The real immediate threat:Irag or North Korea

[88Comrade2000]

Just a question. What do you feel is the more immediate threat, Iraq or N Korea?

I feel North Korea is more of an immediate threat. Many of the reasons Bush is using to fight Iraq; N Korea is capable of doing now or will be within 6 months to 18 months. N korea has nuclear facilites that can produce nuclear weapons. They already have one or two nuke bombs now and could probably produce another 3-5 within a year. N Korea is distributing weapons to roque states or could give them to Alqueda. After all they just sent Yemen- a state that has terrorists; weapons. Does anyone honestly believe that those weapons, won't get into the wrong hands?

N Korea is developing missles capable of hitting the west coast of the United States.

The US have troops that could be wiped out immediately by a N Korean nuclear bomb. Also, the newly elected S Korean government is more anti-American and the youth is S Korea is anti-American.

Iraq isn't at the stage as N Korea is. Frankly, we should be worried about N Korea; in my mind. AS for Iraq, let Israel go bomb it. They did it once before, so let them do it again.

[Tarhog]

I don-ai't disagree with your logic. However, there is a difference. We can DO something about Saddam Hussein right now and eliminate him as a potential exporter of terrorism and WOMD quickly, decisively, and probably with acceptable losses.

North Korea is an entirely different matter. A ground war is a nightmare there. Most of our air advantage is lost there due to dense forestation (and unlike Iraq, they know how to use their anti-air assets). As you pointed out, we have several hundred thousand US troops to worry about. And then theres China, which shows only a little less penchant for self-destructive decision-making, and its highly unlikely they stand by and watch us take out N. Koreas military assets.

We are taking out Iraq first because we can. I think the State Dept and Bush Administration might agree with you that N. Korea is a bigger threat, but theres no easy answer to it unless the Russians and Chinese take it on (which ultimately is possible as they don't really want a nuclear Korea either).

I think the time is coming where the US is going to have to declare we will not tolerate ANY further nuclear proliferation, that if we find evidence of nuclear facilities going up, anywhere in the world, we will take them out without warning. If we don't take a stand in the next 10 years, a nuclear exchange (or worse, use of nukes by terrorists) is going to happen.

[Yomar]

well, China could be bought off if it was a top priority for the US, we could just walk away from the Taiwan issue, but for reasons I don't fully understand, that will probably never happen.

[Riggo-toni]

Taiwan is a fully functioning democracy which is no more a part of the Mainland than Kuwait is a part of Iraq.

Iran is closing in on nuclear weapons, and is a state sponsor of terrorism on a far larger scale than Iraq. Iran is in my view the biggest threat.

[Yomar]

Originally posted by riggo-toni

Taiwan is a fully functioning democracy which is no more a part of the Mainland than Kuwait is a part of Iraq.

Thats one take. Another take is that Taiwan is indeed a part of China, and just because after the Chinese Nationalists fled there after Mao won the revolution does not change the fact that Taiwan is a part of China. In fact, after defeat in WWII Japan ceded Taiwan back to China, which Japan had controlled since 1885 after war with China. Shortly there after, Mao won the civil war and about 2 million anti-communist chinese fled to Taiwan seeking refuge. The only reason the situation remains unresolved is because of American support which continues as a remnant of the cold war. Hong Kong and Macao opperate with separate governments even though they are part of one China and China wants the same arrangement with Taiwan. The fact that Taiwan has a democratic government is not an issue for the Chinese, they are willing to allow Taiwan to operate separately, but as part of China. Taiwan has never declared independence from China and if they ever did, China has threatened a military response.

[luckydevil]

North Korea is more of a threat, but that situation is alot more dangerous to deal with. Like somebody said earlier on, North Korea is at a whole different level in terms of nuclear capability. If we attacked North Korea, they have the capability of sending a nuke to Japan. From what I have read, some claim they our are biggest threat.

[BG]

The threat is Iraq. While we are threatened by the nuclear capability in N.Korea, the risk of having them nuke or destroy Seoul and stir the pot in Asia is too great. It would be virtually inevitable. There is reason to believe that a weapons program can be diverted in North Korea through diplomatic efforts. We need to push the French to hold to their part of a deal that was made early on in the Clinton years. Don't have an article but many are aware of this.

It is possible to not experience the same woes while invading Iraq and ousting Saddam. While I don't agree with the premise of any war, we are in one and Sadaam has to be dealt with. Better now than later. Actually, it should have already been done to show how serius we are in ridding the world of terrorism.

[redman]

Good discussion so far. I thought I'd revive it.

Many things I'd say have already been posted. However, I think you have to define what you mean by "who's the larger threat?" Threat to do what?

If you mean strictly in terms of ability to effectively deliver nuclear chemical or biological weapons, then N. Korea clearly is the threat.

However, if you are asking which country, without U.S. involvement in containing it, would be most likely to terrorize it's region, then Iraq is that country.

Look around N. Korea. There are some pretty big and powerful countries' with a stake in stability in that region, including China, Russian and Japan. Even S. Korea can be regarded as an economically significant nation in the world. N. Korea is already mostly contained even without our direct involvement. We of course don't want to simply leave it at that as we don't want other regimes to dictate the resolution of this crisis, and we don't want the other nations in that region to start an arms race thinking that they won't be covered by the umbrella of U.S. firepower if N. Korea acts aggressively. But N. Korea, however crazy they might appear, are not so stupid as to think that they can simply fire off missles at various countries without facing virtual armageddon courtesy of their powerful neighbors. Despite their historical cooperation with each other, the last thing that the Chinese want to do is to have their crazy kid communist brother provoking a war in their own backyard using WMD's.

Iraq, OTOH, is not surrounded by world powers. If we don't contain them, who will? The equivocating Arab states? The Israeli's who already have enough on their plate and who don't exactly need to go looking for more ways to piss off the Arabs? The Europeans and Russians who seem to see them as a commercial opportunity more than a world threat? The Iranians who don't exactly operate on the lofty moral high ground themselves when it comes to development of WMD's and who only a decade ago concluded a brutal and costly war with Iraq?

Despite N. Korea's advanced nuclear capacity, there is more time to use diplomacy with some pretty powerful world players to contain them before we start shooting. Iraq OTOH doesn't respond to anything except for coercion backed by overwhelming military force.

Besides, I don't think that the fact that the use of Iraq as a lesson to the world of our continuing military dominance is lost on the Administration. Don't you think that countries like Iran, N. Korea and Pakistan will think long and hard before they decide to cross the U.S. or back out of non-proliferation treaties with us, etc.? And if we beat up Iraq in a conflict, the Iranians will awaken to find that we've suddenly removed the two entrenched enemy regimes on either side of their country within 18 months. Interesting, no?

[Kilmer17]

There is no reason we cannot address both. If the N Korean info had been available a year ago, we would probably be focusing on them first. But all in due time. We have been ramping up to take care of Iraq for a year, it would take too long to change directions.

Now if we hadn't been cutting defense for years, we'd probably still have the ability to fight 2 fronts of war. But we can thank Clinton for that.

[redman]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

There is no reason we cannot address both. If the N Korean info had been available a year ago, we would probably be focusing on them first. But all in due time. We have been ramping up to take care of Iraq for a year, it would take too long to change directions.

Changing directions would also make us appear somewhat weak and distracted in the way that we're handling Iraq. And we'll be dam*ed if we're going to let that happen.

On the subject of two wars, here's an opinion piece from the 12/31/02 New York Times editorial page on this subject by Warren Christopher. He's not my favorite political/foreign policy figure, but it is good food for thought and discussion:

Iraq Belongs on the Back Burner

By WARREN M. CHRISTOPHER

LOS ANGELES

North Korea's startling revival of its nuclear program, coupled with the unrelenting threat of international terrorism, presents compelling reasons for President Bush to step back from his fixation on attacking Iraq and to reassess his administration's priorities.

North Korea's reopening of its plutonium reprocessing plant at Yongbyon puts it within six months of being able to produce sufficient weapons-grade material to generate several nuclear bombs. Contrast this with Iraq. Not only is North Korea much further along than Iraq in building nuclear weapons but, by virtue of its longer-range missiles, it has a greater delivery capability.

Every option for dealing with this situation — including the administration's "structured containment" — is fraught with danger and potentially disastrous consequences. Having participated in the discussions leading up to the now-violated 1994 agreed framework with North Korea, I am convinced that this crisis requires sustained attention from top government officials, including the president. It's important to remember that devising a solution for the North Korean crisis will require sustained diplomatic efforts with China, South Korea and other countries of the region. All this will take time, energy and attention.

And then there is the war on terrorism. Deadly terrorist attacks continue around the globe, wreaking havoc in far-flung places such as Indonesia, Kenya, Jordan and Yemen, where three American missionaries were killed by a gunman yesterday. Here at home, we remain highly vulnerable to terrorist attacks and woefully unprepared to cope with the consequences. We cannot put this issue on the back burner.

In foreign affairs, Washington is chronically unable to deal with more than one crisis at a time. As deputy secretary of state in the Carter administration, I helped to negotiate the release of 52 Americans held hostage in the United States Embassy in Iran. I recall how this relatively confined crisis submerged all other issues for 14 months, including the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Similarly, in the early years of the Clinton administration, our concentration on Bosnia and Haiti may have drawn our attention away from the killings in Rwanda.

While Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld may be right in saying that our military can fight two wars at the same time, my experience tells me that we cannot mount a war against Iraq and still maintain the necessary policy focus on North Korea and international terrorism. Anyone who has worked at the highest levels of our government knows how difficult it is to engage the attention of the White House on anything other than the issue of the day. For example, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — a major crisis by any standard — now seems to be handled largely by an assistant secretary of state. Likewise, Afghanistan, which is at risk again of becoming a haven for terrorists, seems to be getting less attention than it deserves.

A United States-led attack on Iraq will overshadow all other foreign-policy issues for at least a year. In the early months, the news media can be expected to offer wall-to-wall combat stories, covered with characteristic one-dimensional intensity. Even if the optimistic predictions of quick victory prove to be accurate, we would then find ourselves absorbed with the occupation of Iraq and efforts to impose democracy on the fractious elements of that country.

Unless the president has been provided intelligence about Iraq's capacities that he has not shared or even hinted at in his public statements, the threats from North Korea and from international terrorism are more imminent than those posed by Iraq. No doubt the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein reigning in Iraq, but we must recognize that the effort of removing him right now may well distract us from dealing with graver threats.

We now have in place in Iraq a much stronger inspection regime than we had only a few months ago, and it would be both consistent with our obligations to the United Nations and conducive to sound relations with our allies to let that effort run its natural course. The present murky picture of Iraq's capacities and intentions may become much clearer after a sustained period of regular and surprise inspections and interrogations of Iraqi scientists in noncoercive circumstances.

Under our constitutional system, the president has pre-eminent power to establish priorities in foreign affairs — reinforced in the case of Iraq by Congressional action. Nevertheless, the decision to start a war, especially a pre-emptive war, requires a vision wider than the sole question of whether a favorable outcome is possible or likely. Before President Bush gives the signal to attack Iraq, he should take a new, broad look at the question of whether such a war, at this moment, is the right priority for America. In light of recent developments, failure to revisit the question would reflect a level of confidence in the present course that is unwarranted and unwise.

Warren Christopher was Secretary of State from 1993 to 1997.

[fansince62]

kilmer17...while I'm a virulent clinton basher...i have to ante up and be honest to the facts....the defense drawdown started toward the end of the first bush administration (planning/budgets) and continued through the clinton era and was supported by both parties as the so-called "peace dividend" from the demise of the soviet empire and the end of the cold war.....

[BG]

Originally posted by redman

Besides, I don't think that the fact that the use of Iraq as a lesson to the world of our continuing military dominance is lost on the Administration. Don't you think that countries like Iran, N. Korea and Pakistan will think long and hard before they decide to cross the U.S. or back out of non-proliferation treaties with us, etc.? And if we beat up Iraq in a conflict, the Iranians will awaken to find that we've suddenly removed the two entrenched enemy regimes on either side of their country within 18 months. Interesting, no?

This may seem rediculous and unfounded, but if we oust Saddam after a military struggle, we could maintain a base of larger magnitude in the middle east. It could do wonders for counter intelligence and give us a better network to battle terrorism where it's heart seems to be.

[redman]

Depending on what you mean, I'm not sure that's necessary. We already have pretty good access to bases in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Turkey, and even Yemen and on the Horn of Africa. It would benefit us to the extent that we could likely make greater inroads against Iraqi-sponsored terrorism, but that's about the only anti-terrorism benefit I could see. Iran is the major sponsor of terror in that region, not Iraq.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

I think the problem with Iraq is more about controlling Middle East oil than a serious problem of exporting WMDs. Invading Iraq is basically an issue of how ruthless the U.S. wants to be about controlling Middle East oil.

As others have written, North Korea has a much more serious probability of exporting nukes, since they may have nukes already and already export weapons to terrorist-supporting nations. North Korea also is run by guys who have no problem with killing loads of people or enduring loads of their own being killed.

I think North Korea's most immediate objective is gaining the leverage to reunify Korea. With the USSR dismantled, that doesn't really trouble me per se -- this is an issue for Koreans to decide, and reunification has some support in South Korea. Yes, South Korea is a democracy, but we're not in the Cold War anymore: not every trouble spot in the world is ours to police.

Of more note, a nuclear Korea would probably tip Japan toward rearming and building its own nukes. A nuclear Japan, a nuclear Korea and a nuclear China is probably a recipe for massive bloodshed down the road. And with Japan's history of aggression, they might be the most dangerous and formidable foe many years down the road.

So saving the world longterm might demand taking out North Korea now. Alternatively, there might be a deal to be had by supporting Korean reunification on the condition of permanent Korean nuclear disarmament. Difficult to enforce, but possibly the best available option with no bloodshed.

[fansince62]

what a deal!!! consign millions of S. Koreans to concentration camps and slavery on the expectation of nuclear disarmament! yep...we can fully expect the N. Koreans to give up the only arrow they have in their pathetic quiver of national options and pretensions to power. the dynamic is pretty clear - turn over S. Korea (note that no one, most especially the nattering idiots on the editorial pages of the NY Times is arguiing what form this would actually take although it is pretty clear what course N. Korea has to follow iot maintain its illegitimate hold on power: no power sharing here fellas!) and Kim Jong Il & Co will become nice guys cuz that's always been their disposition and the inherrent logic of their political system.

there may be options. but I have not heard anyone debate whether or not one can assume from the start that the N. Korean government can be reasonably accepted to have a rational decision calculus.

let's make one far fetched assumption: Kim Il does enjoy his concubines, his western autos, korean porno films, karioke with the storm troopers on fun night, etc.; that he prefers the bump and grind of living to nuclear death. it then gets down to the gaming aspects of international blackmail. who is going to fall for the bluff first? while this pas-de-deux is playing out, how do we contain the evident connections and succor this regime provides to international terrorism (documented since at least the 1960's)? this will interesting to watch. the stakes are high for the chinese as well - nuclear clouds have a tendancy to blow with the prevailing winds!

[NavyDave]

N Korea while an annoyance can be dealt with three ways and hopefully it isnt option one paying them off.

Once a nation joins the nuke club what are we supposed to do?

So before a nutcase like Iraq gets the capability it should be a no brainer to take Sadam out.

Its all about taking the oil??

I wont say thats stupid but comeon.

Lets say we rolled into Iraq took out Sadam and took over the oil what could the world do about it?

Just shut up and hope they aren next.

But we wont do that sadly.

Imagine gas for 50 cents per gallon

[redman]

Originally posted by Atlanta Skins Fan

I think the problem with Iraq is more about controlling Middle East oil than a serious problem of exporting WMDs. Invading Iraq is basically an issue of how ruthless the U.S. wants to be about controlling Middle East oil.

You mean like how we "control" Kuwaiti oil right now, right? Or how we "control" Saudi oil? Qatari oil? Bahraini oil? UAE oil?

We saved all of their bacon a decade ago and I see absolutely no sign of any less autonomy on their part now than I did before Iraq invaded Kuwait. Indeed, I see more signs of ungrateful nations differing with us publicly over rather obvious things, especially since September 11, than I did then.

Your argument is ridiculous.

[Sarge]

Iraq is about to get theirs, very soon. Meanwhile, North Korea is still on the sh!tlist. If I were Bush, I would cut them off completely and let the rest of them starve to death. The only people that eat over there are in the military. Problem solved.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by Air Sarge

Iraq is about to get theirs, very soon. Meanwhile, North Korea is still on the sh!tlist. If I were Bush, I would cut them off completely and let the rest of them starve to death. The only people that eat over there are in the military. Problem solved.

(sounds of ASF rummaging through history books)

(sounds of ASF thumbing through pages)

(sounds of Britney Spears song in background, "Oops, I did it again")

(momentary ASF look of longing at Britney Spears screen saver)

(more sounds of ASF thumbing through pages)

Yup. There it is. December 1941. The last time smarty-pants Americans tried to use an embargo against a ruthless Asian nation tending to its perceived regional business.

Pearl Harbor.

This time: starring nuclear weapons, threatened against our mainland or Japan's.

Okey-dokey.

Tip for your next poker game:

The hungry, cold-blooded guy with the nuclear weapons :asta: -- that hand beats the fat guy who tries to take the hungry guy's food :dunce:. (Hint: our hand is the fat guy with the funny hat.)

[fansince62]

"controlling Mid-East Oil" would just be a nice freebee! i'm not sure how controlling Iraqi reserves equates to controlling Mid-East reserves, but we'll let that one slip. i'm not even sure what controlling is supposed to mean in this instance....direct supervision of production and pricing by the US government? recapitalization with American equity holders? US control over how revenues are used? simple physical ownership? is the US then supposed to organize its own cartel? or does it simply undermine the efficacy of OPEC? cmon...I need to know how this mini-drama unfolds before I vote in 2 years. but let's assume that were the case. who would stand to lose the most? what? the Saudis? you mean the same guys funding the terrorists? say it aint so!!! what a terrible thing for anyone who admires chop chop block and modern Arab justice to think!!!! I won't have it!!

btw...how do all of you get to work on a rainy day? or the drug store? or a Skins' game for that matter? those *amn American imperialist pigs.....forcing us all to live their decadent lifestyles of convenience.......

[Kilmer17]

Unlike last time, we need to sieze Iraqi oil reserves and production and use it to pay the cost of war.