jgvxfk zfsm nbywusx fkhqbcd qmlznay mbyv lmfwdkep

Jong-Il conducts his government like a schizophrenic. It's totally irrational. Just as a psychologist would recommend w/a schizophrenic-- all contact should be discouraged.

Since we are not the mortal enemy of Jong-Il, we need to pull our resources out of SKorea and let them deal with it so we can focus on the middle east, where they DO consider us (and the West) mortal enemies.

if Kim said continuiously that they have the nukes and the capability to develop them then why the hell did bush didn't invade north korea in the first place? instead he invaded Iraq with its Saddam who claim that they did not have nuke's (and it proves to be true)

Well, they've tested their bombs. Now what?
The world has not ended.
The political process continues as before.

Did I mention that the NK regime is totally irrational to the point of schizophrenia?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/08/nkorea.nuclear/index.html

Any more questions on how this is going to go down?

Everybody looks at solutions to the NK nuclear crisis as so simple. If only we'd talk, etc etc. The NY Times wrote anothe such "know it all" piece today on what needs to be done.

The editorial cites that China and the United States need to solve the affair.

"In China's case, that means delivering an unambiguous warning to its longtime client that a nuclear test will be followed by an immediate and painful reduction in Chinese subsidies and aid"

What is the motivation for them to send an "unambiguous warning"? Will Jong Il nuke them? No. If he threatens anyone it would be Japan, S.Korea or Taiwan. None can strike back. Any regional instability lends itself towards one of the primary Chinese goals -- to take back Taiwan. What is the motivation again?

"And President Bush will have to make his own unambiguous commitment that the United States will not try to overthrow the North Korean government"

What, pray tell could convince Jong Il that Bush will not try to overthrow NK? A handshake? A promise? A written letter? A UN resolution? Jong Il will never trust America -- or he'll feign to for as long as it suits him (as he did with Bill Clinton). Jong Il's is not western. He doesn't think like the West. He doesn't want the same things as the West. To be truthful, nobody knows what he wants. It's just supposition after supposition. Besides, everybody, Jong Il and Bush included knows that an invasion by the US is a last ditch solution.

No, the US will not be the primary player in the solution. It will be the local countries. And it may not be pretty. SKorea has a lot of desire to reunite the Koreas and is willing to rationalize a lot of Jong Il's behavior to that extent. Also, there's a long standing dislike between the Koreans and Japanese. So, extortion of the Japanese if not out of the question. While NK missles could not deliver a nuke accurately to the US west coast, it could accurately strike a Japanese city. At that point, we'd have to figure out what we're going to do. An invasion of NK would involve a lot of spilled American blood. Would we bleed for Japan or would we leave them at Jong-Il's mercy? Would China take the opportunity to execute a Taiwan strike? Sounds far fetched, but talk to many Chinese, they believe that Taiwan is a renegade and belongs to China and the rest of the world should but out. Would we spill American blood for little ol' Taiwan?

Really and truthfully, probably the only way to stop Jong Il without invading him, is to embrace him as an ally -- perhaps as we did with Saddam in the 70s and 80s. Show him adoration, give him increased power and influence. He is a meglomaniac after all, right? It is the only thing that makes sense. Could we do that as Americans? It would go against all logic and principles.

We'll wait this one out, is what we'll do. And we'll pray for a good outcome.

If President Bush should announce a nomination of a senior policy officer to take over North Korean affairs, send him to Pyongyang for high-level negotiations on a peace treaty and establishment of full diplomatic relations, the DPRK Government of Kim Jong Il would reconsider conducting the planned nuclear test.
But it is highly unlikely.
North Korea kept patiently waiting for ten years while freezing their nuclear program. But no peace treaty, no light-water reactor, no diplomatic relations. Instead the North Koreans have been singled out as a prime target of regime change and sanctions.
The DPRK has no legitimate reason to wait any longer. The nuclear talks are dead.
After conducting the planned nuclear test, the DPRK will not negotiate reduction or dismantlement of nuclear weapons.
While pregnant, it may be aborted. Once born, there is no killing it.
Japan or South Korea going nuclear will mean that the US nuclear umbrella is porous.
Technically they are nuclear-armed because they are host to nuclear-armed US troops.
North Korea has been subjected to US nuclear threats and sanctions for over fifty years, longer and harder that any country.
The time has come for the Governmnet of Kim Jong Il to demonstrate beyond any doubt that the DPRK is a full member of the elite Nuclear Club.
Admission does not requre US approval.

As I proprietor of a blog that focuses on North Korean Human Rights, I do not have much to say about North Korea's desire for nukes.

But I do believe that in a regime where resources are extremely scarce, allocating so much on a nuclear program probably killed more North Koreans than the nukes themselves.

In a free society, that's not really an issue as most individual mostly rely on themselves. But in a society that is highly dependant on the government for survival (though that has diminished over the years), such allocation of resources causes more starvation and more refugees sneaking out of the country.

Knowing that North Korea cares little about human life, I see it as an opportunity for the world to truly see Kim Jong-Il's regime in its true form, a threat to peace and humanity. It's time that Kim's search for attention backfire on him.

My impression of the NK statement was how carefully it was was worded, and how free of bombast it was. It sounds as though NK is trying to establish its credentials as a responsible nuclear power.

Ambassador Gregg, respectfully, I can scarcely believe you wrote that. I feel compelled to add details and sources to the facts we refer to in the main post.

In February 2005, the New York Times reported that North Korea sold uranium hexafluoride to the A.Q. Khan Network, uranium we later recovered in Libya. North Korea (previous admissions notwithstanding) denies even having a uranium enrichment program, which might explain the Administration's distrust.

There have been persistent reports that North Korea has assisted Iran's nuclear program, in a technology-for-oil swap. This one is from the Boston Globe.

In December 2003, the New York Times reported that Kim Jong Il agreed to sell Saddam Hussein a complete SCUD factory, but that he reneged on the deal and kept Saddam's down payment. The substance of that charge is corroborated in the final report of the Iraq Survey Group, starting at Page 121.

In February 2004, the Times even reported that North Korea's first nuclear weapons test actually took place in Pakistan in 1998.

I could go on.

An off-day at the Ministry of Vitriol (executions to follow) seems like a leaky vessel in which to pour one's hopes that North Korea has matured into a responsible steward of weapons of mass murder.

My impression of the NK statement was how carefully it was was worded, and how free of bombast it was. It sounds as though NK is trying to establish its credentials as a responsible nuclear power.

Ambassador Gregg, respectfully, I can scarcely believe you wrote that. I feel compelled to add details and sources to the facts we refer to in the main post.

In February 2005, the New York Times reported that North Korea sold uranium hexafluoride to the A.Q. Khan Network, uranium we later recovered in Libya. North Korea (previous admissions notwithstanding) denies even having a uranium enrichment program, which might explain the Administration's distrust.

There have been persistent reports that North Korea has assisted Iran's nuclear program, in a technology-for-oil swap. This one is from the Boston Globe.

In December 2003, the New York Times reported that Kim Jong Il agreed to sell Saddam Hussein a complete SCUD factory, but that he reneged on the deal and kept Saddam's down payment. The substance of that charge is corroborated in the final report of the Iraq Survey Group, starting at Page 121.

In February 2004, the Times even reported that North Korea's first nuclear weapons test actually took place in Pakistan in 1998.

I could go on.

An off-day at the Ministry of Vitriol (executions to follow) seems like a leaky vessel in which to pour one's hopes that North Korea has matured into a responsible steward of weapons of mass murder.

I am more than willing to be the senior policy director for North Korean issues, as proposed by Donald Gregg. And I will take Rice with me. The two of us - with our handbags - should be able to knock some sense into Kim Jong (aka King Kong). My handbag is made out of crocodile skin! And Rice has one made out of rhino - she picked it up at a Middle Eastern bazaar.

Donald Gregg must of been smoking some killer dope when he wrote his post. That's the stupidist piece of fantasy about NK that I've read in years.

I think it's abundantly clear that the DPRK does not negotiate in good faith. What's the point of more broken promises, bilateral or otherwise?

My impression of the NK statement was how carefully it was was worded, and how free of bombast it was. It sounds as though NK is trying to establish its credentials as a responsible nuclear power. It may hope that this statement will put pressure on the US to start talking with them bilaterally. This will not work with the Bush administration, and the gulf of suspicion and mutual hostility will only widen. I still believe that NK would rather talk seriously with the US than to conduct
a nuclear test, but this latest move is another step away from dialogue toward greater estrangement.

Is there anything that could be done to stop a test from occuring? I think there is. If the Bush administration would appoint a senior policy director for North Korean issues, as Congress wants it to,
I believe that talks could be re-started. I fear that there is very little chance of this happening. I hope I am wrong, but I do not think I am.

Donald Gregg was a CIA official since 1951 and a liaison to President Carter's National Security Council and, National Security Advisor to Vice President George H.W. Bush and U.S. ambassador to South Korea from 1989 to 1993. He's now chairman of the board of the Korea Society.

For PostGlobal: Litmus Test for US-China Relations

A North Korean nuclear weapon test will not only confirm that the secretive Stalinist state has become a nuclear power; an atomic explosion on the Korean peninsula, which I expect will occur before the end of this year, will also confirm America's failure to contain Pyongyang and China's failure or inability to restrain its belligerent vassal.

China and the United States are at a crossroads; and the North Korean crisis is a litmus test of the complex US-China relationship. North Korea depends on China for most of its food and fuel; so far, however, China has done a better job of restraining the US than moderating the behavior of the Hermit Kingdom.

China responded to the North Korean nuclear test announcement with an appeal to calm, directed at the North as well as its neighbors. But Beijing's apparent determination to keep the North Korean issue out of the Security Council, despite Pyongyang's refusal to return to stalled six-party disarmament talks, is raising eyebrows and bolstering the arguments of China's increasingly vocal critics who understandably want to know if China is emerging as a responsible stakeholder with which peaceful coexistence is possible.

I doubt it. China's military buildup--including modernizing and expanding its navy to project power, protect strategic sea lanes and challenge US dominance and deter possible US intervention in the event of a Chinese attack on self-ruled Taiwan--belies Beijing's peacefully rising propaganda. China's aggressive efforts to secure markets and lock up energy supplies, while supplying US enemies and rogue states with arms and diplomatic backing, contradict claims of harmonious international development.

For senior US officials who have signed onto the stakeholder notion--notably US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who has actually asserted that a stong China is in America's national interest--the next few months should constitute an especially interesting period.

http://chinaconfidential.blogspot.com