The greater danger Iraq or North Korea?

PDiddie

And for some reason, if one can believe their thought processes are reasonable, Bush thinks he can stop it. That would be like standing on the seashore and stopping the tide.
Eventually every nation that wants nuclear technology will aquire it. There is no way to stop it.

au, I agree with your BIG picture observation: everybody that wants it will eventually get it. The world community needs to start working on how to solve THAT problem. c.i.

A typically astute and well-written column from Thomas Oliphant of the Boston Globe... http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/365/oped/_Policy_of_ironies_on_North_Korea+.shtml

blatham, Interesting article. However, I'm very skeptical of information coming out of this administration - even Powell, I'm afraid. c.i.

I find it quite interesting that "a top U.S. envoy said on Friday the decision was "not at all unexpected" because the communist state had not been respecting the pact anyway." On the other side "Britain and France condemned the decision and said the Security Council would have to act. Germany urged North Korea to reconsider, Australia said it would send a delegation to Pyongyang while China also expressed concern."
(All quotations from 'Reuters", re: 'N.Korea Nuclear Move Draws World Condemnation')

I believe North Korea is acting as an opportunist, attempting to blackmail the US into giving it something, money, concessions, something... They will likely succeed. They currently pose us no threat whatsoever. I can think of no scenario wherein North Korea would attack the US.

I believe Iraq on the other hand poses a clear and present danger. They support terrorism and are allied with those who have attacked us and have the stated objective of attacking us again.

Seems pretty straightforward to me, but then I could be wrong.

What alliances do you speak of?

Both Iraq and North Korea present serious dangers of aggressive war to their neighbors and to other powers, the USA included. Since the dangers so far remain largely unfulfilled, the relative degrees of that danger depend on other, as yet undetermined or unknown factors. While the exercise of considering which might be the greater is perhaps entertaining, it hardly seems to be the dominant factor in deciding the course of action to deal with them.

We are well on our way towards concrete action to deal with Iraq. It is at least likely that North Korea has exploited this opportunity to unleash yet another round of the bullying behavior that has characterized most of its international relations since the Korean War. The immediacy of the danger from North Korea does not require us to deviate from our present path with respect to Iraq. That would be an obvious error and the debate over this aspect of the problem is mere fault-finding and distraction. Certainly the elimination of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq will not diminish our ability to deal with North Korea.

Iraq is today where North Korea was in 1993 with respect to nuclear weapons. We foolishly attempted to bribe a bully in our 1994 diplomatic "solution" to the problem then presented by North Korea. Somehow we convinced ourselves that free grain and petroleum would bring about a fundamental change in the observable long-term behavior of that rather odd regime. This example should reinforce, not diminish, our resolve with respect to Iraq. Certainly we should not make yet another bet on the effectiveness of an already failed policy.

North Korea has a large army and at least a few nuclear weapons plus the means to deliver them against the South and perhaps even Japan. In 1949 they had the advantage, both in population and industrial capacity over the South. That is no longer the case, and today, North Korea could not hope to win a prolonged war against even South Korea alone. They do, however, present a grave danger to Seoul from both conventional and nuclear weapons. This danger and the implied threat has existed in various forms ever since the conclusion of the Korean War in 1956. If they use their nuclear weapons, they will be subject to retaliation in kind. If we somehow fail to do this we will invite even more trouble and even higher stakes. North Korea has everything to lose in this game and we everything to win if we will remain calm and dispassionate in the face of a dangerous but manageable bully.

I read the Oliphant piece very carefully. It is mere nitpicking and sophistry. The United States is hardly "isolated" from North Korea. We are their principal supplier of free food and pertoleum.

Both Iraq and North Korea present serious dangers of aggressive war to their neighbors and to other powers, the USA included. Since the dangers so far remain largely unfulfilled, the relative degrees of that danger depend on other, as yet undetermined or unknown factors. While the exercise of considering which might be the greater is perhaps entertaining, it hardly seems to be the dominant factor in deciding the course of action to deal with them.

We are well on our way towards concrete action to deal with Iraq. It is at least likely that North Korea has exploited this opportunity to unleash yet another round of the bullying behavior that has characterized most of its international relations since the Korean War. The immediacy of the danger from North Korea does not require us to deviate from our present path with respect to Iraq. That would be an obvious error and the debate over this aspect of the problem is mere fault-finding and distraction. Certainly the elimination of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq will not diminish our ability to deal with North Korea.

Iraq is today where North Korea was in 1993 with respect to nuclear weapons. We foolishly attempted to bribe a bully in our 1994 diplomatic "solution" to the problem then presented by North Korea. Somehow we convinced ourselves that free grain and petroleum would bring about a fundamental change in the observable long-term behavior of that rather odd regime. This example should reinforce, not diminish, our resolve with respect to Iraq. Certainly we should not make yet another bet on the effectiveness of an already failed policy.

North Korea has a large army and at least a few nuclear weapons plus the means to deliver them against the South and perhaps even Japan. In 1949 they had the advantage, both in population and industrial capacity over the South. That is no longer the case, and today, North Korea could not hope to win a prolonged war against even South Korea alone. They do, however, present a grave danger to Seoul from both conventional and nuclear weapons. This danger and the implied threat has existed in various forms ever since the conclusion of the Korean War in 1956. If they use their nuclear weapons, they will be subject to retaliation in kind. If we somehow fail to do this we will invite even more trouble and even higher stakes. North Korea has everything to lose in this game and we everything to win if we will remain calm and dispassionate in the face of a dangerous but manageable bully.

I read the Oliphant piece very carefully. It is mere nitpicking and sophistry. The United States is hardly "isolated" from North Korea. We are their principal supplier of free food and pertoleum.

Trespasser

I do think you are wrong here in your formulation that there is an immediate danger from Sadaam but not Korea, therefore Sadaam is the correct target now. You mention alliances too, you say he supports terrorism, and he might attack.

- what alliances? how do they pose a threat?
- attack us, how? he has no way to reach us. If you suggest suitcase bombs, then Al Quada is surely the worry. With inspectors there and satellites sitting on top of him, what the heck is he going to do?
- how does he support terrorism, other than in relation to PLO matters?
- Korea, on the other hand, is far less visible to intelligence, is much further along in nukes, and seems likely to want to continue finding buyers for eg missle technology. Two years from now, given UN still in Iraq and nobody in Korea...Korea looks far more dangerous

george

Could you delete one of those duplicated posts...your voice is pleasingly mellifluous but a single chorus is sufficient.

You said: That's an interesting use of 'concrete'. Rather like execution of a car thief is the only 'concrete' solution to the infraction.

You describe NK as being guilty of 'bullying behavior'....well, goodness, that same word comes up rather often from all points of the globe as regards America's behavior in the world. Perhaps another word might serve you better. That other regions of the world wish to gain strength and influence, even militarily, isn't merely because they are evil. It's because they aren't happy being relegated to lapdog status by a power who has often served them very poorly indeed.

You said: In a vacuum, that would be true. But as you know, if the perception becomes that the US is simply set on attacking/controlling Iraq regardless of the intent of UN resolutions, then the likelihood of the US at home and abroad becoming the target for many new Al Quada recruits grows much larger. Some will get through. Over a long period of time like a decade, the damage this could do to US interests and to a peaceful world might well be extreme.

You said: That is particularly revealing, george. There aren't many columnists more widely respected than Oliphant for cautious analysis. Could you perhaps name a columnist or commentator from the liberal side of the spectrum who doesn't fit your easy dismissal?

I don't believe there's an honest feeling that North Korea or Iraq would attack the U.S. I think we are concerned about South Korea (the old paranoia of the domino effect) and in Iraq, we are concerned about oil. Any disruption in the oil supply would further cripple our economy.

LW, That's only because 1) our government is too chicken to raise the price of gas, 2) all we need to do is conserve 13 percent of our energy, and we won't be dependent on oil so much, and 3) speed up the use of (hybrid) electric cars. c.i.

LW

No, no state is likely foolish enough to openly attack the US. Thus my fear (and that of many others) for a more elusive and fabian non-statist danger.

If the US attacks Iraq, will the other Islamic countries stand by and just watch? The Koran mandates that Moslems come to the aid of other Moslems in times of need. Indeed, this is what they'll do.

Will China come to aid of North Korea? I doubt it.

BTW, As of the year 2000, the US consumed 24 percent of the world's supply of oil. ** The US represents only 5 percent of the world's population. c.i.

New Haven, You are wrong! The Muslim countries only give lip service to the world on the Palestinian and Iraq problems. Most of the 'rich' Mulsim countries depend on US defense and aid, and their mililtary is almost non-existent, except for terrorism. We've been fighting that war since nine-eleven. c.i.

"Everybody seems to be asking which is the bigger threat, North Korea or Iraq. What do you think?

With apologies to Time, Newsweek, CNN and the other news outlets that have been treating this as the Super Bowl of Evil, that's a really silly question. It's like asking which is the bigger problem in your life, your foreclosure notice or your kidney stones. It suggests that we get to choose which one we deal with.

O.K., forget Iraq. How worried should we be about North Korea?

North Korea is a hermit state ruled by a potbellied, five-foot-three paranoid Stalinist who likes to watch Daffy Duck cartoons. He and his father before him have run the country into such a state of abject misery that some people are surviving on boiled grass. And the little dictator is suspected of having manufactured a couple of nuclear weapons.

Creepy."

At the Short End of the Axis of Evil: Some F.A.Q.'s

What can we do to get North Korea to attack Iraq?
Solve this problem and we'll be happy ...for awhile.

PDiddie

Point taken. But surely a bit dismissive. Big army maintained in NK and they get the good boiled grass. Tech and weapons sales surely possible. And an affinity for Daffy (which I share) doesn't foreclose on the possibility that he is way nuttier than I am.