The greater danger Iraq or North Korea?

SEOUL, March 1 —  North Korea accused the United States on Saturday of stepping up spy flights as a preparation for war as South Korea’s new president vowed to work for a swift, peaceful end to the nuclear crisis on the peninsula.

U.S. DEPLOYS BOMBERS
       Defense officials told NBC News on Friday that 12 B-1 and 12 B-52 long-range bombers had been ordered deployed to Guam as a deterrent. They will most likely fly to Guam in the first week of March, joining maintenance and support personnel who had already been ordered to the Pacific island.
       The officials said the deployment was one of several military moves intended to signal that while the United States was engaged with Iraq, it was also still focused on North Korea.
       An aircraft carrier battle group — the USS Carl Vinson — is already in the Pacific near Guam. In addition, the United States had already put some forces in the Asia Pacific region on a higher state of alert.
       The United States has 37,000 troops based in South Korea and about 45,000 based in Japan.
       China and South Korea are particularly reluctant to back hard-line policies that they fear might cause a collapse in North Korea or prompt more belligerent behavior by the regime of Kim Jong Il.
It would appear that we are doing every thing possible to provoke and prove to the North Koreans that they are next. I know I am convinced.. Are we seeing the Bush diplomacy in action?

http://www.msnbc.com/news/850567.asp?0cv=NB10

OK, I was always sure that the North Korean threat was not overlooked by the USA. While diplomatic attempts to persuade Kim to dismantle his nuclear program are being undertaken, these are strengthened by increase of military presence in proximity of the rogue country. I think, this may give positive results. And successful military operation in Iraq may be another reason for Kim to change his position.

steissd, Aren't you assuming too much by your statement, "And successful military operation in Iraq......."? Many do not know how much this war with Iraq is going to cost in human life and dollars, and how long the occupation will last. We're not even sure how successful it will be to bring democracy to the region, or bring security to the world at large. c.i.

I am not talking about distant consequences of the war, like bringing democracy etc. I am talking about immediate military aspect (and I have no doubts in its success) and its impact on rogue regimes throughout the world. As far as I understand and suppose, Iraq will never be a full-blown democracy in the American/European/Australian understanding of this term. But if it becomes a country like Jordan or post-Nasserist Egypt, this will seriously improve security situation in the Middle East.

OK, guys, let's take it down a notch. Things are getting too upfront and personal.

Ash, wondered about this in your post. If this has been done, isn't it possible to scientifically extrapolate to some conclusions re performance stats?

"TD-2 components have been tested both in North Korea and Iran. "

steissd, I'm not sure how you can make the claim, " But if it becomes a country like Jordan or post-Nasserist Egypt, this will seriously improve security situation in the Middle East." FYI, Al Qaeda members are living in almost every country of the globe. c.i.

Steissd

Well, if Israel became a country like Jordan, it would improve the security situation in the Middle East.

So, looks like Sharon now says no to a Palestinian state. What a big surprise.

And you keep making the rather questionable claim that an attack on Iraq will make other 'rogue' nations fall into line. Please forward your historical precedents for this axiomatic notion.

Mr. Sharon does not say "no" to the Palestinian state; he conditions continuation of negotiations by complete ceasing of terror. IMHO, such a demand is legitimate. Meanwhile, Israeli soldiers disclose facilities for manufacturing explosives on the occupied territories almost daily, and destination of these explosives is obvious.
The formation of the right-wing coalition in Israel is a constraint. Mr. Sharon wanted the Labor party to join his government, just for getting support in his plans to resume negotiations and to implement Mr. Bush's plan; political calculations made the Labor leaders to reject Mr. Sharon's proposal (they want to remain in opposition in order to restore their electoral base; if they are in government, its achievements will be attributed to Mr. Sharon and his party). But this is irrelevant in terms of real plans and decisions of Mr. Sharon. By all means, coalition agreement that its member parties signed includes recognition of Mr. Bush's plans.
I repeat once more: experience of Camp David Treaty with Egypt (and it was signed by the right-wing government where Mr. Sharon was one of the leading ministers) shows that Israel is ready to territorial concessions in exchange to real peace and security.
Inclusion of Israel into discussion on Iraq and North Korea sounds, IMO, a bit ad hominem.
Successful attack on Iraq may show to the rogue leaders that the USA can not only threaten to act; it can act and hit the objective. This will make dictators like Kim Jong Il to reconsider their behavior, I hope.

steissd quote: "Successful attack on Iraq may show to the rogue leaders that the USA can not only threaten to act; it can act and hit the objective. This will make dictators like Kim Jong Il to reconsider their behavior, I hope." What it really does is show that the US is a rogue state who with impunity will attack any country it wishes to attack - with or without world or UN concensus. c.i.

Wishes to attack? Hmm, an interesting approach. U.S. administration is strongly dissatisfied with political stance of Jacques Chirac, but chances of the U.S. attack on France are below zero percent...

Sumac,



Yes, some estimates are available on the TD-2, but until they actual stack the components and perform a serious of tests everything is hypothetical. Even the test data on the components is somewhat suspect, since neither North Korea or Iran willingly share that with us. Signal and Electronic Intelligence gather what they can, but nothing can truely replace the agent in place. Our human networks are in terrible shape since Congress and NCA constrained how we gather intelligence.

I posted a series of internet links the other night when Pdiddie questioned my sources. You may want to take a look at some of those if you are interested in learning for yourself the capabilities of the players.

In what may be a significant development, there are reports over the past hour our so that a number of North Korean Fighter Aircraft confronting a US aircraft, probably a variant of the EC-135 "Spyplane", though there seems to have been no overt hostile action. Still, such a confrontation is a rare, and potentially portentious, occurance. I'm sure more will be heard of this, just as I fully expect escalating DPRK provocation as Middle Eastern matters intensify.



timber

When will the brain trust understand that the situation in Korea is much more volitile than that in Iraq. I would hope they would also wake up to the fact that much of it has been caused by the rhetoric of the genius in the White House and his band of merry men.
In the second world war the statement was" Loose lips sink ships"
Now the poster should read" Loose epistles will bring missiles"

"brain trust" - au, you gotta be kidding me!!!!!!!!

That's your point. My point is that we must not care what drives people to turn to terrorism, because the very act of taking that question into account validates terrorism as a tool.

Let me ask you a couple of related questions:

Should abortion providers stop performing abortions because some domestic terrorists threaten to kill abortion doctors or destroy clinics where abortions are performed?

Should we--as a society--rethink the whole idea of abortions on demand simply because continuing to perform abortions might "cause" more people to turn to violent means to express their displeasure with the practice?

Au,

The problems and dangers associated with the DPRK have been a constant since the 1950's. Every President since Harry Truman has had to deal with the intransigence and threats of North Korea. Sometimes the water is near boiling, and other times just unpleasantly warm. After the fall of the Soviet Union, North Korea and Cuba lost their primary sponsor and means of support. Since that time economic conditions in North Korea have gotten steadily worse. Only the food and aid supplied by the United States and ROK kept the North from collapsing back in the late '90s. Conditions have marginally improved, but so much of the foreign aid was siphoned off to support the Army that the peasants and children today still are threatened by famine. Kim Jong-Il has maintained his foreign exchange almost exclusively by selling advanced military weapons to who ever has the ready cash to purchase. Iran and Yeman are both customers for missiles and assorted arms and munitions. Iraq has tried to secretly purchase North Korean armaments through third party cutouts. These problems are not caused by this, or any other American administration. The DPRK is one of the world's most repressive dictatorships, that has been able to remain in power by threats and bluster.

Blatham,

Some folks believe that military action taken in Iraq will increase the number and severity of terrorist attacks against the United States, and the West. Some folks believe that military action taken in Iraq will decrease the number and severity of terrorist attacks against the United States, and the West. The short answer is that no one can be certain at this time.

If the doomsayers are entirely correct, the end of the world is only a few months away. If the projections of those favoring military action in Iraq are correct, the situation in Iraq and the Middle-East may well be on the verge of peace in only a few short months. Neither opinion is likely to be entirely correct, and all the effects of the Iraqi campaign may take several years to appear. In the short time remaining before action commences there is little point in further prognostication.

Trouble is Asherman, there are not just two positions as you constantly try to protrait - your position and the weakest strawman position you can conjure up. Geeeees, how illogical!

Bill,

There are two basic positions on this question. Both have extremists whose expectations are diametrically opposed. Neither is likely to be entirely correct in their worst fears, or most optimistic dreams. Cicero, and numerous others occupiy one extreme. I don't think any of the "pro" faction have denied that much could go wrong, that though expectations are high the actual results will probably be mixed, so I can't thnk of any "pro" who takes a really extreme position. We are all very reluctant hawks.

What I'm saying is the proof of the pudding will soon be evident.

Stawmen? Reducio ad Absurdem? I don't think so. I do indeed make my position as strong as I am able. I try to fairly typify my understanding of the opposing views, though I certainly may from time-to-time overly weigh them. In this case, I don't think I've overdrawn the two extremes.

Asherman
You apparently believe that the current level of hostility and the reopening the nuclear facilities were not the result of the way Bush diplomatically dealt with N. Korea and the flapping lips of both Bush and Rumsfeld. I on the other hand believe the present level of hostility can be laid directly at the Bush administrations stupidity.



Increase/decrease what? Measured against what?

Au,

These problems with North Korea have existed with every administration since the 1950's. During Clinton's administration the U.S. was prepared to bomb North Korean nuclear facilities to prevent their acquiring nuclear weapons. Instead, Clinton and ROK prevented the collapse of the DPRK by supplying food and other aid. North Korea, already a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, claimed not to have a nuclear weapons program but promised anyway not to pursue acquiring nuclear weapons. That was a lie, and the North Koreans continued to develop nuclear weapons and eventually acquired 2-3 atomic bombs.

North Korean provocations existed during every administration, as the DPRK probed for weakness, and tried to advance its goals. North Korean military incursions south of the DMZ have been extremely common for almost 50 years. American soldiers have been killed by North Koreans inside the DMZ. Don't blame Bush for this, he is less culpable than Clinton.

"Will military action in Iraq increase, or decrease terrorist attacks against the United States and the West?" You ask, compared to what? Compared with the status quo anti.