U.S. security pledge for N. Korea

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Oct 11, 2003.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #1
    link

    finally, an actual concession. how did powell do it? did he himself make some sort of concession w/ the administration? or perhaps bush decided his own hard-line stance was ill-conceived?
     
  2. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #2
    I say we sign a treaty.
    No better way to take the edge off your nervous nuclear neighbor than to offer to protect them with your guns.

    Hell, I say we increase our cooperation as much as possible. It will pay off in the end. It will at best flip Kim Jong Il, and at least lead to increased cooperation that will be very useful after he's gone.

    If we don't sign a treaty, I don't see North Korea going for it. It's not going far enough. We're still not meeting them halfway.
     
  3. yamabushi macrumors 65816

    yamabushi

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2003
    #3
    Sign or don't sign - it doesn't matter. A treaty or any written agreement is bound to fail. This is is because both sides have different perceptions of the meaning of contracts of all kinds. Unless true communication, understanding, and agreement can be reached the agreement will fall apart sooner or later. This is impossible since the two sides are of diametrically opposed viewpoints.

    Besides, their needs are different. The US needs to gaurantee the safety and security of itself and it's allies through military force. The DPRK needs to maintain control and power through military strength and propaganda that focuses on the US as the enemy.

    Neither side can afford to back down forever, or else fail to meet their needs. The result is a dangerous standoff that has a moderately high probability of leading to armed conflict within the next thirty years.

    The only option I can see is early reunification. Perhaps the leaders of the DPRK could somehow be convinced to retire in luxury in exchange for a withdrawal of all US forces and reunification that recognizes some kind of free democracy. A long shot to be sure, but both Koreas love Korea more than they dislike each other or the US. Actually most people in the PRK tend to like the US, but or course they love Korea more.
     
  4. wwworry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #4
    There is something to be said for on going failure in negotiation as long as it leads to more failed talks. The key being talk.
     
  5. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #5
    The trouble here is this...

    North Korea getting nukes poses a threat to Japan, and South Korea. You could argue that these are the leading free states in the area, and the United States have a vested interest in keeping Japan and South Korea safe.

    China on the other hand wants to be the big dog in Asia, and North Korea getting nukes is not a good thing for China. It already has India and Pakistan with nukes, but neither one has aspirations to be the bid dog in Asia, especially with each on at each others throats over Kashmir.

    Russia also wants to be a big dog in Asia, and its a fledgling free state.

    North Korea says that it wants nukes because it doesn't want to have the US attack it. But the US is under treaty obligations to protect Japan. There is the rub.
     
  6. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #6
    The history of treaties and pacts does not make me optimistic.

    It was the treaty which created the SEATO which got us into Vietnam...

    By the early 1960s, the US and the USSR had signed over 120 treaties, most of which were broken within months...

    'Rat
     
  7. yamabushi macrumors 65816

    yamabushi

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2003
    #7
    I believe communication to be essential to maintain positive international relations. However, talk is not a substitute for progress. It was talk and written agreements that delayed military action long enough for the DPRK to get weapons that can kill millions in the region.
     
  8. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #8
    Didnt N.Korea sign something that said no nuke developement and we gave them food oil etc,,,, where did that get us... they lied and kept building the bomb....so now we sign again??? fool me once shame on you,,fool me twice shame on me. wake up
     
  9. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #9
    Maybe we just let North Korea finish their nukes... maybe even help them use depleted uranium to build their fission bomb with. ;) (Depleted uranium cannot be used to sustain or initiate a nuclear chain reaction, for you non-techies.)

    In the meantime, we have 17.9% nuclear energy Japan tool up to make some nuclear fission warheads. How long do you think it would take Japan to make some nuclear devices? They can make Playstation 2s, which is 1990s technology. Nukes are 1940s technology.
     
  10. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #10
    North Korea didn't exactly violate what they agreed to and we didn't follow through on the commitments on oil. The Republicans in Congress stopped it in its tracks.

    Check out:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kim/view/

    All of this doesn't say anything about the wisdom of security guarantees in exchange for disarmament. I wish Powell all the luck in the world in trying to pull this off with the help of Japan, So. Korea, China, and Russia.
     

Share This Page