It's the basis of why "good" countries can have nuclear capabilities but "bad" countries can't. Not applicable, eh? Debt Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea, and others to death. Hard power vs soft power vs sticky power vs the dollar. Western imperialism props up half of the currency.
What is actually helping us is China no longer values the teachings of Chairman Mao more than the rewards of Capitalism. China is communist in name only as they may have a politburo, but they realize they have to answer to and maintain the high standard of living most urban Chinese have grown accustomed to. That means, to coin a phrase: "The spice must flow".... They realize that NoKor may be communist and a buffer, but they're becoming "expensive" and that's the weak link our allies in the region need to exploit. China isn't gonna front money to NoKor forever especially if the NoKors are bound and determined to remain chained to their self made "Asian Ghetto". They've become a welfare state and China is signing the checks. Once the money becomes an issue, the Chinese will intervene and get things straight in NoKor. If the Fat Kid doesn't see this, he'll be living in exile and Rodman will have to bring a sandwich on his next visit.
Yep.. It will come down to the money. Will the cost of propping up the Fat Kid be worth the loss of income and prestige that surely will happen once NoKor does something even more retarded than their last act. Talk will only carry the Fat Kid so far. He's gonna paint himself into a corner and will be forced to either act or be defined as "all talk". That will be one very scary day for Seoul, Tokyo, Bejing and Washington.
I think this is way to simplistic. It comes down to trust. Most of the world operates in a world where goods, services, information and basic freedom flow freely. The countries you mention are insular, lack basic human freedom and have internal issues which impact how they behave externally. In short they simply can't be trusted to have these types of weapons. Trust is based on similar goals, similar backgrounds or open assimilation of basic ideas or at the base level the rule of law that is understandable across borders. None of that exists in the countries you mention. Why should we trust them to have Nukes? That was a rhetorical question, of course we can't.
Here's an interesting article about the game North Korea is playing. http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/ferocious-weak-and-crazy-north-korean-strategy
This is a silly statement. Is Japan "bad"? How about South Korea? Is Pakistan "good"? How about Russia? China? The US position on who can have nuclear weapons is governed completely by the notion of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. If the Danes suddenly went on a "we're building a bomb" kick the US would be doing the same things to prevent that which are being done to prevent the development of nuclear weapons by states we don't share values with. The facts behind nuclear non-proliferation right now are that it doesn't work in the long-term and so everything that you do to prevent it is short-term and tactical. The Russians and Chinese are just as concerned about the spread of nuclear weapons as the west is. That's why they joined in on the sanctions on North Korea and have for the most part supported the sanctions against Iran. What makes North Korea and Iran different than the rest of the world in this regard is that they are actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time. That's why they have the sanctions on them and are backed into a corner. I don't disagree with either country trying to get nuclear weapons but I also don't see the struggle as the US vs NK or the US vs Iran. There are a lot of countries involved in trying to keep nuclear proliferation under wraps because once the genie really gets out of the bottle everybody is going to have to build nukes. That's not western imperialism. That's power politics and the Chinese and the Russians are just as involved as the US in that effort. The Japanese support it because they're going to have to build nukes if the North Koreans become a big nuclear power. So will the South Koreans. The Chinese support non-proliferation because they don't want anybody else in the region having a big nuclear arsenal. They have enough problems with a nuclear India already.
Who said weapons? When not explicit, nuclear capabilities = nuclear power or technology. Unless you're assuming/arguing they can't be trusted w/ that also.
I agree. However, it outlines the close-to universally accepted perspective of the West/Enemies of the West paradigm, which is what I was saying. Incorrect. I would argue with you about this but it's a he wrote/he wrote. The U.S. position on who can have nuclear weapons is actually governed by who is willingly subservient to the U.S. ("Western allies") and who is not (the countries I mentioned). Western "intelligence" would just "indicate" a non-ally as intending to use their nuclear capabilities to produce weapons and then justify an economic or military response without actual proof (except for trust in the gov't; see: Iraq WMDs intelligence and Hans Blix calling out Western intelligence as B.S. yet still people at the time believed it). I don't want to be rude and say "duh" so I'll remain reserved and stick with "agreed". Fixed. Part of why, yes. The other reasons are: pick your battles, Kim Jong-Un is relatively unknown (and thus unpredictable) and potentially volatile, North Korea isn't as economically powerful as an oil-producing ally such as Iran, etc. Incorrect. Iran claims their nuclear technology is for peaceful purposes, whereas "Western intelligence" argues that Iran is deceiving the West and secretly producing nuclear weapons. So, again, it comes down to trust in the gov't. Pakistan has nukes. Would you not agree that the genie has already exited the bottle? Also, ftr, Kazakhstan inheriting 1500 nukes from the Soviets following the collapse was pretty worrisome at the time. NK and US have met bilaterally recently (in March) but there have been no multilateral or anything close to six-party talks. Fixed. They have no incentive to create nuclear weapons, they'd risk losing U.S. support and military aid. You could argue that they're going to think the U.S. is going to make them feel unsafe and that they'll go Israel on our gov't but they don't have the proverbial pinky finger up America's arse like Israel does to pull that off successfully. And Pakistan. And Turkey. Just to clarify (if needed), North Korea already possesses nuclear weapons.
Is there a face-saving way out of this situation for North Korea? That's what has me worried. They've backed themselves into a corner here and I don't see a way for them to get out without a very risky provocation. If the North Koreans lose face at the end of this the internal political ramifications will be huge.
Well apparently they have placed their missiles into launch position so at this point I don't know. They say there is going to be another test. The question is at what point is an attack made to look like a launch gone bad? If they fire these missiles near a certain area and they get shot down does Korea than say that is an act of aggression and attack Seoul and Tokyo? Apparently these missiles they are "testing" can reach Guam. As this continues down the path it seems to be going I am starting to think the endgame is not what the US or our allies want. What also worries me is that as Korea continues to defy the US and UN Iran has to be sitting back taking notes for their own little gain. It also deflects attention away from the civil war in Syria and the fact that things in Afghanistan haven't exactly been going peachy the last few weeks.
I don't think North Korea has any mistakes left in the bank at this point. What worries me is that they create a provocation and the US in our measured response triggers something improbable but deadly. Say the North Koreans hit a Japanese ship with a missile and heavily damage or sink it. The US response is likely to be the destruction of the facility that launched the missile as well as several other militarily important sites. The several other sites that conveniently present themselves are the SAM batteries on the path to the intended target. The US hits these to minimize the risk to inbound planes in the strike. It could be an unmanned response instead but planes always get the other guy's attention better. The North Koreans then see the SAM battery destruction as a prelude to a larger raid and the potential commencement of wartime activities and they launch a pre-emptive strike on Seoul and the allied forces assembled near the DMZ. And we're off and running with the Chinese either desperately trying to rein in the North Koreans or alternately moving across the border in force into North Korea with nobody knowing whether they're headed for Pyongyang or Seoul. BTW, looking at all of the above I think it is really important that the US does not commit planes to any retaliatory raid against North Korea. Send in cruise missiles and drones to do the job. Much less chance of an accidental war that way.
Sure there is. They launch their missile tests, we end our excercises (on schedule) and Kim Jong-Un claims to his countrymen that he got the imperialist Yankees and their lapdogs to back down.
*Obviously they shouldn't be, not can't be. "Can't be" is based on Iranian rhetoric that's open to interpretation and Western intelligence that conjectures Iranian deception. I agree with your position but it's not as clear-cut and good vs. evil as many are led to believe. For example, while Iran has clearly stated its opposition to Israel (duh), some quotes about "destroying" Israel have been grossly taken out of context (not saying Iran has never said this, just saying that it's a fact that some "threats" have been incorrectly interpreted in the past; some would argue because of Western desire to overstate the threat a la Iraq).
The North Koreans are claiming that a state of war exists between them and South Korea at this point and that the armistice is over. How do they back away from that?
I'm fairly certain they've claimed that before. Bear in mind that technically, a state of war has existed since 1953, as no peace treaty was signed, only an armistice. They've said they're not going to abide by the armistice and haven't done anything (yet). Nobody knows what's truly going on in the regimes collective mind. But, we do have past behavior as a pattern for current actions. And past behavior says they'll do something provocative (blow up an airliner, sink a ship, nuclear test, missile test) and wait for the cash to come in.
