When is a threat a threat?

Forums: International News
Email this Topic • Print this Page

This is a statement that was made at or during the summit meeting.
Mr. Chirac and Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi of Japan strongly denied that a statement on nuclear proliferation issued Monday had implied the possible use of military force. In the statement, the leaders urged North Korea and Iran to curb their nuclear programs, saying they could employ "if necessary, other means" than the tools provided by international nonproliferation accords.

It is the same as the rhetoric without teeth that the UN is so fond of. What do you think will happen if the Iran and North Korea Ignores the let's call it edict. Is it possible that it will give Bush his opening to attack?Does anyone have a clue what "if necessary, other means" refers to Certainly as far a Iran goes sanctions won't be employed. OIL! is the key word

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/04/international/europe/04SUMM.html?th

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,287 • Replies: 19

No top replies

When your nose bleeds.

0 Replies

au,

It will be interesting to see how military force is justified if that becomes an option on the table. Because as far as I know the non-proliferation treaties do not bind nations to compliance under the threat of military force.

I personally think the Bush administration is not going to put a military option on the table and if I'm right I wish they'd make that clear.

If it's ambiguous North Korea will not be eager to comply. If they feel threatened they will seek nukes.

North Korea's response to our evidence about their nuke program was "of course we are, you are threatening us with nukes"( not verbatim).

NK has been asking for a non-aggression treaty with us. They want something in writing to the effect that we will not iniciate military hostilities if they reduce their defensive capabilities by ending their nuclear program.

0 Replies

craven

Quote:

NK has been asking for a non-aggression treaty with us. They want something in writing to the effect that we will not iniciate military hostilities if they reduce their defensive capabilities by ending their nuclear program.

I have never understood why we did not sign a non-agression traety with them if it would bring an end to their nuclear program. That apparently th only thing we are we wanted is it not?

0 Replies

au, If I remember correctly, NK already had a non-aggression treaty, but they broke it when this administration stopped with the food and oil program. NK restarted their nuclear plants that can also be used to develop weapons grade uranium. The NK wants a one-on-one meet with Bush, but Bush said we will not be blackmailed into negotiating anything. c.i.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

craven
Quote:

NK has been asking for a non-aggression treaty with us. They want something in writing to the effect that we will not iniciate military hostilities if they reduce their defensive capabilities by ending their nuclear program.

I have never understood why we did not sign a non-agression traety with them if it would bring an end to their nuclear program. That apparently th only thing we are we wanted is it not?

It's not the only thing they want unless you accept their wording.

Their stated aim is to get the US to stop threatening them both militarily and economically.

Basically they want full normalization plus non-agression plus a handout to hole them over till they can get an economy.

But then there's the Mexican standoff.

CI,

They did not have a non-agression treaty with the US as far as I know.

They had a deal to end their nuclear program in return for us building light water reactors for them.

The deal fell through with both sides blaming each other. The deal died when we discovered they wer building nukes.

But even up to that point neither side was complying and both sides were saying "he started it".

0 Replies

C.I.
They had a food and oil program and were supposed to have a nuclear facility for energy built by Japan sponsored I believe by several nations. There was no mention of a nonaggression pact until the axis of evil statement and several what could only be termed as threatening remarks by Rummy.
They did shut down the nuclear program in1994 but secretly were working on a different type of nuclear development. {don't know exactly what the details are}. I understand that they were years away from completing that development. Yes, they were cheating.

0 Replies

Of note is the fact that the US used to maintain nukes on the pennensula.

I credit that move as being the single most motivating factor for NK to start their nuke program.

We were supposed to have withdrawn our nukes in the reactor deal and I believe that has happened.

0 Replies

Oh yea, I think it was a non-proliferation treaty, and not a non-aggression treaty. I just remembered about the food and oil program that Bush terminated. All the details are now fuzzy. c.i.

0 Replies

au - this is the story of two nuclear programs. Theer are effectively the same type of operation, only one is sanctioned by the USA and the other not.

NORTH KOREA: the US, South Korea and Japan brokered a deal with NK to supply it with two light-water reactors. This is to meet their electricity needs and replace the ageing reactors they already have. The project is being run by KENDO (Sth K), the reactors supplied by Rumsfeld's former company and the major part of the cost ($4.6b) being met by Japan. There is no cost being met by NK, they are just to discontinue their old reactor program and stop any other nuclear projects. Fine, now the second program is located in..

IRAN: This is obviously not being funded by Sth Korea and Japan. The Iranians also have two light-water reactors underway. However, these are being constructed by Russia and they are paying for them. These reactors are the same ones that were bombed by Iraq in 1981.

One of these will lead to peace and prosperity, one will lead to terrorism, instability, Muslim fundamentalism and war. No prize for guessing which one. Consider that of two 'spokes' in the Axis of Evil are acquiring the same technology for the same stated reason (electricity production) there are two different responses:
-'If you go ahead and build it, expect it to be bombed'
-'If you don't go ahead and build it, expect to be bombed'.

Such is the quality of diplomacy these days.

0 Replies

Mr Still, Wasn't there a quid pro quo of food and oil too as a 'gift' for not starting their nuclear program? c.i.

0 Replies

Mr Stillwater
But who will do this bombing. They were explicit in there statement concerning the use of force. It was not an option. The French seem never to have learned crime without punishment only fosters more crime. The UN with their resolutions do exactly the same thing.

0 Replies

Mr Stillwater
The question that comes up regarding the facility in Iran is the need. They have all the oil they can ever need to what purpose than is the facility?

0 Replies

There were some sweeteners in the deal, but not to stop the NKs from developing a nuclear weapons base. Too late. It is to ensure that they don't restart their old program.

They've had the technology AND have stockpiled spent fuel rods. The deal is to effectively stop them from obtaining the plutonium they'd need to manufacture weapons by installing reactors of the type that are more 'proliferation resistant' (ie the ability to extract plutonium from the cycle is harder). The carrot is in one hand with the stick in the other, in the case of Iran it's just all stick. I am cynical enough to think that if Donald Rumsfeld had been the one lobbying for the Iranian contract it would have been 'a step to a safer Middle East'.

0 Replies

Quote:

The French seem never to have learned crime without punishment only fosters more crime

I am a bit mystified about this, I didn't mention the French at any point. The players here are:

NK - Japan and SthK supplying European built reactors with US blessing
IRAN - contracting Russians to finish a German reactor (US pressured them to abandon project)

There's no punishment involved for any of the players and there is no secrecy involved in the deals themselves. There are hidden motives and agendas, though.

0 Replies

Mr Stillwater
Re-read the original question asked and the reference to the French will become clear.

0 Replies

Iran warns West against confrontation

Posted: Wednesday, June 4, 3:44pm EDT

Any attempt to confront Iran militarily would be "suicide for the attacker," supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned. In what was seen as a response to the Group of Eight's vow not to ignore Iran's "advanced nuclear program" and US concerns that Al Qaeda terrorists are being sheltered there, Khamenei suggested that only "some weak elements" in the Islamic nation were susceptible to Western influence. But the son of the late shah, Reza Pahlavi, predicted a massive "test [of the regime's] prowess" next month "without needing a military operation."

Where have I heard those words before ?

0 Replies

I can't get to the original NYTimes article, but as you can I suggest you take read this from the NYT
February 28, 2003 Secret, Scary Plans By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

I'd I would also remind you that the precursor to the KEDO (sorry, not KENDO) deal was the heightening of tensions over the NK nukes program.

Quote:

"The United States came to the brink of initiating war to stop North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons," according to a recent article in the Washington Post by William Perry and Ashton Carter, who were secretary and assistant secretary of defence during the crisis.

After satellites had discovered a plant in Yongbyon capable of producing weapons-grade plutonium, they said they spent most of the first half of 1993 planning a war on the Korean peninsula.

"We made our willingness to use military force crystal clear to the North Koreans by positioning forces to strike Yongbyon and reinforcing our military units that were deployed to defend South Korea against an onslaught from the North."

0 Replies

Quote:

But who will do this bombing?

Sure, it won't be the French - they prefer their targets to be moored in Auckland Harbour.

U.S. Can't Rule Out N.Korea Strike, Rumsfeld Adviser Says
Wednesday, June 11, 2003; 4:32 PM

The United States should be prepared to destroy North Korea's Yongbyon reactor if necessary to keep Pyongyang from trafficking in nuclear weapons, an influential member of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's advisory panel said on Wednesday.

"Whether we can effectively mobilize a coalition -- including China, Russia, the South Koreans, the Japanese, ourselves -- and so isolate them that they will abandon this program, that remains to be seen," said Richard Perle, an architect of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

"That's certainly the preferable way to deal with it," he added in a speech to a conference on Iraqi reconstruction.

"But I don't think anyone can exclude the kind of surgical strike we saw in 1981," he said, referring to Israel's surprise air attack that destroyed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor near Baghdad on June 7, 1981. "We should always be prepared to go it alone, if necessary."

0 Replies

I seem to have read the same thing regarding the Iranian nuclear program. I wonder will we run out of bombs before we run out of targets.

0 Replies

When is a threat a threat?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know