May 06, 2003
NORTH KOREA'S BOMB....Dan Drezner is unhappy about the latest
development in the North Korea crisis. The Bush administration has
basically said that there's not much they can do about North Korea's
nuclear program any more, so we'll just have to try and keep them from exporting any nukes via an embargo, a transparently ridiculous and unworkable plan.
As Dan says, we have three options: do nothing, help Japan get nukes as a counterweight to North Korea, or strike a deal: The first option relies on very wishful thinking.
The second option would have wide-ranging and unpredictable regional implications.
The third option rewards a totalitarian state that is in many ways worse than Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
Everybody
agrees that all three options are lousy ones, but surely the third is
the least worst? After all, the primary argument against it is moral
hazard: if we pay off the North Koreans for dismantling their nuclear
program, it just sends a message to other rogue states that they can
extort money from us too. Bad precedent, no?
Well, no. How many rogue states are there in the world that would
actually set up a hugely expensive nuclear weapons program solely to
extort money out of the United States? The idea is nuts. As a purely
economic bargain, it makes no sense at all.
On the other hand, building nuclear weapons as a way of deterring an
attack by the United States makes all sorts of sense, and the Bush
administration's current do-nothing plan is ideally suited to encourage
exactly that. Rightly or wrongly, from the point of view of, say, Iran
or Pakistan, the only difference between Iraq and North Korea is that
Saddam didn't have a bomb and Kim Jong-il does. The lesson is pretty
plain.
It would be difficult — maybe impossible — to bargain with North
Korea for a truly verifiable end to their weapons program. But it makes
no sense at all not to even try. Any clear assessment of the risks
shows that the downside is fairly small while the upside is potentially
huge. Why not make the effort?
Posted by Kevin Drum at May 6, 2003 08:27 AM
| TrackBack
The only reason to choose #1 is if you were planning on getting
involved militarily elsewhere in the world. #3 would require a credible
military deterrence to back up a breech. Given that some of the
criticism on the right of the Iraq involvement was leaving us stretched a
bit thin, this allows us to maintain invasion-level forces in a region
with a heck of a large number of potential fronts.
The second option is a non-starter. When I left Japan in the mid-90s,
it was gradually shaking off its staunch anti-nuke stance. But unless
we are willing to trade Taiwan for arming Japan--and even this might not
be enough for China, let alone other countries in the region--Japan
will remain a non-nuclear state for the foreseeable future.
How about using the famous Fatal Hug in North Korea? I think that
would work, but it would take time. But I'm willing to wait given the
alternatives.
Two things. One, North Korea is almost in every way worse than
Saddam. By far. Saddam is small potatoes when it comes to
totalitarianism and suffering on the scale of Kim.
Second, there is another huge difference between North Korea and
Iraq, other than nuclear weapons. Two of them actually. One, a million
man army that has more special forces than we have Marines. And two,
China as a regional ally.
Actually, the third option is not necessarily least worst, because
North Korea has proven in the past that agreements mean nothing to them.
We had agreements in 1985 and 1994, and both were broken wide open.
In exchange for a meaningless promise, North Korea only asks that we
completely subsidize their nation's entire food and energy needs, while
abandoning South Korea entirely to their predations. Not exactly the
deal we'd want, I think. We are better off letting China, Japan and
South Korea deal with this, and if necessary creating an embargo to
reduce the nuclear proliferation risks.
What does the second option accomplish? The problem is not
retaliation. Most US strategic nukes are SLBMs and thus flexible as to
target. If North Korea pulls anything, we can instantly nuke them into
oblivion; we don't need to arm Japan for that. The problem is that they
are playing chicken anyway. They have a Honda and we have a Mac truck.
There is no question they are doomed, but they could do us (including
our allies in "us") damage as well. And the damage, though not entailing
turning the US into a crater, would be horrendous nonetheless.
Excellent site I have bookmarked your site yet and I will come back soon!
You`re absolutely right, but telling the truth sometimes hurts!
To be or not to be? That`s the question.
What a fantastic idea! You think also about details.
Two things. One, North Korea is almost in every way worse than
Saddam. By far. Saddam is small potatoes when it comes to
totalitarianism and suffering on the scale of Kim.
Tramadol is a generic pain relief medication, Tramadol Online http://www.buy--tramadol.com
BTW, is anyone able to help me with a dilema? I need to get some
medications online and found these great prices Discount Drugs. Does any
body have any experience with buying RX products online? If you do, the
items I am interested in are some of their generic Viagra impotence treatment blue pills for my pop,
|
