter the firing of the provocateurs with merciless strikes. Should the south Korean puppet group dare intrude into the territorial waters of the DPRK even 0.001 mm, the revolutionary armed forces of the DPRK will unhesitatingly continue taking merciless military counter-actions against it. It should bear in mind the solemn warning of the revolutionary armed forces of the DPRK that they do not make an empty talk. There is in the West Sea of Korea only the maritime military demarcation line set by the DPRK.
jergul Member	Wed Nov 24 08:45:04 Aeros What pin point accuracy? Not sure that you have ever been to a small town military garrison, but there are civilians on military bases. Quite a number of them in fact. Not saying they were killed on military ground, but there is a decent chance they were.
john stark Member	Wed Nov 24 08:53:48 "1. Conduct an agreement to demilitarise. 2. Avoid hostile firing. Recent hostilities have tended to arise from South Korea using live ammunition and deadly force at North Korean military in the disputed region. " Lol, you can't be serious. The choice is either negotiate a next to impossible agreement with a government that nobody even knows who is really running or give them what they want, a demilitarization South of the nll? At any rate NK persists in the same provocations and I do have to wonder if SK were to bombard a northern village for doing so if you would be so quick to blame the North for provoking it.
john stark Member	Wed Nov 24 09:10:33 "Yeah, with 1950's era Soviet Rocket artillery. Let me tell you a little something about those. You point in the general area you want to hit, and you are guaranteed to hit something within a square kilometer of where you aimed. " Actually the explosions in the video looked like errant howitzer rounds, probably no bigger than a soviet 122mm round. Rockets would have had multiple impacts in quick succession. Like I said, it is most likely that the north had no way of spotting the rounds. Although I admit that the possibility of LOS existed I would venture to guess they just fired somewhat randomly in the general direction of the military installations. The point was to cause mayhem not necessarily surgically strike a target like jergul is suggesting.
john stark Member	Wed Nov 24 09:14:46 Seb: Whats the difference between a no fly zone and a no go zone below a certain point? Both actions are politically motivated and infringe upon the sovereignty of another nation. I can't see how one would be justifiable and not the other. Also, note that SK is not "crying" over the lost soldiers as much as the fact that a village was destroyed and civilians displaced from their homes. In fact soldiers get shot and shot at on the DMZ all the time, we just never hear about it.
jergul Member	Wed Nov 24 09:45:26 Stark Am not suggesting a surgical strike beyond the fact that 122 (which I also reckon it is) has a error probable of 100 m. Compared to the 200 m for the 150 for example :). I think the SK government is crying about being humilated most of all.
Nimatzo Member	Wed Nov 24 10:07:24 >>You notice though, that when our troops die as a consequence of the wars of intervention, I don't go weeping to the international community citing the deaths as examples of acts of aggression by the person we are intervening against.<< Yes I do notice, but then again I never accused you of being stupid, anyone who does the above is stupid and possibly evil scum. I never accused you of either. I insinuated you were naive, idealistic and overestimating the abilities of the interventionist countries to amongst other things do the right thing. >>Equally, I note that you are generally unsupportive of Israel's use of casualties incurred defending their settlements as justification for further aggression.<< Then again, what Israel is doing is not intervention, it is imperialism and that is evil. >>Does that make you a hypocrite? If I were advancing that<< I think the fact that you went on in two full threads about how interventionism is not only important but MANDATORY for "global security" and other ambiguous terms and now speak so passionately about maritime borders and North Koreas rights and claims is the epitome of hypocrisy. >>I feel I probably have a stronger case there than you do with this point.<< Because even in those threads I told you, that I think intervening is wrong, but defending oneself and friends is a right we all have. You on the other hand seem to pick what intervention is and where we intervene haphazardly. Needless to say I am dumbfounded by the fact that you are arguing FOR the North Korean case. You remember I said interventionism was very inconsistent? Well you are the embodiment of that right now.
Nimatzo Member	Wed Nov 24 10:16:47 Take this for example, you seem highly concerned by Iranian nuclear facilities that, to this day have yet to produce or even be close to producing a nuclear weapon, in fact Iran continously deny having a goal to produce weapons. Iran where major reform is not far fetched at all, people are not that isolated, they have access to the internet and worldly news. On the other hand you seem almost blasé over ACTUAL North Korean nuclear weapons and even defend their maritime border rights. North Korea, you know Mordor of real earth, the place that makes Orwells 1984 look like Winnie the Pooh.
Nimatzo Member	Wed Nov 24 10:20:26 >>Does that make you a hypocrite?<< But please, lay out the case for my hypocrisy, I am dying to hear it.
murder Member	Wed Nov 24 11:18:11 There was no military response to the N.Korean sinking of the S.Korean ship ... and so N.Korea escalated and targeted S.Korean civilians. If S.Korea doesn't respond, N.Korea will be further emboldened and escalate again. N.Korea need to be made to feel pain on a large scale or they will continue their belligerence.
Aeros Member	Wed Nov 24 11:19:00 Jergul is so delusional. http://onl...579128.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Korean Island Residents Describe Terror INCHEON, South Koreaâ??When North Korean artillery shells started slamming into Kwan Young-hee's small island village Tuesday afternoon, she grabbed her cellphone and ran for her life. The villagers, who arrived in the port city of Incheon Wednesday afternoon, described scenes of devastation. Shells started fires that spread quickly, incinerating houses, they said. "Nothing like this has ever happened before. It was such a peaceful place," said Ms. Kwan, 47 years old. "Now I don't want to go back." South Korean television aired images of the shattered village, showing the toll the barrage took on civilian buildings, as well as on the island's military base. Cha Sang-ik says he and his brother moved to Yeonpyeong during the Korean War nearly six decades ago in an effort to escape the carnage sweeping the Korean peninsula. He says he never expected the tension between the two Koreas would erupt with such violence in his small village, on an island of some 1,200 residents. Mr. Cha, 75, said that he and his wife were in their back yard making kimchi, a pickled cabbage dish that is a staple of the Korean diet, when the shells started to fall. "One of the neighbor's houses was hit. Then my house caught fire," he says. Mr. Cha said he and his wife escaped with nothing more than the clothes on their backs. Roh Young-ok, 74, said she was on the beach harvesting oysters when she was shaken by a series of explosions. "There was fire everywhere," she said. "It burned away all the houses. Only concrete columns are still standing." Villagers said they spent a cold night in concrete defense bunkers. Those who emerged after darkness fell said they saw fires raging out of control. The military handed out some cookies and soda. Otherwise, many said, they had nothing to eat until they arrived in Incheon. Despite living in close proximity to the North, where hostility toward the South has waxed and waned since a 1953 armistice ended the war, villagers said the island was a peaceful place. "I didn't need to give much thought to North Korea before," said Ms. Kwan. "We work in the fields. We didn't think much about politics." On Wednesday afternoon, 11-year-old Park Sa-bin stood sobbing in the bathhouse that is being used as temporary accommodation for some villagers from Yeonpyeong. He had gotten separated from his mother. The boy said teachers herded children into civil-defense shelters when the firing started. He said he spent hours huddled in the dark fearing for the safety of his father, a South Korean marine sergeant stationed on the island. "We didn't do anything to them, but they attacked us," said the boy, who was later reunited with his mother. His father remains on duty on Yeonpyeong. "When I grow up, I want to be a soldier, like my dad," he said.
Seb Member	Wed Nov 24 11:22:09 John Stark: "Lol, you can't be serious." Did, or did not, in 2009, the South Koreans destroy a North Korean ship in the disputed waters? The position of the ship at the time was closer to the North Korean coastline than the Souths I believe. The North admits relatively few casualties, but the ship was seen to be burning significantly and was subsequently written off. I call that pretty fucking hostile. This was before the Cheonen incident. "I do have to wonder if SK were to bombard a northern village" Firstly, I resent the insinuation that I am partisan. If that is the best argument you've got "Disagreeing with South Korea is supporting the Commies!", well, that's a bit weak. Lets be clear, I do think that the North Korean response was slightly disproportionate. On the other hand, one should not site artillery positions in viliages. I do not think it is the unprovoked attack that some are claiming. Try analysing the situation from a factual level, rather than dragging in whether or nor you think the wider regime is a just one or not. Country A and Country B fight a civil war. At ceasefire, Country A and Country B have a disputed martime border that sees Country A claiming waters that, based on normal application and arbitration, would go to Country B. Country B also claims those waters. Country B while patroling the disputed waters, is attacked by Country A. A ship is destroyed, sailors killed. Later, Country B sinks one of Country As ships. Country A and Country B regularly exchange live fire. Country A starts firing into the waters they know are claimed by Country B. Country B responds by firing back at Country A's artillery position. Country A's artillery position is sited in the middle of a village. Civilians are killed. 1. Objectively, which side has the stronger claim, in law to the waters? Country B. 2. Which country escalated the use of force first? Country A, by destroying Country B's ship. 3. Which country in this particular incident, began firing? Country A. 4. Which side escalated the firing in this particular incident to targeting specific positions? Country B. 5. Which country has, in this instance, sited it's miltiary facilities in the midst of civillians (in a manner which would be labelled "using human shields")? Country A. Country A engaged in provocation. Country B is entitled in law to respond to attacks on it's territory, even if the attacks are relatively harmless. Country B's repsonse might be viewed as an escalation in the present circumstances, possibly disproportionate. However in the wider context, Country A decided to turn a border dispute into one where direct use of force was employed against the other side. Given Country A's decision to launch this provocation from an artillery position surrounded by civillians, Country B's escalation killing civies is just collatoral dammage that directly arises from the provocation. Now, if they had responded by firing on a different artillery position that had not initiated the exchange, or on a random village that would be a different case. But that, despite the strenuous attempts to claim otherwise, is not what happened. Yes, civies were killed. But civies are likely to get killed when military forces start firing from amoung them.
Aeros Member	Wed Nov 24 11:35:21 "I do think that the North Korean response was slightly disproportionate." Dude, they lobbed 180 rockets onto an inhabited Island because they the South Koreans refused to cancel their training exercise. You call that "slightly" disproportionate? What in your view would be regular levels disproportionate response?
Seb Member	Wed Nov 24 11:40:25 Nim: " anyone who does the above is stupid and possibly evil scum" Well, this is rather what the South are doing. Having decided they want to annex territorial waters of North Korea (much as the Israelis have deicded they want to annex the territorial waters off of Gaza), and regularly turn away fishing vessels trying to fish those waters (as the Israelis do of Gazan fisherman), even in the midst of a scarcity of food (as the Israelis do in Gaza, which many right people recognise as a warcrime), they start the recent bout of hostilities off by slagging a ship, they fire from civilian positions into the area, and then they act like a response which is actually entirely within the scope of the rules of war (unlike, for example, a great deal of various Palestinians response to Israel and vice versa), is some hideous, unprovoked attack. What surprises me is that you would think I would treat South Korea any differently, in this instance, from Israel. Also, what surprises me, is that you have demonstrated quite able to articulate the idea that the rights of the Palestinian people as a whole are not contingent on the moral palatability of Hamas, why you are unable to do so in the case of the Koreans... "I insinuated you were naive, idealistic and overestimating the abilities of the interventionist countries to amongst other things do the right thing." Yes, but you don't believe anyone can do the right thing, which ultimately means we must all take the role of Switzerland in these matters, and not resist evil by force until it directly threatens us. Unless of course, we are unable to do so, in which case we can start to dictate to those third parties with the power to do so that actually, we do share a lot of ideals after all so they should support us. Either, way, this is somewhat off topic. "Then again, what Israel is doing is not intervention" And neither is what North Korea is doing an intervention. "and now speak so passionately about maritime borders and North Koreas rights and claims is the epitome of hypocrisy." How so? If I was going to intervene against North Korea, I would still end up giving the national waters to the new regime in North Korea and not to the South. This may mean a military conflict with the South. As to why I would not intervene in the case of North Korea, that's a separate discussion and worth having if you are interested, but not the issue here. This is a border clash between two countries, one of which is laying claim and occupying the waters of the other, and then engaging in provocative uses of force from positions that are sited amoung civilians. Their case to whine after the fact that there was collateral dammage seems abnormally thin. So far, the best argument advanced is that "South Korea has to military enforce the NLL because it would look weak to it's voters, and besides, the North Korean government are nasty people that opress their own population, which means we can randomly annex parts of the country". Translate that over to the Israel-Palestine issue on settlers and see how far you endorse the principle... I certainly don't, I doubt you do either. "but defending oneself and friends" To defend a friend is intervention... what you are attempting to do is tell those with the capability to intervene who their friends are. Apparantly, as a Brit, you are telling me I have the duty to contribute to defending you, if you are ever threatened, but am absolutely prohibited from defending an African. "You on the other hand seem to pick what intervention is and where we intervene haphazardly." I don't think you've ever asked me. Yes, each situation needs to be considered independently, but there is a framework within which these decisions are to be made. I think that is a far more sensible approach than the entirely arbitrary one you are imposing of "if they are white and European, defend them, otherwise, HOW CAN WE KNOW THEY DON'T WANT TO BE TORTURED/RAPED/KILLED? IT COULD BE THEIR CULTURE!!!", which is just isolationism (through co-opting other parties) dressed up a prudent relativism. In any case, I do believe some values are universal, as the UN system suggests. "Needless to say I am dumbfounded by the fact that you are arguing FOR the North Korean case." I'm dumfounded you could argue against it, given your position on Palestine, and given your previous assertion that we should leave people to defend themselves. If anything, you should be surprised I do not support an international force to impose a reasonable sea border on South Korea.
Dakyron Member	Wed Nov 24 11:44:07 "There was no military response to the N.Korean sinking of the S.Korean ship ... and so N.Korea escalated and targeted S.Korean civilians. If S.Korea doesn't respond, N.Korea will be further emboldened and escalate again. N.Korea need to be made to feel pain on a large scale or they will continue their belligerence. " Stuff like war and invasion should not be taken lightly. Is what happened cause to go to war and kill a hundred thousand people?
Seb Member	Wed Nov 24 11:44:49 Aeros: "Dude, they lobbed 180 rockets onto an inhabited Island" Then the South shouldn't have been firing into what the North Koreans quite reasonably claim is their territory. Come on, the US has bombed red cross marked warehouses because they have detected small arms fire eminating from it with no capability of harming the aircraft in question. THAT is an example of disproportionality. "because they the South Koreans refused to cancel their training exercise." You can call it a training exercise, but if Mexico decided to conduct a training exercise by shelling into your side of river, you'd call it an attack. "What in your view would be regular levels disproportionate response?" How about sinking a South Korean vessel just for being in the disputed waters without precident?
john stark Member	Wed Nov 24 11:57:32 "Did, or did not, in 2009, the South Koreans destroy a North Korean ship in the disputed waters?" Which was just another in a long long list of incidents going back and forth. Do you really want to get into the who started what first game? "Firstly, I resent the insinuation that I am partisan. If that is the best argument you've got "Disagreeing with South Korea is supporting the Commies!", well, that's a bit weak. Lets be clear, I do think that the North Korean response was slightly disproportionate. On the other hand, one should not site artillery positions in viliages. I do not think it is the unprovoked attack that some are claiming." Except you are being partisan. Overall, I would say the South has been extrmely level headed over the years. The North even went so far as to test nuclear weapons close to the DMZ 6 years after the South had all their tactical nukes removed. Yet you make wild claims such that suggesting the South ask for nukes to be moved to their territory is an act of war. Or that iniscriminately bombing an inhabited island because the South was training there is only a "mild" escalation. And this claim that the South should just withdraw further away from nll to appease the North is pretty naive. First unless there is a solid agreement with the North it will achieve nothing and it will allow a hostile nations navy that much closer to the mainland. You seem to forget the two sides are in state of war. As unfair as it seems, you can't apply normal ideals of right and wrong to the situation. Unless it works to the South's benefit to do so, moving the nll will stay where it is as its in their interest for it to remain. If the North wants the nll to be moved they should negotiate in good faith or take it by force.
murder Member	Wed Nov 24 11:58:11 "Stuff like war and invasion should not be taken lightly." I wouldn't dream of invading, nor are we capable of it at this time. Air and naval power can bring the pain though. "Is what happened cause to go to war and kill a hundred thousand people?" Is an act of war cause to go to war? Yes. Either that or just declare yourself N.Korea's bitch and cede as much territory and write them as many blank checks as they demand.
Seb Member	Wed Nov 24 12:08:17 Nim: "Take this for example, you seem highly concerned by Iranian nuclear facilities that, to this day have yet to produce or even be close to producing a nuclear weapon" I am. But I am very clear I support only a negotiated solution. I have never supported use of force, not will I do so. As to producing a nuclear weapon, I'm sorry, I disagree. Their nuclear infrasutructure makes absolutely no sense as it stands. Scaling up production of enriched uranium when you haven't even begun to master fuel fabrication makes no sense at all. There are civilian uses for enriched uranium for sure, but there is no sense in it whatsoever. Also, their history of lying to the IAEA and being caught doing so hardly inspires confidence. In a wider sense, the manner in which they are developing a civil nuclear infrastructure (if you really want to believe they are) and insisting they do so with minimal inspections, less than other countries like Brazil, Argentina and South Korea have acccepted after similar tussels with the IAEA, hardly points to a desire to normalise their situation with other world powers and undermined non-proliforation efforts globally. With regard to North Korea, they actually abided by the IAEA inspection regime. Sure, you had Khan saying they were building a Uranium programe, but Khan is full of shit. America threw a hissy fit, and what did they do? Build a programme in secret? No. They withdrew from the NPT, then they openly announced they were going to open Yongbyon and reprocess fuels. And they did. And they said they would make a bomb. And they did. And then they tested the bomb. And then finally the US decided it needed to engage, so we had the six party talks as a result. North Korea agreed to disable Yongbyon. And they did. They agreed to extreme verrification and disablement measures, and they implemented them. And then the Americans came back and demanded more disablement measures, which had no extra technical matters, but served to enhance the Bush admins position with photo-ops and humiliate the Koreans... but they did it anyway. And then with all of those concessions they made, the Americans still offered them relatively little back, the talks collapsed. So they made a series of announcements which suggested they would "boost their nuclear capabilities" etc. over the past year or so (go check out www.armscontrolwonk.com), which clearly refer to the work they were doing on the Yongbyon site... which it turns out was to set up a centrifuge plant in the last place to be inspected prior to the collapse of the six party talks at Yongbyon. This is not secret, indeed, it beggars belief that the inteligence community didn't know about it. Indeed, amateurs have been watching work at Yongbyon have been debating about it for some time. So what's the message being sent? 1. by building this and associated infrastructure on the site of the Yongbyon reactor, this is further evidence they have no interest in rebuilding their plutonium capability. It can be seen actually as a further emphasis they are not boosing their weapons capability, as HEU is worse than Pu for bombs. 2. It's not in secret, siting it there is a clear message: talks and we can go back to a harsh system of inspections (which Iran refuses to even contemplate: note the IAEA position is Iranian enrichment if with additional protocols) So, why is the Nork bomb less a priority. The Pu they have is finite, they are not producing more so far as we can tell. They, unlike the Iranians, have demonstrated a willingness to trade inspection for nuclear activities, which enchances security all around. Thus, my main beef when it comes to non-proliforation and North Korea is to either put up and talk, or shut up and walk away. My preferance is to put up and talk: bilateral security arrangements between the US and Norks in exchange for going back to the Clinton era system of IAEA supervision. In addition, NK is isolationist. It's involvement with Pakistan and Iran is entirely driven by it's relationship with the US. In proliforation terms, we could very easily set the stage for implementing China style economic policies through diplomacy (which is why I reject intervention by the way, at least until we actually try to implement a realistic diplomatic solution unhindered by ridiculous insistances that it would be too embarassing for us to talk to them properly without having six other countries sit in the room). Iran on the hand has involvement with various militas throughout the region, unlike North Korea has refused the inspection regimes similar to those willingly accepted by other enrichers, has a nuclear infrastructure that does not function in a civillian sense because of whole areas of missing infrastructure in the fuel cycle (and the refusal to contemplate adequate inspection regimes means that it probably never will), and who's claims for zero interst in nuclear weapons are called into question by it's missile and warheads developments. What is more, North Korea is already under the tightest possible sanction regime, whereas Iran is not. What have I advocated with regard to Iran? Diplomatic and possibly economic sanctions, lifting of those in exchange for IAEA additional protocols on enrichment process. Ideally also with a wider security framework for the entire region, along with a solution for Israel and Palestine. Problem. Fucking. Solved. If North Korea were not already under such sanctions, I'd argue for that too. But, what exactly maritime border rights have to do with nukes, I do not precisely know. Apparantly, if you have a problem with the IAEA you should also not have territorial waters?
Dakyron Member	Wed Nov 24 12:08:25 "I wouldn't dream of invading, nor are we capable of it at this time. Air and naval power can bring the pain though. " So you propose half measures likely to result in lots of dead civilians and not much else. Good to know. "Is an act of war cause to go to war? Yes. Either that or just declare yourself N.Korea's bitch and cede as much territory and write them as many blank checks as they demand. " I'm sure there is a middle ground here. The two sides traded artillery fire. That has stopped. I dont see cause to engage in war.
murder Member	Wed Nov 24 12:24:59 "So you propose half measures likely to result in lots of dead civilians and not much else. Good to know." Half measures? You sound like an army brat. "If territory isn't occupied, then nothing is achieved." "I'm sure there is a middle ground here." We could offer then the Sudetenland.
Seb Member	Wed Nov 24 12:27:04 john stark: "Which was just another in a long long list of incidents going back and forth." The first use of force in that manner after the Sunshine policy imploded. Arguably driven by the South Korean Government desire to show it was abandoning it's concilatory line to North Korea... "Except you are being partisan." How so? "Overall, I would say the South has been extrmely level headed over the years. The North even went so far as to test nuclear weapons close to the DMZ 6 years after the South had all their tactical nukes removed." Mhmm, but one must take into account of the fact that the nuclear deals are conducted with the US. The Clinton admin never built the agreed LWR's in exchange for them freezing their nuclear programme, the Bush admin pulled out of the deal to supply fuel over entirely bogus claims they were developing uranium technologies (based on solely the say so of Khan), made threats towards them (whole axis of evil shit)... plus all the stuff in the post above. Provocative, certainly. But again, after withdrawing from the NPT they had every legal right to get a bomb and test it. South Korea does not have legal right to the NLL, and enforcing it with deadly force in the manner is an escalation to normalising the use of that level of force that they took, not the North Koreans. "Yet you make wild claims such that suggesting the South ask for nukes to be moved to their territory is an act of war." I made no such claim. "Or that iniscriminately bombing an inhabited island" Indiscriminately bombing? They lack precision weapons (jergul is entiteled to his position, whatever it exactly is). They are not obligated to refrain from responding to the source of fire on them beyong their ability to do so. Did they endanger civilians more than was neccessary to complete their military relevant objective (stopping the shelling of wht they consider, and are correct to consider, their waters)? No. There is a move in international law to start asking whether the objective itself, even if legally acceptable, is of sufficient importance to justify casualties at all... hence the qualification. If we go by what is current statute, treaty and precedent, they are entirely justified. And this is FAR less than what UN mandated wester forces have done in terms of endangering civilians in pursuit of military objectives, let alone the shit the Coalition of the willing (lest you think I am partisan, I supported GWII) has pulled in Iraq at times. You can call it training all you like. But if training involves lobbing live rounds into someone elses territory, then that's not training any more, even if your only intention is to build skills. "And this claim that the South should just withdraw further away from nll to appease the North is pretty naive." Not withdraw, but should take measures to de-escalate and re-establish a norm of not killing each other over a line that will move in the Norths favour if peace is ever agreed on. Refraining from firing live rounds into the area and not moving beyond warning shots when ships come into confrontation seems entirely reasonable, don't you agree? "First unless there is a solid agreement with the North it will achieve nothing and it will allow a hostile nations navy that much closer to the mainland." Same can be said from the Norths position. But because they are nasty communists, they have no right to self defence? Correct? "You seem to forget the two sides are in state of war." Actually, you do, when you dismiss the South Koreans firing live rounds as mere training and the Norths response as wildly disproportionate. "As unfair as it seems, you can't apply normal ideals of right and wrong to the situation." Well, in that case, in war, firing to neutralise an artillery position firing on your territory is a legimiate military objective, and they are only obligated to avoid civil casualties under international law in so far as their actions are limited to achieve a legitimate military objective (in this case, destroy the battery). That seems to be the case here. So what's your problem exactly? You seem to want the Norks to agree they are terrible people and unilaterally surrender. "Unless it works to the South's benefit to do so, moving the nll will stay where it is as its in their interest for it to remain." Indeed, and it is in the interests of the Norks to contest it, and in that military contest the South are entitled to sink Norks, Norks are entitled to sink southerners, southerners are entitled to fire into disputed waters, Norks are entitled to return fire, and so long as no one breaks the geneva conventions or rome statues, which no one is doing in this incident, what is the problem exactly? You want the South to benefit from peacetime norms and conventions but benefit also from wartime necesities, and the North to be bound by peacetime obligations and accept wartime military losses... and you tell me I am partisan? "If the North wants the nll to be moved they should negotiate in good faith" Why do you think they keep going on and on about demanding face to face talks with the Americans? "or take it by force." So... what precisely was wrong, in your book, regarding the Cheonen and this barrage?
Dakyron Member	Wed Nov 24 12:30:49 "Half measures? You sound like an army brat. "If territory isn't occupied, then nothing is achieved." If we bomb away on NK, but dont topple the govt, then we simply kill a bunch of people, and face the same risks as before, except with NK working even more feverishly to get a viable nuclear weapon, if they dont have one already. If they do have one, then you risk Seoul being nuked in retliation, possibly sparking a nuclear war. "We could offer then the Sudetenland. " We are not offering them any land, you tard. I think shelling their artillery positions after they fired on us is a perfectly acceptable response.
murder Member	Wed Nov 24 12:43:45 "If we bomb away on NK, but dont topple the govt..." Again, an assumption born of a fixation with ground forces. Regimes routinely collapse without the assistance of an occupying army. "... then we simply kill a bunch of people, and face the same risks as before, except with NK working even more feverishly to get a viable nuclear weapon ..." If you wreck what there is of their economy, infrastructure and armed forces, they aren't going to do squat aside from being an Asian version of Somalia. Contrary to leftist propaganda, making you enemy poorer doesn't make them more dangerous. "If they do have one, then you risk Seoul being nuked in retliation, possibly sparking a nuclear war." Because if 1 nuke goes off, everyone will run off to set off their nukes too?
Seb Member	Wed Nov 24 12:47:30 murder: "Contrary to leftist propaganda, making you enemy poorer doesn't make them more dangerous." Well, certainly there seems to have been a marked increase of threat to the US from places like Somalia, Yemen and Afghanistan once their governments collapsed...
Dakyron Member	Wed Nov 24 13:18:46 "Because if 1 nuke goes off, everyone will run off to set off their nukes too? " Yes. You and idiots like you would be clamoring for a nuclear barrage all over NK, China, Iran, Pakistan, and who knows who else to prevent future bombs. "Again, an assumption born of a fixation with ground forces. Regimes routinely collapse without the assistance of an occupying army. " So the NK govt collapses(low probability, but Ill play along), then what? China seizes control? SK seizes control? What is the end game here? "If you wreck what there is of their economy, infrastructure and armed forces, they aren't going to do squat aside from being an Asian version of Somalia. Contrary to leftist propaganda, making you enemy poorer doesn't make them more dangerous. " Yep, nuclear weapons in the hands of an unstable military dictatorship sounds awesome. Lets do it!
Aeros Member	Wed Nov 24 14:19:55 South Korea will not permit China to seize control of North Korea a second time. If the Chinese tried, they are guaranteed a war with South Korea for the rights to own the land.
jergul Member	Wed Nov 24 16:35:07 My God Aeros, everything in the link you provided describes a garrison town existing to service the military station there. The emo quality of the article does land far short of "babies tossed out of incubators" the Kuwaiti Ambassador's daughter pretending to be a nurse when presenting a case for intervention to the US congress back in 92...but still, you would think people learned. 51-131 122 mm rounds targeted military installations on the island. No sob story article is going to change that. Re China and SK. SK hopes to have the ability to defend itself from NK without outside help by 2025. It has no goal of ever being able to defend itself from China on its own.
jergul Member	Wed Nov 24 16:48:16 Am going with 131 122mm shells fired btw. Consistent with 2-4 shells landing 700-800m away from designated targets.
Nimatzo Member	Wed Nov 24 17:37:52 >>Well, this is rather what the South are doing. Having decided they want to annex territorial waters of North Korea<< I am well aware of the situation, but the entire conflict can hardly be condensed to a fucking island, is that the main bottleneck to the "path to peace"? It is not even a road bump for fuck sake. My puzzlement with your position is that, given the ENTIRETY of the conflict, the situation in North Korea and for it's people the threat to South Korea that you still talk about annexation and North Korean territorial rights. What does North Korea have to do for YOU personally to advocate military intervention? Because you obviously supported military intervention in Bosnia because tens of thousands of dead people, but the willful starvation of North Koreas population, building nukes and threating everyone with them seem a lesser threat to your "global security". >>What surprises me is that you would think I would treat South Korea any differently, in this instance, from Israel.<< Yes an Island vs large swats of what would be the Palestinian state, the most fertile areas, water rights etc. etc. CLEARLY COMPARABLE... And Abbas is really just a carbon copy of Kim. Not only do you lack consistency here, but you have also a very warped priority and ranking. >>Yes, but you don't believe anyone can do the right thing, which ultimately means we must all take the role of Switzerland in these matters, and not resist evil by force until it directly threatens us.<< I believe in large groups (of nations) where the responsibility and power is spread we are fragmented enough to only take action when necessary. And if we are too fragmented to do anything, then so be it. I do not think we possess the proper knowledge and ability to intervene and create a good resume. >>And neither is what North Korea is doing an intervention.<< You are correct, it is called blackmail. The two conflict are not comparable, one was a civil war, the other started off a mass invasion of foreign immigrants. Obviously deep down somewhere the hope is to unite the two koreas some day. Such a hope no longer exists for Israel/Palestine. >>that's a separate discussion and worth having if you are interested, but not the issue here.<< That IS the issue, I have no idea how you would not see that?!? My first posts was in mocking wonder over how you can talk so highly of intervening for the sake of "humanity" but defend Mordor for shitting on its own people and threaten the nations around it. >>Apparantly, as a Brit, you are telling me I have the duty to contribute to defending you, if you are ever threatened, but am absolutely prohibited from defending an African.<< Prohibited because he is an African? Certainly not, prohibited because said country is full of savages with a savage culture and savage leaders? Yes, certainly. I think anyone is welcome to join the greater umbrella of protection once they get their shit straight. >>Their case to whine after the fact that there was collateral dammage seems abnormally thin.<< I really could not care about this one way or another, my even I go so far to describe the two Koreas as two evils, my question is, why do you take the side of the greater evil? This wrong that South Korea has supposedly done is a fart in space in the back drop the hell that North Korea is, that you are apparently against intervening in because for some reason millions of starving and dying Koreans in the greatest police state on earth is worth less than tens of thousands of dead Yugoslav. Why? >>"if they are white and European, defend them, otherwise, HOW CAN WE KNOW THEY DON'T WANT TO BE TORTURED/RAPED/KILLED? IT COULD BE THEIR CULTURE!!!"<< This is not what I have ever said, and considering that I am not white myself and came here as an immigrant to this country I have no idea where you get this from. I am not a fucking racist you twat. It has nothing to do with color and or geographical location, but everything to do with cultural values, codes of conduct and level of society. >>In any case, I do believe some values are universal, as the UN system suggests.<< Yea, just that, you know, I value actual action more than lip service. I am fairly certain you do too, at least you should. When the gravest violators of human rights are make up the UN panel for human rights, you know something might be fucked up. >>I'm dumfounded you could argue against it, given your position on Palestine<< Because they are not the same thing, that's why. >>and given your previous assertion that we should leave people to defend themselves.<< This one is getting tiresome, but again, I never said we are not allowed to defend our friends and those who we share common values with. It is a natural order of things. And if more come to share those basic values, you actually share them and not write some shitty piece of paper, then they are MORE than welcome to join the rest of the civilized world, I am ALL for that and that is where I think we are heading, I just do not think military intervention will EVER get us there. On the contrary it will alienate people towards us when, as it often does, goes to shit and even worse make more people hostile towards "imperialist ambitions" of the west. >>Iran on the hand has involvement with various militas throughout the region<< Yea who cares if the continuously in no uncertain terms threaten to destroy South Korea and fire missile over Japan *shrugs*. And clearly Iranian >interventionism< is a bigger danger. >>It's not in secret<< Which is the most important thing, the irrational fear for unknown possible dangers where imaginations run wild vs the real danger, for example a North Korean nuke. >>which Iran refuses to even contemplate: note the IAEA position is Iranian enrichment if with additional protocols<< Because Iran has nothing to gain from such talks and feels it has fullfilled their obligation. They might be under the impression that it is all political black mail, I think that might be the case. Meanwhile North Koreas population is starving, they use their nukes and nuclear program which they developed openly for the purpose of blackmail. >>If North Korea were not already under such sanctions, I'd argue for that too.<< Yes and they FAILED, what now? You would think that such a fan of interventionism would support just that, military intervention, for regional stability and security. Apparently the plight of the starving North Koreans and the real threat to South Korea is not worthy of this, for some reason. But bombing Serbia was. You have to tell me someday, the method to this mental gymnastics.
Seb Member	Wed Nov 24 18:53:04 Nim: "I am well aware of the situation, but the entire conflict can hardly be condensed to a fucking island" We are not talking about the entire situation though. We are talking about a minor artillery duel. Similar shit happens between Israel and Gaza on a regular basis. Lets be realistic here, despite the lack of peace treaty, the countries are as much at war as India and Pakistan are. Yes, they both dispute each others territory, but if the south starts an artillery duel to enforce an unjust border line, then no ammount of injustice by the Norks to their own people can justify that. Not only is it "two wrongs", one of those wrongs is not even relevant! "is that the main bottleneck to the "path to peace"?" The main bottleneck to the path to peace is twofold: The Norks are, for the next few years at least, going to need the bogeyman to justify present succession plans. The other is the fact that they don't trust the Americans, and want a bilateral deal with them before they will conclude a peace with the south, and the Yanks won't talk to them for political reasons. Firstly, the domestic situation in North Korea has no bearing at all on the borders. It might justify intervention, but it can not justify annexation. Plus, the Souths actions actually exacerbate the poverty of the North, as they block fishing boats from using what should be Northern fishing grounds. "the threat to South Korea" The threat to South Korea is negligable, just as the threat to Israel from Hamas' bottle rockets is negligable. If the South actually needs defending, then yes, I'll support that. But I won't support them picking a fight in order to enforce a red line that is unjustiable in law, and does nothing except serve as a justification for stalling fishing rights. Nothing the North Korean government does to it's own people legitimises the Souths claim to the water, just as no ammount of terrorism directed at Israeli civies by terrorists nor corruption or oprresion by Hamas or Fateh to Palestine, can ever justify the Isreali settlement programme. It's really very simple. "North Korean territorial rights." If you think they have no territorial rights, then you should be joining Sam Adams camp for invading the North. "What does North Korea have to do for YOU personally to advocate military intervention?" 1. If they were to violate one of the Rome statutes, then there would be a case for intervention. However, the intervention would have to stand a reasonable chance of saving more lives than it would cost. That's a high threshold, and very unlike Bosnia. It is unclear that failure to manage an economy should be grounds for intervention (certainly, for crimes against humanity to come into play they would need to be targeting groups rather than just failing to feed the population due to general ineptnes). 2. If they were to pose an iminent threaten the territorial integrity of South Korea, then there would by necessity have to be a conflict. 3. In both cases, diplomatic options should have been exhausted. Given that the biggest roadblock to a more secure framework is the fact that the Americans refuse to even sit down and discuss mutual security guarantees with North Korea because "we don't talk to bad men". Given their happy compliance with the NPT regime for over ten years until Bush decided to rip it all up, I consider the Nuclear issue entirely related to the failure to seriously contemplate diplomacy. "but the willful starvation of North Koreas population" Well, yes, that brings us back to the south stopping Northern fishermen... Now, comparison with Israel/Palestine... yes the stakes are proportiontely bigger for Israel/Palestine, but the level of violence is lower in this case, and the principle remains the same. I am acting consistently, you are invoking some undefined threshold to change policy to justify your inconsistency in attitude. "You are correct, it is called blackmail." In this case, not at all. The South was first to use deadly force after the collapse of the Sunshine process, and the first to fire in this specific incident. Blackmail is one way of describing trading threats for policy changes... diplomacy might be the other description. What the North repeatedly state they want is a security guarantee from the American government, in a formal treaty. In short, a fucking actual peace treaty. Why is this so hard to stomach? "That IS the issue, I have no idea how you would not see that?!?" Because an intervention would be in the interests of the North korean people, and it is not in the interests of the North Korean people for territorial integrity to be compromised. What the two countries are shelling each other about and sinking each others boats about in that area is about where the border between North and South runs. The North happens to be right, and until such time as a democratic mandate from the population of the North for reunification, and the same from the south occurs, best treat them as the independent countries they have been for a generation now. "but defend Mordor for shitting on its own people" I haven't defended them for shitting on their own people in this incident. The South is by blocking fishing access. I certainly do not support what the North does to their own people, but that is a separate issue. Just as condemning Settlements in Palestine is not to endorse terrorism. "and threaten the nations around it." They are not threatening the nations around it in this incident: the South used deadly force first, and fired first. More later.
Aeros Member	Wed Nov 24 19:18:04 "and the Yanks won't talk to them for political reasons." We won't talk to them because the last time we did they lied to our face.
Seb Member	Wed Nov 24 20:52:16 Aeros: No they didn't actually. The only evidence the Bush admin had that North Korea had a secret uranium bomb programme is the word of Khan, who has lied repeatedly on all sorts of stuff. To this day the remains not one scrap of evidence they ever had a uranium programme. Their actions post ending of the fuel for safeguards deal demonstrate quite the contrary: they built their bomb using Pu from Yongbyon, and the enrichment facility they have just build is brand spanking new and tiny. They wouldn't have built it if they already had secret enrichment facilities. Khan lied. Bush admin decided to believe it to support their policy of breaking up the Clinton era policies just because they were done by Clinton.
Seb Member	Wed Nov 24 21:17:53 Nim: "Prohibited because he is an African? Certainly not, prohibited because said country is full of savages with a savage culture and savage leaders?" You mean, exactly why he might need protection in the first place? "Yes, certainly. I think anyone is welcome to join the greater umbrella of protection once they get their shit straight." 1. That seems to be more a question of the country providing the muscle rather. 2. Catch 22 much? "why do you take the side of the greater evil" I don't. Somehow you have read into my position that South Korea initiated an artillery exchange (and a more dangerous set of rules of engagement), and is culpable for this incident, that I endorse every aspect of North Korea. I don't know how to be more clear... the North Korean retaliatory barrage was at absolute worst, disproprtionat. Nothing else to be said about it. I consider Hamas much worse than Israel, yet strangely feel no compulsion to "side with Israel" on the issue of settlements. "Why?" If you show me a military operation that will allow us to topple the Kims and restore basic infrastructure before disease and weather take their toll, without generating more casualties civil or military than the continuation of present policies will cause, let alone what might be achieved by simply actually having Uncle Sam sit down face to face and hammer out an agreement along the lines of the Clinton accords, plus a final peace settlement with South Korea, the US and North Korea all agreeing to non-aggression pacts, then I will consider intervention. Until then, the reason for supporting intervention to deal with an unfolding and immediate violence between two ethnic groups versus a slow motion catastrophe generated by miss management combined with a totalitarian government is obvious.
Aeros Member	Wed Nov 24 22:12:05 "The only evidence the Bush admin had that North Korea had a secret uranium bomb programme is the word of Khan, who has lied repeatedly on all sorts of stuff." I was referring to the whole shit Carter negotiated and got his peace prize for back in 1993. Clinton had the Tanks lined up and ready to invade when he swooped in "to save the day". Kim promised Clinton via Carter that in exchange for food and fuel aid, he would scrap all nuclear development. Clinton accepted the deal, and the invasion of North Korea was suspended, which make no mistake, was about to happen. There was a Sergeant First Class in my unit who talked about that night. He said the entire Battalion was lined up in formation on the DMZ, fueled and armed. They got the news over the command net about Carter.
Seb Member	Wed Nov 24 23:00:36 Nim: "I am not a fucking racist you twat." When you lump all citizens of a country along with the worst elements of that country, then you might as well be. You realise it's about the generalisation, not the skin colour? "a and fire missile over Japan *shrugs*." That's the thing about ICBM's, they have to be fired over a range, that basically means you are flying them "over" someones country. Early on, it was pretty much decided that exo-atmospheric was not your countries airspace. The missiles don't enter Jap airspace. "And clearly Iranian >interventionism< is a bigger danger." Well, yes, when Iranian interventionism is to arm the kind of people that are generally classed in the group you earlier described as barbarians.... "Which is the most important thing, the irrational fear" It's not irrational. When you have a country that has on several occasions suggested it wants to annihilate another country, who funds proxies who engage in what are certainly war crimes if not more, and who refuses to abide by even the most basic ground rules that every other NPT country does, I'm sorry, but you have to be a bit delusional not to see the problem there. If Iran had a history more similar to North Korea when it came to nuclear negotiations (like, hmm, a track record of not lying and a willingness to adopt the same safeguared processes that every other non-nuclear weapon states and quite a few nuclear weapon states, all abide by), then perhaps people wouldn't have such concerns. But when you couple the demand for exceptionalism, the track record of lies, and the stated foreign policy together, that looks pretty bad. Meanwhile, the Norks bomb tests have been pretty much a failure and their fissile material supply is finite, they are not producing more, and have an offer on the table to negotiate a resumption of dismantling their capability... more the fool us for not taking them up on it. "Because Iran has nothing to gain from such talks" How about resumption of trade in nuclear technologies, the ability to export enriched uranium which they have no domestic use for? What they feel they have nothing to gain is because the only objective they have is to maintain a breakout capability, or worse. Why should a country like Iran that has been caught lying on major points on several occasions be granted more leeway than Brazil, Argentina or South Korea, or for that matter, countries that have never run afoul of the IAEA like Germany or Japan? North Korea is a contained threat and the obstacle for safeguards is a refusal to actually sit down and take them up on their offers. Iran is a country with a deeply suspicious set up from a technical point of view, a dodgy history of arming terrorists and a history of repeated lying to the IAEA. Iran is clearly a bigger problem. Not least because North Korea had the decency to walk out of the treaty through normal procedures in a transparent fashion. for unknown possible dangers where imaginations run wild vs the real danger, for example a North Korean nuke.
Seb Member	Wed Nov 24 23:09:08 Aeros: " was referring to the whole shit Carter negotiated and got his peace prize for back in 1993." So was I. They did suspend all nuclear activity. The IAEA had supervision of their nuclear material stockpiles, seals on their facilities and monitors on Yongbyon. The deal was in return for suspending all nuclear activity, the US and South Korea would build two light water reactors (proliforation proof), nuclear fuel, and interim, heavy fuel oil. The plants were never built, and shortly after Bush took over, citing crap about hidden uranium programmes (no evidence has ever been found to substantiate this beyond the ramblings of the worlds worse nuclear criminal), ceased the heavy fuel oil shipments as part of his wider upheaval of the korea policy, trying to do the opposite of whatever Clinton did. North Korea then exercised it's rights under the NPT to withdraw. It gave notice, waited the requisite period, expelled the IAEA inspectors, broke the seals on the plant, restarted the reactor, later extracted the fuel rods, extracted the plutonium, built a bomb, then tested it. At each stage, noisily announcing their intentions months in advance via press releases that people insist are impossible to understand, but are actually quite clear. They did not lie at all. The Clinton and Bush admin broke the agreement by failing to provide first light water reactors, and then the heavy fuel oil. So naturally they no longer felt the need to be bound by the agreement either.
NeverWoods Member	Sat Nov 27 07:53:47 can someone link me to part one of this topic? would be nice.
NeverWoods Member	Sat Nov 27 10:40:36 ttt
Sam Adams Member	Sat Nov 27 10:47:22 "Consistent with 2-4 shells landing 700-800m away from designated targets." but but I thought soviet tube artillery could hit an anthill every time, comrade!!!
john stark Member	Sat Nov 27 12:24:43 Good job seb, you've managed to make this about the U.S. Only took you about 150 posts too. Yes, the U.S. should make a bilateral deal with NK and completely undercut its alliance with SK. Good call. How fucking naive are you? Right now NK is still firing artillery in the area, maybe SK should bomb them flat for this new provocation. Oh, and about your comment on iran. They are not the bigger threat since that regime is on borrowed time and everyone knows it. The people are too well educated and too well informed for the iranian regime to stay in power forever.
Seb Member	Sat Nov 27 19:52:25 JS: I didn't "manage" to make this about the US... the US is still at war with North Korea, still maintains troops there, and has an on-off diplomatic process going on, so spare my the martyrdom. The reality is that the North makes this all about America, however much America would like to make it not about them. (This is why my second favourite option to bilateral talks is total disengagement and leave it to China to sort out). I think we can surely all agree that going back to the Clinton era situation of providing a steady stream of inspectors and heavy fuel oil would be preferable to the situation now, where the North is testing missiles and selling technology to fuel a bomb programme that it is woefully under-equipped to undertake. The possibility of conducting a detente right now is actually huge. A minor concession like agreeing to face to face talks could be spun by them as a demonstration of the "strength" of the new leader in bringing the "imperialists" to the table, and a detente would create the space for a Chinese style opening of the economy (which the Chinese would love, and push for), and the economic improvements would allow the regime to find a new source of legitimacy than "the war". Granted, I'd prefer democracy, but realistically, I'd be happy to settle for an autocratic regime that was capable of improving the lifestyle of it's population. The question is, do we adopt a neocon attitude that says democracy or bust, or a realist attitude that does not make the best the enemy of the good. Or in this case, not so much good but "marginal but satisfactory and attainable improvement". To understand the situation, lets take a walk down memory lane: Under Clinton, you had negotiated a stable position: The south and the Americans provided minimal economic support (Sunshine policy), in exchange, the North kept itself to itself. The Norks don't care much about the South, they fear America. They didn't care about the Sunshine policy input from the South, because they do not care about the welfare of their people, they care about the continued control of the regime. Quite probably genuinely do fear the US will come in and topple them (which, in an ideal world where minimal casualties is possible, would be nice), this seems nuts to us, but we know that the Russians during the cold war did genuinely think an unprovoked US attack was likely, and even now many Russians seem to act like their policy with Europe is really all about America, and Americas policy in much of the rest of the world is really all about Russia. Such is megalomania. We are very keen to talk about Kim as being mad, but then we assume that he is sane enough to realise that the US is really only engaged in Korea in so far as the South is secure, rather than because they desire to crush North Korean communism. When the Bush admin withdrew, the North stopped caring about the Sunshine policy. The one thing they care about is American security guarantees, economic improvement around the border comes a low second. While the Souths former government kept on going with the Sunshine policy on it's own (remember that bout of "anti american" attitude in the South in the early 2000's? Google the news from back then.), the Norths policy switched to provocation to get the attention of the Bush admin. This resulted in the humiliation of the Souths government, and it's replacement by the conservatives, who have been engaging in provocation to demonstrate to their voters that they are not the pansies that the former government were. Sadly, this is happening at a time where the succession is occurring. The North and the South have got themselves into a spiral of escalation. The point is, the US could, with the right policy, stop it. The one thing lacking since the Clinton Admin has been a policy on handling the Korean situation based on an actual long term strategy with a defined objective. This leads to an essentially reactionary policy (you shoot or sink, we sell more arms and move carrier groups around), which is dangerous because there are then no grown ups at the wheel, and every one is playing tit for tat plus 10%. The Norks are a bunch of paranoid, kleptocratic murderers, and the US is supposed to be a superpower. And lets be clear, I don't think US policy is wrong: The Clinton era stuff was workable, at least as a parking manoeuvre. I think the Bush admins policy was wrong. Essentially, they altered it for purely partisan reasons: the existing policy then was Clintons, so he needed to do the opposite to send a signal on his foreign policy when the Bush admin believed FP was irrelevant except with respect to playing to the domestic audience as their term was going to be all about domestic, pre 9-11. Changing policy for partisan reasons can be forgiven if the policy works, but it doesn't. There was no Uranium programme, there wasn't even real actionable intelligence suggesting otherwise, and there was no stick in place to coerce non-proliferation once the carrot was withdrawn. The Obama administration is doing the opposite: they won't abandon Bush era formulations on Korea because they are afraid of looking weak. Which amounts to the same thing: deciding policy in serious flashpoints based on how it might affect the polls! In summary, America cares about the security of the South, the North cares about the security of the Kim family and entourage, and mistakenly thinks the US is the biggest threat to that and their biggest problem. The South just wants stability, but the North isn't listening to them. A non-agression pact is eminently workable. Firstly, it could be made formally contingent on non-aggression against South Korea. The North are being pigheaded in insisting on bilateral deals (or paranoid, probably both), the point is there is actually no significant reason that the US need not indulge that paranoia. The US has no desire to engage in aggression against the North beyond defending the South. Nobody really wants a war. North Korea would lose and knows it would. The immediate situation at hand, NK is now firing artillery in territory that the South acknowledges is part of the North. So, yes, less provocative. Anyway, Iran is the bigger threat. The regime may be on borrowed time, but the people being held up as moderates were the ones that began the nuclear programme. Iran is not going to give up their nuclear ambitions: their public likes the idea. North Korea is less able to sustain a nuclear programme, and is on a shorter fuse than Iran economically. Strategically, the real problem with proliferation has always been Pakistan and, to a lesser extent India (India in that their desire to be taken seriously is what Pakistan is chasing after). But in choosing which is the bigger threat bomb wise, definitely Iran. North Korea is a cautionary tale to would be bomb makers, Iran is an example to follow.
KreeL Member	Sun Nov 28 01:07:08 In the grand scheme of things a lot of people must die in a relatively short period of time on this planet. Overpop is the #1 concern of every Iluminati/Bilderberger in the universe.
Seb Member	Sun Nov 28 04:22:03 It's the concern of the CT nuts.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: