New Nuclear powers: Iran and North Korea?

[skybridge]

In recent statements, North Korea admitted to possessing nuclear weapons and vowed to build more if US hostitily towards the state continued. Iran further denies claims of producing nuclear weapons, but threatens massive retalitation towards aggressors.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/ap/20050210/ap_on_re_as/nkorea_nuclear

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4253171.stm

What are your thoughts?

[Richard]

Ignore them and build the SDI.

[opebo]

Very smart move given what happened to Iraq.  Saddam would still be in power if he had some nukes.

[phk]

Of course other countries realize that nuclear-armed North Korea is being treated with respect, while nuclear-weapon-less Saddam was overthrown.

Great message to send out.

[The Duke]

Of course other countries realize that nuclear-armed North Korea is being treated with respect, while nuclear-weapon-less Saddam was overthrown.

Great message to send out.

Would your preference be to have inverted the two nation's treatment?  Or perhaps address neither problem? Or invade both?

Ignore them and build the SDI.

SDI doesn't work (yet) so its not a solution right now.

[A18]

Neutron bomb both of their reactors and be done with it.

[skybridge]

Ignore them and build the SDI.

SDI doesn't work (yet) so its not a solution right now.

Great to hear a Republican say this. Even the most conservative estimates can't rule out a minimal 10% margin of error. Might not sound like much but 10% of nuclear bombs can still cause a little damage...

[A18]

In 100 years, that'll be more like a 0.00001% margin of error.

But that still won't matter, because it only protects against missles.

[Richard]

Neutron bomb both of their reactors and be done with it.

I'd be inclined to support this too.  Neutron bomb them, and do it properly.  Many people will die, but more will be saved.

[ATFFL]

Ignore them and build the SDI.

SDI doesn't work (yet) so its not a solution right now.

Great to hear a Republican say this. Even the most conservative estimates can't rule out a minimal 10% margin of error. Might not sound like much but 10% of nuclear bombs can still cause a little damage...

A hell of a lot less than 100% of them can though.

[AuH2O]

The reason we can't hit the North isn't because they can hurt us, it's because of what they can do to South Korea.

Actually, in international relations class I proposed using a neorealist approach and allowing NK to have nukes in exchange for dismantling it's regular army (except light infantry and maybe a division of armor). It would be worth considering giving South Korea also in that scenario.

Iran probably concerns me more because terrorists are much more involved in that area.

[scorpiogurl]

Ignore them and build the SDI.

As I understand it, SDI is a possible defence against nuclear missiles, not necessarily nuclear bombs. Although, Iran and North Korea may have nuclear weapons (a BBC report today suggests North Korea has made 8 nuclear bombs), they don't have the means to deliver them to continental USA, i.e. missile systems.

Sure they are a danger to their neighbours and any US interests in the geographic location......but until these nations have the ability to deliver these missiles to the USA......SDI is only useful in protecting from Russian (ex Soviet) missiles and perhaps Chinese weapons.

[skybridge]

You got it, fellow scorpio.

[Richard]

Ignore them and build the SDI.

As I understand it, SDI is a possible defence against nuclear missiles, not necessarily nuclear bombs. Although, Iran and North Korea may have nuclear weapons (a BBC report today suggests North Korea has made 8 nuclear bombs), they don't have the means to deliver them to continental USA, i.e. missile systems.

Right.  But they will soon have missiles, hence I'd put my money into SDI.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I really couldn't give a flying  about the region.  Let South Korea and China deal with them.

[Gabu]

Right.  But they will soon have missiles, hence I'd put my money into SDI.

They already have long-range missiles, just not any that can deliver a sizeable bomb to America.  See this article about Taepo-Dong 1 and 2.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

We only invade countries that don't really have WMD.

[A18]

If we invaded Iran, and we found 2.5 tons of enriched uranium but no weapons, the liberals would be giving us hell about that too.

We know -- because that's exactly what happened in Iraq.

[Richard]

If we invaded Iran, and we found 2.5 tons of enriched uranium but no weapons, the liberals would be giving us hell about that too.

We know -- because that's exactly what happened in Iraq.

The obvious solution is to nuke Iran to kingdom-come.  No invasion necessary, and liberals can't accuse anyone of illegal invasions.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If we invaded Iran, and we found 2.5 tons of enriched uranium but no weapons, the liberals would be giving us hell about that too.

We know -- because that's exactly what happened in Iraq.

The obvious solution is to nuke Iran to kingdom-come.  No invasion necessary, and liberals can't accuse anyone of illegal invasions.

Millions of innocent Iranians killed
Massive nuclear fallout on the rest of the planet

Yeah, those don't seem like problems.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The solution is to sit back and watch the currently very unstable Iraniain government collapse on its own which will inevitably happen.

[Richard]

If we invaded Iran, and we found 2.5 tons of enriched uranium but no weapons, the liberals would be giving us hell about that too.

We know -- because that's exactly what happened in Iraq.

The obvious solution is to nuke Iran to kingdom-come.  No invasion necessary, and liberals can't accuse anyone of illegal invasions.

Millions of innocent Iranians killed
Massive nuclear fallout on the rest of the planet

Yeah, those don't seem like problems.

Look, you uneducated shrub, hydrogen bombs don't have fallout.  Second, you only need to target military facilities.   Problem solved.

[skybridge]

The solution is to sit back and watch the currently very unstable Iraniain government collapse on its own which will inevitably happen.

A process ironically reversed by the Bush administration's threats!

Don't believe me?

February 11th, 2005 11:11 pm
Bush Doctrine Gets a Nuclear Reaction


Editorial / Atlanta Journal Constitution

Under the Bush Doctrine, the United States will "not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most dangerous weapons," as the president explained his policy. Those words "will not permit" were carefully selected, carrying the clear and very intentional message that military force will be used to correct such situations if necessary.

There's no question that nuclear weapons in the hands of rogue regimes pose a serious threat to our national security. In fact, reducing that threat is the single most important foreign-policy challenge that we face. Last week, though, the real-world limitations, and even drawbacks, of the Bush Doctrine were put on stark display in two different parts of the world.

North Korea, which has been a target of the Bush Doctrine from the beginning, announced Thursday that it now possesses nuclear weapons. That has long been the assumption of U.S. intelligence, and verbal confirmation by North Korea in the absence of a successful nuclear test changes nothing. However, North Korea also announced that it was withdrawing from further discussion about abandoning its nuclear program, and that's a more serious matter.

Meanwhile, officials in Iran continued their game of cat-and-mouse with the United States over their own nuclear weapons program, which apparently has been placed on temporary hold while negotiations continue with European and United Nations officials. U.S. Secretary of State Condi Rice, on a trip to Europe, announced that a military strike against Iran is "simply not on the agenda at this point," a statement in which the last three words are probably the most crucial. Iranian President Mohammed Khatami responded with the promise that, if attacked, "Iran will turn into a scorching hell for the aggressors."

In both instances, the Bush Doctrine has proved worse than useless. For all of our power, we have no military option for dealing with the nuclear threat from either North Korea or Iran, in part because so many of our troops are tied up trying to pacify Iraq, where no such danger existed. Instead of intimidating Iran and North Korea into changing course, the threat of American military action has succeeded only in compounding the fear that inspired those nations to seek nuclear weapons in the first place.

For Iran and North Korea, and perhaps for other countries as well, the example of Pakistan has been a stark reminder of what's at stake. They know that by any reasonable standard, Pakistan should have been a prime target for U.S. military action and regime change, because it met every test of the Bush Doctrine. Prior to Sept. 11, 2001, Pakistan had sponsored the Taliban and al-Qaida in neighboring Afghanistan. It had long sponsored Islamic-based terrorism against democratic India, and was led by a military dictatorship infiltrated with fundamentalist Islamic extremists. And unlike Iraq, Pakistan had an active nuclear weapons program and shared its knowledge and technology with other rogue nations, including North Korea, Libya and Iran.

Yet rather than topple Gen. Pervez Musharraf, we have tried to co-opt him as an ally and keep him in power. Why?

Because Pakistan and Musharraf have the bomb, a fact that made them all but immune to U.S. military action.

If you're the mullahs running Iran, and you know that the Bush administration has targeted you for removal, what lesson would you take from the Pakistani example? Apparently, they have reached the reasonable conclusion that they need the bomb more than ever as a way to keep the United States out of their business and out of their country. North Korean leader Kim Jong-il has reached that same eminently logical conclusion. In practice, then, the Bush Doctrine has encouraged what it was intended to prevent.

It's important to acknowledge that even an all-out commitment to the diplomatic alternative would not have guaranteed better results. The odds of success with that approach were better than zero, which were the odds of using military power, but they were probably less than 50-50.

Unfortunately, though, the Bush administration has never been able to bring itself to try to maximize the chances of diplomacy. To the contrary, its repeated hints of military action have undercut whatever little chance such efforts have had. Time and again, Iran and North Korea have made it clear that in return for giving up their nuclear programs, they wanted explicit guarantees that the United States would not attack. And time and again, the Bush administration has balked.

The problem is that in both North Korea and Iran, Bush administration ambitions go beyond merely dismantling their nuclear programs. Just as it wanted to oust Saddam Hussein, not merely ensure that Iraq had no WMD, the Bush White House also wants to replace the governments of Iran and North Korea with governments friendly to the United States.

That can be accomplished in time, with patience. The Iranian people are already very unhappy with their fundamentalist government, which has had to turn ugly to repress moderates. And there's a sense that as rigid as it seems, the North Korean regime could collapse with even slight exposure to the outside world.

The Bush Doctrine has backfired in that regard as well. Even regimes unpopular with their own people can draw support by portraying themselves as the target of outside enemies. The reaction by Khatami, the moderate Iranian president struggling for control against the mullahs, illustrates that perfectly.

"The Iranian nation is not looking for war, violence and confrontation," Khatami said last week. "But the world should know that the Iranian nation won't tolerate any aggression and will stand united against aggression despite differences." Even Iranians who are unhappy with their government would rally to defend it from foreign invasion.


There goes the Bush doctrine...

[M]

This article, as is common in the western press, buys hook, line, and sinker the lies of various tyrannies. This is the sort of article an ayatollah or Korean apparatchnik can hold up to his people to show the rightness of their dictators and the quavering fear of the west. Just look at all the bizarre assumptions in favor of the dictators' strategic positions, which one must assume the author(s) lept to out of reflexive anti-Bushism (or should I say, anti-Americansim):

"In both instances, the Bush Doctrine has proved worse than useless."

Has it? We'll know soon enough, but the historical record- on Hitler, on Stalin, Saddam, Arafat, and yes, on Kim and the mullahs, is that appeasement leads to greater aggressiveness and stability of the tyrants' regimes, and shows of strength are likely to bring them trouble.

"For all of our power, we have no military option for dealing with the nuclear threat from either North Korea or Iran, in part because so many of our troops are tied up trying to pacify Iraq"

We still have plenty of troops left. In fact, we could, if necessary, take both Iran and North Korea at the same time, while still pacifying Iraq and Afghanistan, without a draft. We probably won't for various reasons.

"Iraq, where no such danger existed."

Well, then what the heck was Saddam using to kill Kurds and Iranians in the '80s? Why did he kick the UN out in '98? And where are these weapons now- Syria?

"Yet rather than topple Gen. Pervez Musharraf, we have tried to co-opt him as an ally and keep him in power. Why?
Because Pakistan and Musharraf have the bomb, a fact that made them all but immune to U.S. military action."

The author either has turned the Bush doctrine in his own mind into a ridiculous charicature of it, is being flippant, or has a fatal misunderstanding of war in general and the region in particular. If we can get Musharraf to ally with us, break support for terror regimes, and turn over terrorists without invading a country of 100 million- umm, shouldn't we? Yes, democratization is vital everywhere, but that doesn't mean we have to invade the world at once, only those countries that provide an immediat security threat. And yes, we could easily take on a country with the bomb- only Russia and MAYBE China could even get one off the ground before our satellites detect all their rusty silos and rotting submarines and blow them up before any launch.

"In practice, then, the Bush Doctrine has encouraged what it was intended to prevent."

And what about Libya? And some dangerous rumblings from across the Middle East and Pacific Rim- Syria, Saudistan, Egypt, Taiwan, S. Korea, and Japan- none of 'em are going nuclear. As for Iran and N. Korea, their choice is continued brinkmanship until they either scare us off or end up on the ash heap of history- or go ahead and throw in the towel now. For the time being, they've chosen the former. They'll regret it.

"It's important to acknowledge that even an all-out commitment to the diplomatic alternative would not have guaranteed better results. The odds of success with that approach were better than zero "

No, they were zero, exactly. This is Chamberlain's argument at Munich, the one that got 50 million killed, something we swore would never happen again. Thankfully, Bush understands the meaning of "no more Munichs!" better than the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The day madmen like the rulers in Pyongyang and Tehran give up anything because we're nice to them- there'll be peace in the Middle East. Probably because the Bush Doctrine has been remarkably successful on that track, too.

"Time and again, Iran and North Korea have made it clear that in return for giving up their nuclear programs, they wanted explicit guarantees that the United States would not attack."

And you BELIEVED them?!? Fortunately, Bush didn't. Clinton did believe N. Korea in 1994. That didn't work out so good.

"And time and again, the Bush administration has balked. "

Phew!

"The problem is that in both North Korea and Iran, Bush administration ambitions go beyond merely dismantling their nuclear programs. Just as it wanted to oust Saddam Hussein, not merely ensure that Iraq had no WMD, the Bush White House also wants to replace the governments of Iran and North Korea with governments friendly to the United States. "

Your point being? Of course, we want these guys out. The real threat is the maniacs who rule the countries, not their weapons. There's a reason why a non-nuclear Syria or even Arafat's PLO without a real standing army is a much greater threat threat than a nuclear France or India. In the long run, we can't trust any regime not accountable to its own people; in the extremely short term, any regime that engages in both terrorism and nuclear development has got to go, and fast.

"That can be accomplished in time, with patience. The Iranian people are already very unhappy with their fundamentalist government, which has had to turn ugly to repress moderates. And there's a sense that as rigid as it seems, the North Korean regime could collapse with even slight exposure to the outside world. "

So the Bush Doctrine is working. This was the point all along. You can't have it both ways.

"The Bush Doctrine has backfired in that regard as well."

Note recent events in Palestine, Morocco, Jordan, Ukraine, and even Saudi Arabia (not to mention Iraq and Afghanistan). And the rumblings continue in Moldova, Kyrgyzstan, Egypt, Lebanon, Togo, Venezuela, Cuba, Syria...

"Even regimes unpopular with their own people can draw support by portraying themselves as the target of outside enemies."

According to Elie Wiesel and Natan Sharansky- who would know- that's the most powerful weapon these thugs have. Trying to hype up an outside enemy takes the people's minds off the real problem. Exactly why dictators do start wars, and why the only long term solution must be democracy.

"Khatami, the moderate Iranian president struggling for control against the mullahs"

He lost that fight a long, long time ago.

"Even Iranians who are unhappy with their government would rally to defend it from foreign invasion. "

And on what, exactly, does the author base this statement, other than his own reflexive anti-Americanism? Not necessarily, at all. Wars with Serbia and Argentina led to democracy soon afterwards. And then their was Afghanistan... if the people rallied for the Taliban, I haven't heard about it yet. This reflect's the Left's Vietnam-happy mentality and the whole idea that any intrusion by the wicked capitalist-imperialist west into a nation's sovereign territory will lead to mass popular resistance and guerilla warfare. Get real. That's not what happened in the Vietnam proxy war, in the post occupation Iraq war with foreign jihadists and Syria-based diehard Baathists, and it isn't what would happen in Iran.

"There goes the Bush doctrine..."

Well, no. Without the Bush doctrine at all, we'd be down to war with Iran or nuclear terrorism by Iran, sooner rather than later. Now there's a third option, and it isn't some sort of utopian diplomacy-cum-sanctions method; it's a Ukraine-style popular regime change. Still, if in the next 2-3 years we are faced with the dramatic choice- war or nuclear ayatollahs- you can bet that Bush, Rice, and Rummy, as well as Sharon and maybe even Blair, know exactly what they have to do.

On a side note, this  dictator-enhancing thought process is all to common in the anti-American Left. And it's been true at least since the fall of the USSR that even the most brutal fascist, militarist, or theocratic regime- not just the left-revolutionaries like during the Cold War, but the rightist nuts too- can count on support from the Baby Boomer national guilt complex, as long as they array themselves against the West, and especially the USA. This is sick, and we do, I think, have to thank a merciful Providence that the antithesis of these nuts inhabit the White House, Foggy Bottom, the Pentagon, and Langley today.

[DanielX]

If we invaded Iran, and we found 2.5 tons of enriched uranium but no weapons, the liberals would be giving us hell about that too.

We know -- because that's exactly what happened in Iraq.

The obvious solution is to nuke Iran to kingdom-come.  No invasion necessary, and liberals can't accuse anyone of illegal invasions.

Millions of innocent Iranians killed
Massive nuclear fallout on the rest of the planet

Yeah, those don't seem like problems.

Look, you uneducated shrub, hydrogen bombs don't have fallout.  Second, you only need to target military facilities.   Problem solved.

Actually, H-bombs do have some fallout. They have a small A-bomb at their core to serve as a trigger.

A neutron bomb, on the other hand, has little or no permanent fallout. Neither do 'Daisy-cutter'-type massive conventional bombs.