Redstate

Though I'd go a step further, and add something along these lines: "If you don't, we're going to go to Shinzo Abe over there. You know, the guy who's already talking in favor of Yasukuni, in defiance of your, er, protests? We'll have to go over to Abe and tell him to get his Constitution changed, and start up his own nuclear deterrent. Or at least an overwhelming conventional deterrent to enable his country to take out the DPRK with our help when necessary.

"Then imagine the problem you'll have on your hands: think of the refugees flowing in from the DPRK. Clean it up now and neatly from your side, or have to deal with the consequences as we clean it up the best we can from our side."
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

But the whole question of saving face is very important in East Asia. So it is best to present it in a different way.

Let Abe announce that he needs a nuclear deterrent because North Korea has the bomb. China will object, but their main objection will be to America. In their heirarchical view, it is America's job to keep Japan in line. Then Condi can say, "we understand your concern, but we understand the Japanese position too. As long as North Korea has the bomb, we don't think we can stop Japan from seeking it too".

Presenting an offer to the Chinese as a direct threat, especially publicly, has to be a last resort. They are more likely to respond to subtle, indirect, threats.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

I'm working under the assumption that all this is private, especially what Moe was suggesting.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

nt

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan

Sounds to me like you are predicting a Democrat President winning in 2008!

President Bush will leave office at some point between now and January 2009. That will result in the end of America's actual (though not its rhetorical) commitment to a robust foreign policy which seeks to engender global stability. The world will then most likely accelerate on its course toward a multipolar balance of power, with a World War to follow at some future date, probably featuring limited use of nuclear weapons.

Let us hope that we can prevent this from happening by electing an adult to that position...one who understands what is at stake globally, and not a Jimmy Carter liberal!

See The World In HinzSight!

I'm predicting nothing more than that Mr. Bush will leave or be forced from office. Which means he'll be replaced by someone else. And regardless of party, that new President will not continue our current posture of confronting aggression abroad.

America is now divided politically, and unfortunately our side does not have charismatic and effective prospective leaders to pose against the other side's command of the organs which shape public opinion. This means that whichever party takes the White House, the general tenor of reluctance to globally assert our national interests will carry the day. And in economic and demographic terms, our sheer ability to do so will decline along with our willingness. We must not lose hope that a new Reagan will emerge, but we also must anticipate and prepare for a diminished global role, and start to manage our relative decline to our best advantage through clever statesmanship. History is full of examples of nations that exerted influence beyond the limits of their raw power.

Don't misunderstand me: I'm not anticipating that the US will be relegated to a second rank of nations. Only that we will no longer be alone in the top rank.

"America is now divided politically," is a statement that has never been untrue, and we've managed to be strong without charismatic leaders. I wouldn't call Nixon weak, or Truman.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

...Americans have generally overcome their political divisions. But in our day, we still lack general agreement that we even face a national crisis. It's a commonplace of history that the wrath of Americans is terrible but slow to ignite. That may be one of the reasons we haven't been attacked on our soil in the past five years: our opponents recognize that a sleeping tiger is easier to defeat than an aroused one. Our opponents (I won't call them enemies because geopolitical competition is not the same as war for ideology or national identity) profit from our lack of national unity.

One thing that is very different from the past is that Americans are now divided as to whether we even have national interests that are worth defending. Nearly half of Americans are entirely comfortable with the idiotic notion that we've pushed around the rest of the world and despoiled the environment long enough, and now deserve to come down a peg or two. I don't want people like that in my foxhole and I don't think you do either. This alone will weaken our future leadership, even if they be inclined to aggressively pursue our national interest.

Nixon presided over the disastrous policy of detente and rapprochement with the former Soviet Union. He was only as strong as his domestic oppostion in the press allowed him to be. He also was a shrewd geopolitician, and his policies proceeded directly from an acceptance that America is not as strong as we would have liked to believe at the time. Given that this may soon be considerably more true than it was in 1970, it might not be bad to have a leader like Nixon again (although my choice would be someone like Bismarck if I can't have Reagan.)

Truman is among the most underrated Presidents of all time, perhaps rivalled only by G. W. Bush. He recognized that his world faced a deep power vacuum that only the US was strong enough to fill. His policy of doing so in the face of bitter opposition both domestical and foreign, gained for us the commanding global position which we now are in the process of discarding, largely through hubris.

Reagan stepped into the world created largely by Nixon and Kissinger (Carter, a nullity, did almost nothing to shape events), a world which accepted without question the permanance and power of the USSR. He had the utter temerity to say what no one else believed at the time: that the USSR would fall, and that we would push them over the edge. His courage and ability led directly to the last 20 years of relative stability in the world.

This thread is about NoKo. My point was to agree with what you said about the need for a nuclear deterrent in Japan, and to add that a strong alliance with India is also needed. Whether or not you agree with my reasoning (and I'm projecting current trends, leaving aside the serendipitous possibility of a new Reagan), you have to accept that there is relatively little we can do or say to counter NoKo. Moe Lane even goes so far as to advocate upthread that we disengage from the challenge.

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan

Truman is among the most underrated Presidents of all time, perhaps rivalled only by G. W. Bush. He recognized that his world faced a deep power vacuum that only the US was strong enough to fill. His policy of doing so in the face of bitter opposition both domestical and foreign, gained for us the commanding global position which we now are in the process of discarding, largely through hubris.

Truman was able to face down domestic opposition and get things done anyway, starting us off on the right foot for the Cold War. And he did it without being charismatic.

So I see no reason to be overly pessimistic about the future. There is danger, of course, but we can overcome it.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

...but rather a businessman. I believe in being ready to see opportunities in the world as it presents itself. I'm not pessimistic about the future, but I do believe (which is not the same thing) that we can't assume America's continuance as the only superpower. There is something afoot within the American body politic which does not fully accept that America should be a global power. This in itself produces weakness that was not present in the 1930s (also a time of great division in American politics). This weakness has resulted in the current reality that Kim Jong-Il sees it as advantageous to challenge us directly in an area (nuclear nonproliferation) that we have presented to the world as non-negotiable. This is reality, not pessimism.

We will face great danger if we don't cultivate strong alliances in East Asia, starting with the essential nation Japan, and on this point I think you and I are in complete agreement. (One could make very similar points about Latin America and the Middle East, but I don't want to start a threadjack.)

Regarding Truman: his situation was that America, a historically reluctant hegemon, needed to step into that role. Our situation is that the world has no shortage of imperial powers (abetted by the great equalizer, nuclear weapons). Being a historically reluctant hegemon, we face the opposite challenge: avoiding eclipse.

It is just not political divisions. For the first time in the history of the Republic, we no longer agree on what our values are. When people had common values but political disagreements, there was always hope of a political solution that was agreeable to both sides.

I am not sure that is possible any more. Maybe that is why , as you say, we cannot even come to an agreement that there is a national crisis. This may be a subject for a separate posting but I think it affects all of these issues we are talking about, whether it is korea, the war on terror, or anything else. It's the ugly truth that no one wants to acknowledge.

The biggest problem might not be in Korea. It might be here at home.

>>It is just not political divisions. For the first time in the history of the Republic, we no longer agree on what our values are.

You may have heard about a little row about the role of race in American politics. It was evident in the negotiations about the Constitution, and a compromise was struck over how to count slaves in the census. There was an itsy bitsy civil war about it. There were some minor disagreements in Congress more recently, with some Senators (one still sitting) engaging in filibusters with a phone book in one hand and a bottle of urine in the other. You don't see any 'values' at stake in that 200 year long debate?

When Joseph P Kennedy tried to keep America out of the Second World War, assuring Hitler that Americans would understand about Nazi policies towards the Jews, because America had a big enough Jewish problem of its own, there were no 'values' at stake?

Isolation vs engagement with the League of Nations? No values?

Whether or not to fight in Vietnam? Whether to confront or appease the Evil Empire? All debates by men and women without values?

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

Certainly the nation has faced devisive issues. Of those you list slavery nearly split the nation. But that was less about values (save the abolitionists) than the antithetical economic and govenmental needs of an agrarian vs industial society. we fought the mexican war as a nation with the same issues dividing us and I am sure if Britain (for whatever reason) had invaded through Canada in 1854 the nation would have fought together. Just as we did after pearl harbor despite the words of Joe Kennedy.

The main value that Mr. Frazier eludes to is the basic notion that our nation is worth defending against any foe. That value has always been fundemental to Americans and seems to run stronger in us than citizens of other nations. It goes beyond defending our homes and families to standing up to our way of life. It means defending America the IDEA not just america the land. That is the value that we fear has been lost by many in America. To them our way of life is tainted and not worth defending. That is what Iran, NK and AQ has exposed and exploited. It is a disease we caught from Europe-they have so completely given up they have stopped reproducing.

I haven't lost faith in us yet. That we were as united after 9/11 as we were Pearl harbor is a good sign (I'm pretty sappy but I admit I got a lump in the throat when the congress critters sang america the beautiful on the capital steps-so perhaps I overstate). That we fell apart after I think has been a combination of the reality of fighting a guerilla war and strong anti-bush/america propaganda by disparate groups with similar agendas to a susceptible audience. And our strong desire to be liked by the rest of the world.

>> slavery nearly split the nation. But that was less about values (save the abolitionists)

So, apart from the majority of the nation that opposed slavery, the issue was not about values? Even that limited statement is wrong. Those who supported slavery thought it was a values issue too, and lengthily cited the bible to justify that view.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

The value in question is that my way of life is worth fighting for. Obviously it was felt strongly on both sides. I am saying some amoung us now seem to have "lost" that value and that weakens us as a nation. This was not a value in question in 1861. Values, in general, are always an issue. I bemoan the loss of this particular one.

Also I assume you mean majority of the North opposed slavery not the majority of the nation. I will stick to my statement that the abolitionsts felt strongly about the slave issue. But I am sceptical that the average northerner felt so stronly they would go to war over it. I am a bit cynical and feel the civil war was fought over power and money-on both sides.

The left has made politics in favor of a failed utopian world view their religion, and they are willing to build an America they desire from the ashes of the defeat of the America we love that actualy exists.

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan

Through all the divided times in our history, we always believed are country was a force for a larger good. That is the common value that has been lost, which is also why so many no longer believe ours is a way of life worth fighting for.

Believing the country was a force for good was a driving force in our expansion during the rocky times of slavery and civil rights, as well as Truman to Reagan’s desire to defeat a morally inferior communist expansion around the world. It is why we didn’t have a national debate on whether we actually liberate countries when we remove the boot of tyranny. We argued how to expand slave and non-slave state’s into the Union, but agreed the Union should be expanded and doing so was for a greater good.

No system remains static for an indefinite period of time. All systems are in flux, either expanding or contracting. It was during the Eisenhower administration we last admitted a new state to the Union. Since that time we have been through Vietnam, during which a vast majority of Democrats believed the U.S. was at least on the side of what was morally right, to the GWOT where a majority of Democrats do not believe our nation is a force for good, much less on the side of what is morally right. Ours is a nation that has entered a contraction period, a phase Britain and many others in the West entered decades ago.

The first phase of the contraction is no longer projecting force around the world on the grounds our system of government and way of life are morally superior to that found in NoKo or Iran. It is why liberating these countries for their own good and our national security is not a serious option on the table. To do so would be Imperialism, like say France or Britain's past.

The second phase is when parts of the Southwest become part of Mexico within the next 50 years and we actually contract as a nation. We’re not willing to have another Civil War to prevent succession from the Union by popular demand as we once did, nor are we willing to judge certain forms of government as immoral and barbaric as everyone from Truman, Kennedy and LBJ to Ike, Nixon and Reagan once did.

We’re entering our third generation of students raised in an education system that does not see America’s history as good in the bigger scheme of things and has no comprehension of this nation’s true greatness and history. That is what is significantly different about today as compared to the past. As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, it need to be cause for gloom and doom, but it is reality.

It just that the lot mostly involves killing everybody in North Korea, which is why I'm ready to hand off the entire problem to the PRC: they can invade with some hope that the NK military won't resist to the death and we can't. In fact - and this would be better - they might even fix the problem without having to invade anybody at all.

Also, 'disengage' is not exactly what I would do, though I understand why you would think that. I'm of the opinion that we and the PRC are both busy pretending that NK is our problem to fix, not China's: and it's time that we at least stopped. It's their client state, not ours. So we're not really supposed to be engaged there in the first place, and it wasn't really by our will that we were.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

First, I agree that the PRC leadership could shut down the NoKo problem with perhaps one phone call, since they keep the regime afloat economically. That they don't do this suggests strongly that the presence of a belligerent and isolated North Korea somehow suits their purposes, for the time being at least.

What interest could we possibly have in pretending that North Korea is our problem and not the PRC's? Well, for one thing, we have our security guarantees to Japan and South Korea. For another, we have made clear to the whole world our desire to prevent nuclear proliferation. (Lurking in the background is our soon-to-be-abandoned guarantee of independence for Taiwan.) We can't really step back from any of these commitments without making it clear to everyone that we have radically redefined our ambitions for American power and influence in the world. And to be completely frank, if I were China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Brazil, or any of a host of soon-to-be-nuclear superpowerlets, I'd be pulling for NoKo to win what is perceived as a confrontation with the US.

I think what you're really saying, Moe, is that we should understand that we are no longer the undisputed heavyweight champ in East Asia, and we don't need to pretend otherwise. (I gave up trying to formulate that sentence without an implication that this is somehow a defeat for us rather than a simple recognition of reality.) Future strength lies in alliances, just as it did in the pre-WWI world.

Now if Japan were to announce a firm commitment to a nuclear deterrent and reaffirm their friendship with the US, that would stir up the hornet's nest pretty good. China is right not to fear the US (nor should we fear them). But a nuclear Japan is their worst nightmare.

>>That they don't do this suggests strongly that the presence of a belligerent and isolated North Korea somehow suits their purposes, for the time being at least.

It just doesn't particularly suit their purposes to interfere. It may be that they are waiting to see if they can get something for it.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

You make good points

unfortunately our side does not have charismatic and effective prospective leaders to pose against the other side's command of the organs which shape public opinion...

We must not lose hope that a new Reagan will emerge...

Perhaps I am TO optimistic in my outlook, but refuse to believe that we will NOT find that leader.

When first elected, President George W Bush was not that man. But events outside his control shaped his presidency and changed the world as we know it today.

Whether the times make the man, or the man makes the times, I believe that we will prevail in this struggle. The American people are an optimistic people and will NOT allow this nation to be governed by defeatists.

All I can say is it is my fervent hope that your assessment of the future is wrong.

See The World In HinzSight!

...breaks all the molds, changes all the assumptions, and re-directs all the trendlines. When real leadership appears, all the projected trendlines (like mine) fly out the window.

G. W. Bush will in the future be recognized as the great President he is, but he is now a lame duck, and it's up to us Republicans to identify and promote his successor. Giuliani may be that leader, but innumerable RedState posts have it that, being a liberal, he can't be our Party's nominee. There's no one else that I can see.

The marvelous thing about Reagan that we need to recapture, is his ability to stand up and convince people that America is great, and that our interests are worth defending. He made us feel good to be who we are. You have no vitality or strength, either as an individual or as a nation, without being firmly convinced of the goodness of your purposes. In America, we are now without firm conviction, because we're told from our first days in public school, right through university, and every single night on the evening news, that America is morally equivalent to the most evil regimes in history.

See The World In HinzSight!

Who expected the 'compassionate conservative' Texas governor who ran on education to be a steadfast wartime leader?

Don't underestimate America.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

and of course would if he's the nominee, given that the war is THE issue and since abortion ultimately is a matter that has to be won in people's hearts even if Roe is reversed.

If the president will not defend the nation, then it won't be defended.

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan

This is what I was trying to say upstream. I think there will be a movie producer, polititian or author that is going to surprised at how loudly the audience roars when they say. "American is pretty darn cool and I am going to stand up for it." and it turns into a box office hit, bump in the polls, or best seller.

What may be interesting for Giuliani or someone else is 08 will be the first post 9/11 primary. I’m not convinced the disqualifiers of the past for the GOP nominee are in play, at least to the extent they were in the past. There’s a good chance 55% or more of the electorate will demand a Commander in Chief for President as the top issue, the proven visionary executive.

Only the GOP can deliver such a candidate. The best hope for this nation is the GOP produces a candidate that turns 60% of the country on the anti-American/anti-war left, a Commander in Chief that can’t be betrayed during a time of war by a bunch of subversives without serious consequences… someone who turns the hatred of the left on themselves.

We may find out in 08 if the silent majority still exists.

President Bush forced from office before January 2009? Fuhgeddaboudit!

Even if Democrats take control of the House and try to impeach President Bush on trumped-up charges in 2007-2008, the Democrats will NEVER get 2/3 of the votes in the Senate, which are required to convict an impeached President. After this election, there will be AT LEAST 49 GOP Senators (even if the GOP loses all the close races), all of whom will vote in support of the President at an impeachment trial.
The Democrats would pave the way for a GOP landslide in 2008 if they tried this, in a backlash similar to that Democrats rode after the impeachment of former President Clinton in 1998.

In reality, Crazy Kim's Big Bang is a boon to OUR side, if President Bush and GOP candidates play their cards right. President Bush can insist that the development of North Korean nukes underscores the need for ballistic missile defense, and Democrats can't be counted on to fund its testing and development, and look at the smashing "success" (smirk!) of Clinton's and Albright's "Agreed Framework".

Let's talk about defending our country (including Pelosi's Left Coast) from North Korean nukes, and defending our allies in Japan and South Korea, and get national security back on the front burner in this campaign!

Foley who?

The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.

...there's a lot to what you're saying. If I were running for President, I'd surely want to be able to point to the gathering storm in the Far East as a reason for voting Republican.

But I stand by my point that the mass of American public opinion will attenuate the ability of the next President, regardless of party, to respond robustly to foreign aggression. Unless of course our adversaries have the poor taste (and poor sense) to attack us again on our soil.

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan

After I posted above, I found this on National Review's "Corner", from House Majority Leader John Boehner:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/

"The North Korean government's claim that it has tested a nuclear weapon is a desperate and dangerous provocation. The United States can not afford to stand idly by as rogue regimes flout international treaties and threaten America and our allies.

"It is critical that we support President Bush and our diplomats as they work with other members of the international community to demand North Korea's immediate disarmament. And we must work swiftly to ensure that the North Korean government is not supplying or shipping its technology beyond its borders. We cannot tolerate nuclear weaponry in the hands of rogue regimes or terrorist organizations that threaten the international community.

"This reckless move by North Korea, coupled with their attempted missile test in early July, highlights the importance of a U.S. missile defense shield capable of protecting America against madmen with weapons of mass destruction. It is time for Democrats to recognize the need for missile defense technologies and abandon their long-standing policy of voting against missile defense programs. It is now clear that such a position would weaken America's national defense and put Americans in danger."

Did Kimmie give us an October surprise, as Bin Laden did with his tape in 2004? Our GOP Reps, Senators, and candidates need to take this ball and run with it. We need Ballistic Missile Defense.

The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.

Going by that reasoning, perhaps that is why the decision was made to send NK $95,000,000 AND waive the inspection requirements for their nuclear facilities in 2002.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asia-pacific/1908571.stm

"The US Government has announced that it will release $95m to North Korea as part of an agreement to replace the Stalinist country's own nuclear programme, which the US suspected was being misused.

Under the 1994 Agreed Framework an international consortium is building two proliferation-proof nuclear reactors and providing fuel oil for North Korea while the reactors are being built.

In releasing the funding, President George W Bush waived the Framework's requirement that North Korea allow inspectors to ensure it has not hidden away any weapons-grade plutonium from the original reactors."

Wow, sounds like someone has been reading up on Modelski's Long-Cycle Theory.

I would place the odds of a major war breaking out in East Asia at any decernable point in the future at slim to none. Here's why: not one of the priciple actors in this situation desires war.

North Korea won't fire the first shot, only bluster and bluff, becuase Kim Jong Il and the rest of the DPRK leadership know that if war breaks out, they are dead ducks. Security and an effort to decrease the likelihood of war is their primary reason for seeking nuclear weapons, not a desire to offensively strike the US or Japan.

The US certainly doesn't want war in the Koreas, an enterprise that would prove horrifically expensive, both in the actual war and the decades of reconstruction to follow. In a time when we are possibly looking at a war with Iran, and most certainly trying to counter the growing Chinese influence and military power, it is not in our best interests to take on such a daunting enterprise. Japan doesn't have the capabilities to wage war, but their reasons against military conflict are very similar to ours

South Korea doesn't want war becuase of the initial cost of ROK lives, the flood of refugees that would come spilling across the borders, and the economic turmoil that integration would bring (East Germany x 10).

Russia has little interest in war, it isn't really involved in the region, but would still move to prevent it to 1) thwart American power, and 2) prevent a possible regional conflict from spilling into its Pacific territories.

Finally, China doesn't want war because, 1) it gains nothing from a humanitarian overthrow of DPRK, and 2) while the US is still focused on the Korean problem, China has a lot more leeway to expand and grow its own military capabilities. The collapse of the regime would put huge pressure on China to move in and assist in the reconstruction effort, something they have little interest in doing. I doubt the refugee issue is as big a deal to the Chinese as it is to the ROK; a couple army divisions on the border and a shoot-first policy would be their idea of "border security". However, remove North Korea, and the only serious security threat to the US in the Pacific theater is...China. That's attention the ChiComms don't want. They know DPRK won't attack them (their only ally), so why not keep the tense status quo and have the Americans off-balance. That's the principal reason why China is so concerned about a rearmed Japan; they're not afraid of conquest by the Japanese, they're afraid that with Japan rearmed and keeping North Korea in check, the US will have much more leeway to counter China's rising power.

WWI and WWII happened becuase in both cases, the German leadership wanted war, seeing armed struggle as in the long-term security interests of the nation. The Cold War didn't erupt in similar fashion because the US nor the USSR felt a drag-down, knockout fight was in their best interests. I think the same dynamic applies here. While the status quo is not a good situation, it's not unbearable, and there is currently no viable action that the US or any other state actor can take to break it without utting their national security interests at stake.

Icythus

with a generally thoughtful post.

First and foremost, I think you are committing a grave error in assuming we can divine the thought processes of the Kim Jong Il regime. In your analysis it seems that you are assuming that DPRK doesn't want war when there is really no evidence that is the case. At the same time you are ignoring two scenarios in which the DPRK could see war as a logical course of action. The first scenario in which a war could break out is one in which Kim makes three assumptions a) that the ChiComs would not allow the US to intervene and there is historical precedent for this, b) that the possession of a nuke would cow the ROK into semi-submission, and c) that they have sufficient military strength to prevail in a one-on-one conventional war with ROK if they will not submit. The second, and most likely in my view, scenario is one in which Kim is forced through economic and political circumstances to toss the die on the outcome of a war or face the demise of his own regime.

This is the nation that launched a commando raid to attempt to assassinate Park Chung Hee (1968 and 1974), blew up the South Korean cabinet in Rangoon (1984), took a US warship on the high seas, axed two US officers to death, kidnapped Japanese citizens, and as a matter of national policy trafficked in counterfeit currency and methamphetamine. Hardly the picture of an international rational actor.

...so I can't really respond on your terms.

I don't think world war is imminent in East Asia or anywhere else. But I do think the seeds of global instability are being sown with the (inevitable) demise of Pax Americana. The risk we face today is that we'll be unable to prevent either North Korea or Iran from becoming full-fledged nuclear states. Disgustingly, no other major state that is in a position of influence sees it in their own interest to help the US keep the nuclear club as small as it currently is.

If I were China, on the other hand, I'd be very attracted by the prospect of taking over the mantle of global peacemaker from the US, by letting the confrontation on the Korean peninsula come to a boil, allowing the US to display our inability to stop it, and then stepping in. (A nuclear Japan blows this scenario to bits, of course.)

Wars (like lawsuits and schoolyard fights) usually happen because someone calculates that the odds favor him. And winning a war is a time-honored way of drastically increasing your power and influence vis-a-vis your neighbors. As much as we Westerners think this kind of naked power-mongering has gone out of style, human nature hasn't been repealed. A future world full of ambitious and contentious nuclear states will witness an ugly war almost as surely as night follows day.

weapons on our enemy, sit in judgment on any other nation that wishes to do the same?

By what right do we deprive North Korea, Iran or any other sovereign nation of the means of promulgating their national interests?

What makes US believe that we have a right to an arsenal of weapons capable of reducing this planet to a burnt out cinder while denying those weapons to those nation states who hold dissimilar political views than our own?

Why is our own imperialistic appetite for world influence and power assumed to be superior to those nations who disagree with us?

I dunno...ask John Kerry or Hillary Clinton, maybe they know!

See The World In HinzSight!

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan

4 hijacked planes, 2 taking down the two towers and the third hitting the Pentagon were "incredibly unlikely" Sept. 10th. What does it take for you guys to acknowledge the real world?

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

a blast would be expected to be low yield, but it would not be expected to be in the subkiloton range. This doesn't make sense as there is really very little need for a subkiloton projo outside of specialty applications like torpedos or depth charges. The yield on the nuclear 8" howitzer round was in the 10-kt range, a tad smaller than the Hiroshima bomb, and it was developed in 1957 or thereabouts. We tried for decades to get the yield on the nuclear 155mm round above a kt and had a couple of designs working, but not tested, when SALT II got rid of battlefield nukes.

So I don't really understand why the blast would have been expected to low for any reason or why we would think the DPRK nuke can't be delivered by a Taepodong-1/2 missile when a much heftier nuke can be delivered by an artillery piece.

...I can't see why Kim Jong-Il pulled this stunt now. I don't believe the blast was nuclear, and why would anyone else? Why not do an airburst instead of an underground shot, so the fallout would unequivocally identify the yield, the construction of the device, even the composition of the nuclear materials? (Was he afraid of dripping some fallout on the Japanese islands and really getting everyone's panties in a knot?)

I've heard that a nuclear blast can be unmistakably recognized from the seismic signature alone, but has anyone we believe come out and said it was nuclear based on that evidence?

If Kim couldn't prove he had a nuclear device beyond a shadow of a doubt, then why burn one of them on a showy but otherwise meaningless test? And finally, does anyone else think he wouldn't dare to test-fire a nuke without at least tacit acquiescence from the PRC? I'm probably missing something really obvious but I don't see how this incident ups the ante. Unless Kim just felt like it was time for some fresh headlines.

What is the range of the TPD-2 and with what payload? Most don't think it has even 8,000km range let alone 10-12 needed to hit most of the US, and that is maximum range. Add a heavy payload and it drops dramatically.

Sure you can put a cherry bomb on a poor accuracy ICBM but not much point if it is going to result in you being annihilated is there? If they are going down they are sending something at least 300 kilotons.

Rant Street! www.rant.st

W has had plenty of time to undo the damage from Clinton's failed deal with North Korea. Assuming that this is not a hoax -- and I would not put that past the North Koreans -- then this is W's foreign policy failure.

Clinton's carrot approach didn't work, and now W's stick approach didn't work.

Given that the rampup to the Iraq war was sold as "we better take care of him now, before he gets nukes", I think it's to be expected that the rest of the dictators would then pursue nukes as fast as possible. Nuclear weapons are a credible deterrant.

See The World In HinzSight!

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan

That made me laugh.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke

If our Defense Department, with as little fanfare as possible under the circumstance, were quietly to begin the withdrawal of the tens of thousands of brave American troops whose lives we cannot protect on a nuclearized Korean DMZ, what would the result of this be?

I don't know...let me think about it. What would be the result from our retreat from Vietnam? How about our retreat from Somolia? Probably nothing all...

if the U.S. persists in meddling, politicians in the various countries named will soon be arguing with one another, not over what to do about North Korea, but rather over what to do about (as they see it) the continued encroachment of U.S. imperialism.

That would be the same US imperialism that has protected the South Korean people, or the Taiwanese people, not to mention the Japanese people, for the last half century. Meddlesome country that US...no doubt...

President Bush needs to remind himself that it was not Mexico but North Korea which has tested the atom bomb.

Huhhh? Oh, I get it...it's wayyyyyyy over there! Who was it that bought arms from the North Koreans? Uhmmm...was it Iran? But then again, they are wayyyyyy wayyyyyyy over there, so there is nothing to worry about!

but the world today fears the spectre of U.S. hegemony as much or more than it fears real North Korean nukes.

Don't send US hegemony...just send US mony!!!

No one ever elected the United States of America to be the world's policeman.

No, they did not! Unfortunately, the job was left vacant by the United Nations, which was tasked with the responsibility of filling that position. Given recent world events...the US had no choice but to reluctantly accept the assignment. Go figure!

It is not clear that their interests in the matter even fundamentally conflict with ours.

Japan..check! South Korea...check! China...Russia? Uhmmm gonna have to check with the video replay judge on this one!

In summation, Kim your command of English is much better than I gave you credit for! Thanks for the advice...don't call US, we'll call you!

See The World In HinzSight!

That would be the same US imperialism that has protected the South Korean people, or the Taiwanese people, not to mention the Japanese people, for the last half century. Meddlesome country that US...no doubt...

Your sharp wit is acknowledged but misplaced. The situation was different then. Having demolished Russia's traditional German foe in 1945, we had no one else left to turn to during the Cold War years. It was us against them, in a grim battle for survival. Now there are the Russians, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Koreans, each of whom is independently powerful, all of whom have conflicting interests. My point is that Americans are probably best served simply to let the conflicting interests conflict, to stop trying to manage everything all the time. The job of managing the Korean peninsula is costly, dangerous, and largely beyond our competence in any event.

Huhhh? Oh, I get it...it's wayyyyyyy over there! Who was it that bought arms from the North Koreans? Uhmmm...was it Iran? But then again, they are wayyyyyy wayyyyyyy over there, so there is nothing to worry about!

There is plenty to worry about, sarcasm notwithstanding. But how does manning the DMZ stop the Iranians from buying North Korean arms?

[T]he US had no choice but to reluctantly accept the assignment [of world's policeman.]

In 1950 this was true. It ceased to be true when the Berlin Wall fell, nearly seventeen years ago. (Comes the objection: what of Afghanistan and Iraq? But I supported those actions. North Korea is different.)

It is not clear that their interests in the matter even fundamentally conflict with ours.

Japan..check! South Korea...check! China...Russia? Uhmmm gonna have to check with the video replay judge on this one!

Well, actually, I think that you are agreeing not disagreeing with me on this point. The point is, we don't know what China and Russia will do, but we do know that their interests conflict, not only against one another but also against the other countries. The U.S. would be best served to keep her powder dry, to patrol quietly over the horizon, at least until events clarify.

I don't know if you have worn the uniform of the United States. If not, fine, but I have done, and it worries me leaving our soldiers sitting there where the Dear Leader can wreak ten thousand casualties any time he fancies. It makes no sense. The U.S. "tripwire" doctrine was a desparate gambit for the Cold War, not a balanced policy for 2006. The South Koreans can man their own border; they're not short of troops or military equipment, and they're certainly not short of genuine interest in the matter. Let them do the job.

is the war plan that covers this option. It was first dreamed up during the Carter Administration when the name of the country launching the provocation was intentionally left blank so we could quickly ink in the name of the offender.

I'm assuming that because you can turn on the computer you know this is silly and you intend it as something along the lines of A Modest Proposal.

As terrible as a nuclear North Korea is, we cannot afford here to squander what remains of our reservoir of international goodwill.

Do you remember fighting bullies on the playground? International goodwill doesn't give you the ability to project power and influence events. Strength does. And strength comes entirely from within, from resolve and from conviction. International goodwill is just as fickle as any other infatuation, and flows right to the strongest. And in geopolitics, just as in business and on the playground, it doesn't take much to figure out who is strong and who is not.

I agree with the general thrust of your remarks, but of course North Korea has a great deal of resolve and conviction, albeit generated by a system designed to extirpate individualism and all its fruits.

Everything you say is correct, Blackhedd. International goodwill does not give the ability to project power and influence events; strength does. Few things are more fickle than international goodwill. But use your intuition. Something is not right. Some essential balance is missing. Virility in foreign policy is indeed indispensable, but there is a difference between virility and mere machismo. Does America believe herself immune to the death of a thousand small cuts?

Who would dispute that the U.S. is best served by letting other countries bear their own proper burdens? Other countries might not bear them right, but we mightn't, either; and the burdens are after all theirs to bear. The real courage on our part lies in letting them do it, in letting go. The proper virtue---not in every case but surely in most---lies in minding our business. There is no perfect time to let go, but consider the alternative.

As matters stand, it seems that we do not ever mean voluntarily to let go, and the world knows it. We mean to meddle, and meddle, and meddle, until the meddled finally join together in exasperation to club us senseless. This is foreseeable. What is more, it is avoidable.

The people who have the most to lose from North Korean aggression, by far, are North Korea's neighbors. They are smart, rich, powerful and intensely interested. What is the matter with us? Why cannot we let those people handle it?
Because we think that they'll handle it wrong? Don't we think that we ourselves handle crises wrong, too? It is perfectly true that we don't know what would happen if we let the Asians handle their own problems, but we don't know what would happen if we meddled, either. Events are in the saddle.

Interfering in Korea under the circumstance is not responsible; it's neurotic.

The mark of the liberal is to believe that fresh thinking is always called for. The mark of the conservative is to know which events truly merit fresh thinking. The Cold War is over, please God. The old verities no longer hold. If such a situation does not merit fresh thinking in foreign policy, what situation does?

Please reconsider the position, Blackhedd. Think: where is the current trajectory taking us? Wherever it is, is that somewhere we truly want to go? I don't think that it is.

...but unfortunately I only have time for a brief one.

If you read some of what I've written upthread, I don't believe we can de-nuclearize, pacify, or otherwise stabilize North Korea through unilateral action, military or otherwise. Rather, I've said several times that we need to form strong alliances in the region and foster a nuclear capability in Japan.

I was reacting to the statements about international goodwill. Geopolitics isn't a tea party. International goodwill is worth having, but it's not worth seeking. The actor with the strongest hand will automatically enjoy the goodwill, even the obsequiousness, of the others. (Taking strength to the point of aggressive expansionism is a step too far; more on this later.) Many Americans intuitively understand this iron law of the jungle and the schoolyard. That's why John Kerry, for all his tough talk and his military service, could never shake the quite correct impression that he is a p**sy.

You're passionately making the case that once was called "isolationism." I want to stress immediately that I don't apply the pejoratives that attach to this word these days, that's why I put it in "quotes." It's a perfectly valid and intellectually coherent position, and you would have had a lot of distinguished company among Republican Senators if this were the 1930s.

But isolationism is no longer a policy the US can afford to take. After WW2, Harry Truman had the wisdom (against bitter opposition) to recognize that a vile cancer, expansionist Communism, was loose in the world, and he and his successors mobilized America to fight against it. Thanks to Ronald Reagan, we won that war, which was a fight for the one thing that matters most to America: freedom. And in order to wage the Cold War and also to fill the power vacuum that emerged in the late 1940s, we had to take a posture in world affairs that looked very much like an Empire. Among the legacies of this posture are our security guarantee to Taiwan (which make no mistake, we will abandon! I'm not saying we should abandon it, just that we will abandon it. Freedom for other peoples is something the American electorate is no longer willing to purchase with American blood), our influence in S. Korea and Japan, and our confrontations with the PRC.

But in our world, the stakes are very different. Our freedom is now threatened by a different ideology (radicalized Islam), but in addition to that, we have now seen the rise of a bevy of ambitious nations that have developed just enough freedom to become economically vibrant and powerful. And for a range of reasons (many of our own doing), we face global competition for strategic resources at the same time we are devitalizing our own business and industry (the engines of prosperity and continued freedom).

America is a consumer nation, and we were essentially the only one in the world until at least the 1980s. This made us the whole world's customer, and the customer is always right. But now a significant amount of economic final demand is coming from China, India, Brazil, and other places. American businesses no longer have the long shadow across world commodity and capital markets we once did. We are no longer always right. Increasingly other nations are.

The problem with this is that we no longer have the reach, the authority or the sheer power (in relative terms) to dominate the globe as we did as recently as the 1990s. This is the new global reality we now face.

I believe the best thing for America would be to embrace the role of a global Empire, one among several, and forge mutual-defense alliances with countries like Japan and India, and foster strong dependencies in places like Iraq. NoKo will be contained by China if they face unified nuclear opposition from the US and Japan. We must co-opt Brazil. We should confront China over Venezuela from a position of strength, not weakness. The world is no longer unipolar, and therefore the risk of war is growing with each day. But stability was maintained for decades in the late Nineteenth Century under arguably similar conditions. (WW1 was a completely avoidable, and insane, blunder on the part of half a dozen major powers: let us pray we don't repeat the error.) We must look to the revitalization of our own eceonomic strength, an extremely urgent but completely neglected national priority. We must also revitalize our demographic strength (which is why, to considerable anguish, I've elsewhere advocated the peaceful annexation or colonization of Mexico).

I recognize this vision of America's future is radically at odds with our history. You, like many others, believe that we should live and let live, in peace with our neighbors, and all play nicely in the sandbox. But today's economic realities no longer permit us to take such a posture. The risk is that we will be dominated economically (and eventually politically) by other nations. World war is not a foregone conclusion, but a stable world requires that we augment our own capabilities with strong, well-cultivated alliances. We need to know who are friends are, and also who our opponents are. And as I said upthread, our opponents are not enemies. They are competitors. It's a very rough game, but it is really a game, not an ideological struggle. (Apart from the fight against radicalized Islam, of course.)

I'm terribly sorry for the brevity of this response. It probably needs a full-length diary (or a book). I'm sure I've left far more questions than I've answered. Flame away as you see fit.

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan

more than just talk now? And I mean now, as in the next 72 hours. Iran is watching in addition to China. We simply must take action for future detterance purposes in addition to dealing with the present situation. A blockade of North Korea if not bombings?

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan

You really think we consider bombing North Korea? That would probably be the worst possible decision for the United States.

It would alienate the US from not only China but from South Korea as well, who would see such an action as provoking North Korea.

It would probably be exactly what the North Koreans would want us to do.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Nixon handshakes notwithstanding. China's alienation from us now is the major reason NKor's test occurred, just as alienation on 910 and before led to 911, alienation in 1940 led to 1941 and alienation in 1945 led to Cold War with hot battles.

I hear UBL and Saddam thought they wanted us to attack too. They have since changed their minds.

see

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/gamecock/2006/oct/09/wwjfkd

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan

I think we do nothing, actually. The U.S. is not Globocop, as far as I'm concerned, even though I favor a very muscular foreign policy.

China started this, China approved this, and China and China alone can stop this.

The price is Taiwan. All we'd have to do is agree with China that we'll stop selling arms to Taiwan, and look the other way militarily should China decide to annex Taiwan. China knows it can take Taiwan down; it just doesn't want the U.S. interfering. Hence, North Korea.

Iran is a different thing altogether. China isn't behind that one, I don't think. And Iran is actually rather hostile to the U.S. in an emotional way that China is not. But the time for action on Iran is long overdue. I suspect that by next year this time, we'll be wringing our hands about our 'failed Iranian policy' as well, and getting ready to bring our troops back home from everywhere in the Middle East (i.e., within missile range of Iranian nukes).

-rsh

"What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you'd like it to mean?" - Justice Antonin Scalia