Several news sources were reporting tonite that North Korea had conducted a nuclear test.

Yen, South Korea Stocks, Won Fall on North Korea Nuclear Test .

Also, Fox, CNN, and MSNBC were all running stories on this.

This has not yet been confirmed by the various United States Agencies monitoring the activity, but North Korea has announced it, and it seems unlikely they'd benefit from falsely making such a claim.

Assuming such a test did indeed occur, the question now would be what the next steps will be. Given that, the questions for debate are:

What will North Korea gain from conducting such a test, especially after being told by both China and Russia (their two greatest allies) NOT to do so?

What will the U.S. response be? What do you think the goals of such a response will be, and do you think it will be effective?

What will be the response from Russia and China?

What do you think the significance of such a test is, and what do you think the response should be?

What will North Korea gain from conducting such a test, especially after being told by both China and Russia (their two greatest allies) NOT to do so?

What North Korea seems to gain from this is purely psychological.

Link



This is typical North Korean rhetoric. Exploding an atomic bomb may be the only way the North Korean regime can feel "great" or "prosperous" or "powerful."

Otherwise, it seems that North Korea has simply driven away what few allies it had. More on that later.

What will the U.S. response be? What do you think the goals of such a response will be, and do you think it will be effective?

It seems likely that the USA (and most other nations) will condemn the test, urge sanctions against North Korea, and (perhaps most importantly) do what it can to prevent an arms race in the area. It's understandable why nations like Japan and Taiwan might want to develop their own nuclear weapons now. The obvious goal is stability in the region. I can only hope that it will be effective, but I have no idea.

What will be the response from Russia and China?

This is the big question. Russia's response may be somewhat similar to that of the USA and other nations. It may not be as important as the response of China. China does a great deal to keep the government of North Korea from falling apart, and they seem to be more and more unhappy with the current regime.

Link



I would say that the ball is in China's court. They seem willing to confront the current regime of North Korea, now that it defied China's request to refrain from testing a nuclear explosive.

What do you think the significance of such a test is, and what do you think the response should be?


It's pretty significant, in that the attention of the world, once again, has been drawn to North Korea. The response needs to be a strong message from all other nations that North Korea is isolating itself, and hurting itself. I hope the message gets through.

In terms of the effects of North Korea's nuclear test, I have to worry about Iran. North Korea developed and has now successfully tested nuclear weapons despite fierce objection by the international community. If North Korea can pull it off, why not Iran? That is the precise attitude that Iran will have if the international community does not reply sternly enough to North Korea's act.

What will North Korea gain from conducting such a test, especially after being told by both China and Russia (their two greatest allies) NOT to do so?

I don't see much gain here. There's speculation that international weapons sales might bring in significant cash, which is nothing new. Other than that, I don't see much advantage.

What will the U.S. response be? What do you think the goals of such a response will be, and do you think it will be effective?

There will be a lot of talking going on. I suspect one of the subjects will be hey, get a clue. Now the US will ship some of its nuke arsenal to S. Korea and Japan. Remember what we did in Europe?

What will be the response from Russia and China?

They will add N. Korea to the nuke hit list. I imagine the talk will be similar to the US. Screw up, and you're glass.

What do you think the significance of such a test is, and what do you think the response should be?

It's like someone flipping out a knife at an NRA concealed-carry rally. Think The Mask.

I would send a Hallmark card, one meant for a funeral, and a vase of lillies. I might write something like Welcome to the Hemlock Society.

This will be used to blackmail the South and the US/World into increasing aid to this bankrupt regime. They now have the mans to incinerate the south in a matter of minuets and will use the leverage. Fortunately we have our missile shield at the point where it will be able to defend us when NK works out the bugs in their long range missiles that can reach the US.


I sincerely hope we push the UN and China, Japan, SK to step up and deal with this. The goal could only be to slow the development of warheads for missiles. Too late for anything else.



The test verifies that NK is a nuclear country. Tie this with the test of 10 missiles and it is clear NK is telling the world “we have nukes and have/will have the ability to deliver them to your cities so do as we ask” – or else.

Japan, no doubt, is working feverishly to develop nukes of their own. As NK and Iran move to nuclear powers the world is now far from “safe”.

As much as I hate to say it, there is a stark contrast in financial means of the people of N. Korea and Iranians. It's a different regime in N. Korea, and it's people are absolutely poverty striken and on the brink of famine.
Read this.

While Iran is no paradise, it's people have seen improvement and financial well-being as of late (in the past decade).
Read this. .

We all know that Iranians still have a hard time putting food on the table, but it's not nearly as bad as N. Korea's 20 year food shortages. Economic sanctions on Iranians, also, might have more impact. As I see it, N Korea has little to lose.

The US, if forced into bombing Nuclear sites (which we're not 100% sure of location) could force war on the Korean peninsula. The Chinese are nearly unlikely to be a part of military action, and economic sanctions will most likely just force greater suffering on the N. Korean people while Kim Jong Il still keeps a warm belly. This is communism in its worst form.

The problem with our society, and the UN use of force in general is that the force that we'd use to stop NK from further testing and/or "muscle flexing" is that we'd never use enough force to stop them from launching strikes against neighboring nations. The American people wouldn't suffer, as they don't have a missle ready-nuke as of today, and if they did there's about a 99% chance it wouldn't make it to our shores. However, Seoul is a hop-skip-jump away and can be reached via airstrike most likely without us being able to stop it. Most importantly, there's about a 100% chance that a plane would at least make it over the DMZ to drop a nuke. ...
And they'd do just that.

I think we're dealing with a very unstable circumstance. It's painfully obvious to everyone that NK has the West, and most importantly the US over a barrel. I hate to mention it, but we probably could've prevented this years ago. Now we're stuck. I don't think Americans (other than those stationed in S Korea) have little to worry about... but what about our allies?

If we sanction them, blockade incoming/outgoing shipments of supplies and aid... will that force them over the edge? If NK knows that we have Nuclear Subs in the Sea of Japan and that retaliatory strikes will occur within seconds, will that stave off nuclear war? What will stop them?

I pray that China can lean on them enough to stop the "flag waving" and "muscle flexing" of nuclear power. Maybe they can talk some sense into NK. Otherwise, I feel for the people of SK and anyone else in close proximity... hell- even the NK people need sympathy. We all know that we would retaliate swiftly and decisively, and the loss of life would be untold...

1. They will gain attention. Kim Jung Il has obviously been very "ronery" lately. He needs to remind the world that he's a tough guy who everyone should pay attention to.

Kim Jung II song

2. We should ignore them totally in public. And privately warn them in no uncertain terms that any attack both real and/or imagined, detected, or sensed by our technology will be result in the nuclear destruction of their nation.

3. Russia and China will publicly oppose this and privately cheer. Anything and anyone who hurts US power enhances theirs. That's the basic equation between the US, Russia, and China (and the EU). That's why Russia and China continue to prop up Iran, turn the other way toward Islamist fascists (who aren't targeting them directly), and fail to help us bring Iraq into control. We are the world's richest and most powerful nation and the other aspiring wanna-bees see nothing ultimately negative when we take a hit or two. That's another thing that the left in this country don't understand in their pathological and irrational drive to be "liked" by the "rest of the world". We'll be liked only if we're as weak or weaker than them. And then we'll ultimately be scorned.

4. What is the significance of the test? Well, it shows that N. Korea have finally achieved the technological level reached by the USA in 1945. It would seem, based on my preliminary reading, that the test was very low yield. Therefore, far less than expected ala their recent "intercontinental missile" test.

What will North Korea gain from conducting such a test, especially after being told by both China and Russia (their two greatest allies) NOT to do so?

Pride, insurance, leverage, and maybe arms sales money.

What will the U.S. response be? What do you think the goals of such a response will be, and do you think it will be effective?

Bush is asking for sanctions. Same thing he's asking for in Iran and Sudan.

I don't think that in the case of Kim Jong they'll work, though I could be wrong. The fact of the matter is he's an idiot, and doesn't care about his own people, and as long as he has enough resources to preserve his government, I cant see him bowing down to any pressure. Even faced with impending power loss he still might not let up, and how can we be sure he wont let those nukes go lose while he still can?

What will be the response from Russia and China?

Words thus far. We'll see how this plays out.

What do you think the significance of such a test is, and what do you think the response should be?

Really, the answer to the first part of this question is completely dependent upon how crazy Kim Jong is. will he use nukes as deterent only?

If so, then this isnt too bad.

If he is willing to use them offensively, we may come to the day when we really regret not doing something about this years ago.

To add my two cents worth to the discussion (which has been excellent so far, IMHO).

What will North Korea gain from conducting such a test, especially after being told by both China and Russia (their two greatest allies) NOT to do so?

I tend to agree with LodHelmet on this...they will get attention, which they crave.

What will the U.S. response be? What do you think the goals of such a response will be, and do you think it will be effective? I think there's common agreement that the U.S. will push for sanctions. There seems to be common hope that this will be successful, but I personally think that hope is unfounded. In fact, sanctions are likely to have exactly the opposite affect to that desired. The farther we push N. Korea, the more they'll need to crack down on their people, and the more they'll rely on their nuclear capability as their ace in the hole to get them out. I don't think there's any chance whatsoever that sanctions will lead N. Korea to rescind its nuclear capabilities.

This goes with my general feeling regarding sanctions, which seem to have a spectacular record of failure in achieving their goals. Sanctions, in general, target the populace, and seek to drive them to revolt. What is a dictator's response to increased dissent? Further crackdowns. The more we tighten the noose, the more they'll crack down. Sanctions seem to seem from an idealist, democratic, capitalistic view of the world, where people are able to simply vote a new government in. Such a world does not exist in the countries we seek to apply sanctions to, and therefore they aren't successful. Ian Bremmer's new book The J Curve: A New Way to Understand Why Nations Rise and Fall explains this situation nicely. You have governments on the left (the low end of the 'J') that have achieved stability through totalitarian measures. As pressure is applied to them, they start to slip down the 'J'...and the government will then seek to achieve stability through applying more totalitarian tactics. There is no linear progression from such a situation to a stable, democratic environment. This applies in Iraq and other recent hotspots as well...where the removal of a totalitarian regime will lead to a period of chaos, and where the people may seek stability back through the very authoritarian regime that we were seeking to remove. As it applies to N. Korea, I see no way that Kim Jung Ill will voluntarily remove his nuclear capability through sanctions. There needs to be a carrot involved. So far, we seem unwilling to offer one.

What will be the response from Russia and China?
I tend to think LH is correct on this one as well. Even if they wanted to get KJI to comply (which might be doubtful), I'm not sure they have the means to do so either. They certainly aren't in a position to offer the type of carrot KJI desires. If they apply more pressure, it won't have any more success than sanctions from the west would be.

What do you think the significance of such a test is, and what do you think the response should be? I think the test has no practical significance. Everyone believed Korea had nuclear capability beforehand, so what has changed? Not much. Given that, I think the short-term response should be to do nothing different. For the longer term solution, there needs to be some agreement in mind that both N. Korea and the US (and the rest of the world) find acceptable. Dictating terms won't help, as N. Korea is far from surrendering. Therefore, any solution has to be a negotiated one, and the less favorable such terms are to N. Korea, the less likely they'll be either accepted or honored. So, the U.S. (and the rest of the world) has to decide what sort of carrot they're prepared to offer, and how to package it in a way that both they and N. Korea decide is acceptable.

What will North Korea gain from conducting such a test?

If, as things look at the moment, the test was nothing to write home about (similar to the failed missile test a few weeks ago), then North Korea, as a country, has little to gain. As has been pointed out, more or less, Kim Jong Il is a megalomaniac desperate for attention. Regardless of the success of the tests, he's got headlines - and that's all he needs.

What will the U.S. response be?

We will teach North Korea a good lesson by attacking Iran - after all, they have no nuclear weapons capability whatsoever. If Kim Jong Il continues to flout our will, we'll retaliate by attacking Syria. If that doesn't stop him, there's always Yemen or Sudan or - hell, we're willing to level the entire Middle East if Korea continues to be such a monumental threat.

What will be the response from Russia and China?

Silence. I suspect they'll practice some stern diplomacy for several months and take an even dimmer view of Kim Jong Il, but those who might be able to exert a bit of pressure on North Korea don't seem to be taking "Dear Leader" all that seriously - and they're much closer to his weaponry, such as it may be. I imagine both countries are content, for now, to watch the US self-destruct.

What do you think the significance of such a test is, and what do you think the response should be?

The test has virtually no signficance (see Hobbes above). We should respond by attempting to isolate Kim Jong Il, by seeking to depict him as an egomaniacal despot, and by trying to bolster our own nuclear arsenal in an effort to match Korea's daunting war machine, possibly creating the semblance of a deterrent. Oh, wait...

This is, perhaps, the biggest non-story of the year.

I think you are very mistaken. We (along with a lot of other countries) have a history of vast appeasment with the DPRK. Giving them goodies to sign the NPT, giving them goodies to sign extra nuclear safe-guards agreements, ect. We sent them aid for years, the south sent them aid and continues to do so, I think Japan recently stopped but they did as well, and China remains their largest "carrot" donor. Without these carrots the regime would have collapsed on itself long ago. Are you aware that the south has built a vast manufacturing complex in Gaeseong? Oh, yes, within a week of shipping out their first products the DPRK rewards the south for its largess with a nice nuclear demonstration.

Supposing your theory is true that oppressive dictatorships don't respond to pain, why on earth would they change their bad behavior if they are actually rewarded for it? What was your response on the "should we negotiate with terrorists" thread? Dictatorships with a history of arbitrarily abandoning their commitments after receiving rewards should be viewed in a similar light. This is the case with Kim Jong Il. "Carrots" of appeasment have led to what we have now. The very nuclear reactors and much of the technology that he uses came to him as a gift long ago, for initially agreeing to sign the NPT in 1985.

What will North Korea gain from conducting such a test, especially after being told by both China and Russia (their two greatest allies) NOT to do so?

It's an advertisement. What weapons the DPRK makes it sells.

What will the U.S. response be? What do you think the goals of such a response will be, and do you think it will be effective?
The US will press for sanctions, but nothing will come of it. We should employ a naval blockade (if we haven't already) along with the Japanese. Inspect all vessels for nuclear materials.

What will be the response from Russia and China?

Probably a public condemnation and then business as usual. The Chinese and Russians aren't happy about the North Koreans obtaining nuclear arms, but they don't wish for the deluge of millions of refugees spilling into their borders. Neither China nor Russia has enough to lose to play real hardball on this...unless we squeeze them, in which case we have a lot to lose as well, so we probably won't.

What do you think the significance of such a test is, and what do you think the response should be?

If I were empress, I would close the new Gaeseong facilities until the DPRK abandons its program. I would also place a naval blockade and universal sanctions. I would permit all of the factory workers at Gaeseong to come work at factories in South Korea (Seoul is about an hour away) during that timeframe. Of course, that would never be permitted by Kim Jong Il, but the offer would stand. If Kim Jong Il relents, he gets lots of carrots (carrots being the end of sanctions and getting back what he lost). None of the historical appeasment in exchange for nothing.

Perhaps I used the wrong term. I am certainly NOT in favor of appeasement, and agree that that's what got us here in the first place (although part of that appeasement was giving them the very facilities they used to build the weapon, FCS. ). This is essentially the dilemma the U.S. is in, however....I don't think further sanctions, etc. will work, either. So, the 'carrot' has to be very carefully constructed so as to be good enough to be acceptable to N.K. while also not being appeasement. Maybe 'endgame' is a better term. Sanctions might succeed in getting N.K. to the negotiating table...but then what? Unless we have a workable solution in mind after that, nothing will come of it. Although, I really don't think anything much will be successful. Put yourself in KJI's shoes...if you spent as much time and effort as he did to build the bomb, essentially destroying his country in the process...would you give it up? Doubtful. So, containment is probably the more realistic objective, which seems to be the tone that Bush took, when he essentially threatened N.K. that any release of nuclear material to a rogue entity would be considered an attack on the United States.



I believe this is also being planned. Here is where the simple silence of Russia and/or China would actually benefit us greatly, as they probably won't protest such an action.



Wonderful! Consider yourself appointed!

Why does everyone hold north Korea as some entity that wants to rule the world, I simply don’t understand that part is all.

yes, the Taliban with nukes would be very very bad, they may actually be a group of people capable of using one. I personally think north Korea simply just does not want to be invaded, and hopes that the nuke will deter this, its all just personal opinion of course, and of course if I was in control I would not allow for this to be the security at large to our people, but really if north Korea used nukes it would become nothing more then a nuke crater itself, therefore defeating the purpose I think, again just personal opinion.

France has all kinds of nukes, and of course they do not always agree with us, and as far as i know they still have socialism, why don’t we slander them with fear about Frances nuclear might? Again I simply don’t understand why north Korea is painted as some want to be world tyrant, that country is poor and miserable overall and barely keeps together, they have to steal trains from china because of the fact there infrastructure in many ways is very degraded.

Could north Korea pass around nukes, sure, and so could some other nation, and I guess we would still just nuke north Korea. I don’t know why but for some reason I am just not all in a big heated fuss over this. Russia had enough nukes to destroy the world, instead they want bankrupt… They could have sold nukes to I imagine, being in regards to intelligence from the cold war I am sure they could have gotten one to someone, they did not, I think they were called our mortal enemy basically for a very long time also. Personal opinion again, but I simply think NK just worries constantly about an U.S invasion, being they cant win that war overall, but with the idea that are forces could be nuked, we may not be hasty to deploy and remove NK and make Korea all SK overall. Personally, I don’t know of any nuke holding nation that gets invaded, I know Pakistan and India hate each other and will posture, but it never goes past that, because at the end of the day I think nukes and what they do can break past all the bias.

Two points. First, from where do you think the Taliban might get such a weapon? N. Korea would certainly be at the top of that list. Second, why on earth would N. Korea fear being invaded? What do they have that anyone else would want? Nothing. It is only their belligerence that creates any animosity towards them. The rest of the world has a lot more to fear from N. Korea invading S. Korea than N.K. has to fear from us, and given the current state of the N. Korean economy, an invasion from the North is certainly the more likely scenario...particularly if they have a nuclear weapon to defend themselves.

Ahh...the 'ol trustworthy terrorist angle. I was wondering how long it'd take.

Yeah, it's that simple - the leader of a country would give a group of lowlife thugs the power to destroy his own country. Nevermind they could use that power to get more power via blackmail, extortion, etc. Instead someone will trust them to carry out some diabolical plan instead of doing the easy thing - get more WMD.

Hobbes, seriously - that is an absurd premise. The leaders of countries like Korea didn't get there because they are fools. None of them would give a terrorist group WMD because unlike you, they don't trust terrorists. There is just as much a chance a terrorist would carry out some nefarious plan far away as use it locally to get more power (e.g. "Give us more nukes, or we'll tell the world you're behind this and your entire country will get nuked!!!"). I just can't believe intelligent people have fallen for this bogus line.

And secondly, why would North Korea be afraid of being invaded? Maybe because we've labeled them an axis of evil along with another axis of evil country we invaded. Well, duh. If I were Korea or Iran, I'd do the same thing. We've proven we won't pick a fight with somebody that can fight back.

Logically, it makes no sense for Korea or Iran to give up nuclear plans. That is the deterrent they need to protect themselves from the nation-builders currently ruining...errr....running our country.

First off...exactly where did you get I trust terrorists from? And what are you hoping to achieve by injecting that into the debate?

That aside, I'm sure you'll be glad to explain to the rest of the world that they're all worried about nothing as well:

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists



So, what's more absurd....predicting the future based on past behaviour, or projecting idealistic notions where none exist?

This is corroborated from the following NTI Issues Brief:



Why would the nuclear nonproliferation groups be worried about this if it were so absurd?

They go on to point out that



So, this creates a wedge between S. Korea and the U.S., which, if it were to occur, would leave exactly who to then defend S. Korea against a N. Korean invasion?

Further,



So, we are likely to see an new arms race in Asia. Having trouble seeing how that leads us anywhere we'd like to go, particularly given the already desperate state of the N. Korean economy.

Further, from NTI: N. Korea Profile; Nuclear Weapons

Note: NTI was founded by Ted Turner and Sam Nunn, and so is hardly a Bush Administration voice piece.

Are they absurd as well?



This is all the more likely given the current state of N. Korea's economy, which will be made even worse by the sure heightening of sanctions. What else does N. Korea have to sell?

As to the conclusion that it is Bush's declaration that N. Korea that was part of the Axis of Evil that created this problem, that assertion faces a severe factual deficit.

From Federation of American Scientists paper on N. Korea's Nuclear Weapons Program



So, this program has been ongoing for decades, indicating that it is not Bush's assertion that caused the problem, but actually the converse.



Hmmm.....interesting assertion. Let's see how this matches up with the facts again.

From the FAS article:



Hmmm...1993. So unless you're insinuating that Clinton caused all this, I'm not sure what your point is. I believe the appropriate euphemism for this would be 'that dog don't hunt.'

Further,

So, again, unless Kim Jung Ill is simply exceptionally prescient, N. Korea's nuclear buildup has pretty much exactly nothing to do with anything Bush said.

So...given the preponderance of evidence to the contrary, exactly what do you base your rosy predictions of KJI's behaviour on?

(It would probably be better if I did not post to this thread while in this particular frame of mind--if it sounds more cynical than my usual stuff, please accept my apologies)

What will North Korea gain from conducting such a test, especially after being told by both China and Russia (their two greatest allies) NOT to do so?

I reckon that as with an unruly, oppositional child, receiving negative attention is considered better than no attention at all, the only problem being that renegades on the international scene will be paying close attention to what North Korea has that turns out to be marketable.

What will the U.S. response be? What do you think the goals of such a response will be, and do you think it will be effective?

George W. Bush has chosen his course of action. He only talks (ostensibly) with allies; he doesn't talk to potential enemies (see: Ahmedinejad).

Sanctions--so what? What have they done to stem the tide of North Korea's nuclear development?

What will be the response from Russia and China?

As I said before, sanctions--so what? What have they done to stem the tide of North Korea's nuclear development?

As it is, people have been starving for years in North Korea. What North Korean, other than Kim Jong-Il himself, has a pot belly? And GUESS WHO is getting blamed for the starvation of North Korea? Certainly not their "Dear Leader". Remember, when something is repeated often enough, it is perceived as being true.

What do you think the significance of such a test is, and what do you think the response should be?

It is a desperate measure on the part of North Korea to receive recognition and respect, especially in light of its dictator's paranoia. But the people are suffering. For the sake of the people and not their megalomaniacal leader, the United States should negotiate with them. It might not be the most savvy thing to do, but it is possibly the most humane thing we could do.

But we're not going to do that under our present leader, any more than he will ever admit that perhaps deposing Saddam Hussein was not the most pressing thing on the GWOT agenda. *sigh*

North Korea isn't under sanctions. That's part of the problem. Their nuclear development has taken place over a long time and much of it was obtained as gifts for ostensible compliance.

We (and the rest of the world) have given them food and oil which they use to heat and feed their armies. The remaining cash goes into weapons because a large portion of their income comes from weapons sales (as well as narcotics and counterfeiting operations).


Edited to reply to DR: Kim Jong Il already exports weapons to Yemen, Iran, Pakistan, and Syria. Why would you think he would feel he has anything to fear by exporting nuclear material their way for a high enough price?

Why did I write sanctions? Because that is what the countries will do, ostensibly to punish nations that do not comply with the wishes of other nations. Look at the great effect the policy had on Iraq, for heaven's sake. The people, not the dictator, suffered as a result, and there was a thriving black market to boot.
Japan tightens sanctions
U.S. eases sanctions
So sanctions must have existed.

Are you suggesting that North Korea enjoyed the same trade status as, say, the Peoples' Republic of China?

And here is the latest: US and Japan seek sanctions against Korean nuclear test

Do I think Russia or China will choose to invade North Korea? I guess that question can be answered by whether that action would be perceived as even more of a threat than the North Koreans pose themselves. To see mighty Communist China on the move to "straighten things out" in Pyongyang might give a few South Koreans heart failure.

So if they blockade the seaports? Will that stop the illegal arms shipments? It might cut them back, but it won't stop them altogether.

We have a bona fide dilemma here, and our troops are scattered all over the globe, with high casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq, where "major combat operations" were supposedly ended years ago, but because of the mounting casualty and injury rate, the military has started taking recruits with lower I.Q.'s. George Dubya has his war, and that embarrassing "comma" in history is getting fatter than a Halloween pumpkin.

I think Wertz is right--we'll "show 'em" by invading Iraq.

In the meantime the North Koreans will continue to starve while only a chosen few benefit from those shipments of wheat and rice. "Trickle down" certainly doesn't exist there.

But I believe that the main point of the previous post was that the United States should negotiate with North Korea and not just think that the country will go away if we ignore it. Any thoughts on that?

Another thought on this: If North Korea were like one of the impoverished countries of Africa that are undergoing genocide but did not have access to fissile materials, would we even be having a conversation about the threat that it poses?

People who are under oppressive dictatorships are going to suffer. Period. There is no way around it...unless we invade and depose him and then they will suffer too obviously. Kim Jong Il has chased food aid distributors out of his country because they insisted that the food go to the population at large and not his army.

No military action should be necessary. The only thing that has kept this regime going is aid. Without the south and China, Japan it would have fallen by now. The microchip is getting the word out about conditions in the DPRK. People are discontent. Tens of thousands have fled to China (often sent back). Sanctions are harsh, but with a country like this, we don't have a choice. And they do work. Look at Lybia. I seem to remember that Iraq was found to have not been able to increase its WMD supply either. A very prolific supply before the first Gulf war. We have been coddling this dictator who uses threats to obtain goodies and then in turn uses those goodies to make greater threats, far too long.

Kim Jong Il will not launch a nuke, but he will absolutely sell the material if and when he gets the chance. The more discretionary spending he has, the less isolated he is, the more he will sell. Look at the options. There simply aren't any that are better. We don't wish to make his people suffer, and we don't want him to be a threat, so we have continued to set up the conditions by "helping them" that only prolong and increase the suffering and actually make him dangerous.

Listen to the actual people who have escaped from the DPRK (I'll try to find this later and add a link). The ones who have suffered. They want the world to unite and sanction the North.

Edited to add response to this (I didn't see it before):

Well, no...because it wouldn't be a threat. Look...the DPRK launched a missile over Japan, and we did nothing. The DPRK sent a bunch of armed commandos by submarine who beached themselves in South Korea in 1996. We, and South Korea, did nothing. The DPRK dug several tunnels far under the DMZ, designed to attack the south and in violation of the armistice agreement...one of them all the way to Seoul. The most recent one discovered (they think likely more are undiscovered) was large enough to transit 30,000 soldiers an hour. This is in our security interest. We actually had nuclear warheads pointed north, at the DMZ, until 1991 when we dismantled them. We have a written security obligation to South Korea, and the DPRK has nuclear material it would love to sell, and those who hate the US are first on their list. I think it's pretty obvious why this issue is of compelling concern to us.

Ahhhhh Kim Jong "Mentally" Il

What will North Korea gain from conducting such a test, especially after being told by both China and Russia (their two greatest allies) NOT to do so?

Headlines in Newspapers and media outlets around the world. Just like what a kicking and screaming child would do when they want attention. He's just roanry..(See avatar)

What will the U.S. response be? What do you think the goals of such a response will be, and do you think it will be effective?

Sadly, to me it looks like the US is becoming the United States is becoming gun shy because it can't handle the critics of the Iraq war. They won't do anything but throw some harsh words at N Korea.

What will be the response from Russia and China?

Nothing, maybe some words towards N Korea with no merit. And maybe some quite celebrating.

And that's precisely where the United States has repeatedly screwed up in its diplomacy. Just where do you think these angry people who become terrorists come from? Russia? China?

Try the lands where the United States has given support to dictators and ignored the plight of the people.

What George W. Bush tried with Iraq was way too late if we were going to lay down the law with Saddam Hussein. As it was, it turned into a disastrous side trip which continues to cost around a dozen American lives every week, not to mention far more innocent Iraqi lives. Yeah, we'll stand down when the Iraqis stand up. But they're losing their resolve, so guess what? So much for MY little side trip on this thread...

The upshot of it is, until the little god/tinhorn dictator Kim Jong Il is gone, the North Korean people are screwed and that area is dangerous. While George Dubya Bush didn't need to kiss his ring or some part of his anatomy, some communication might have been in order. But don't try to tell the cowboy that. Instead, he has opted to let Russia and China decide what they're going to do. And right now Japan is considering a nuclear program of its own as well as South Korea, I believe, because it is apparent that Kim Jong Il's intentions are clear if he doesn't quite have his act together yet, and the United States has spent its dollar at the candy store in a different neighborhood.

I would have to take issue with this characterization of our stance with the Il one. Bush is not refusing to talk with him, he is pushing for multi-lateral talks. This makes sense, IMHO....unless the parties in the geographic area, who have much more influence and at stake than we do, are involved any negotiations are unlikely to lead anywhere. Why is KJI pushing for bilateral talks with the U.S.? Because we have the deepest pockets, and have showered him with gifts in the past. Think China is going to open the candy store for them? Russia? Even Japan? Doubtful. So, KJI is trying to position the talks to where he can gain the most, and Bush is trying to position them where they are most likely to be successful. Or, to put it another way, why should the U.S. be the only party engaged in the discussion? I can't think of any reasons. To go back to your angry child analogy, KJI is having a fit, and his latest 'excuse' is that he only wants to talk with the U.S. A good parent wouldn't give in to this, but would stick with the desired process, which is multilateral talks.

No significance? Before the test we could not be sure the country could manufacture a working nuclear device. There was still a chance that the disastrous bungling of Madeline Notbright did not leave them with the capability.

Unfortunately that is not the case. And worse IMO this test was as mush a sales tool as a threat. You can be SURE that a country as poor as North Korea would love to sell nukes or the material to make them to whoever have lots of money (like Iran) and this little “demonstration” lets the world of terrorists and terrorist states know the product is working and available. Not exactly “no significance”.

Its always everybody else's fault isn't it. I'm surprised you did not blame Ted Kennedy or Al Gore for Korea's nuke.

Though it's interesting, North Korea developed, announced and tested its nuke entirely under Bush Jr's watch. We can conclude from that that at the very least his approach to NK was just as bad as the previous administrations, if not vastly worse...

ANYways...

In fact the test, as with all nuclear tests is not to 'see if it works', no test has ever been for that, not even the original trinity test. Thats simply not what nuclear testing is for. It is to measure the effectiveness of specific materiels, to determine exact yield, to test the radiation levels and to determine the efficiency of the reaction. Might want to check your facts.



No Ted, only YOU can be sure, likely because you are always sure of your opinion. In fact we have no reason to believe that NK will sell nukes abroad whatsoever. It would be an utterly insane and foolhardy thing to do, and lets be realistic, the money they could get selling the device to some ragtag bunch of terrorists who follow a cause NK doesn't believe in (and is in fact, adamantly opposed to) is insignificant on a national scale.

Yes, NK has sold conventional weapons to other nations in order to boost their bottom line, even to nations of quationable governance. But here is a trivia question for you Ted. Guess which other countries have done the same thing?

Thats right, ALL of them.

To quote Robert Gallucci, the chief negotiator with NKorea in 1994, "Listen, I'm not interested in teaching other people lessons. I'm interested in the national security of the United States." We're not a parent or a disciplinarian so I don't see what "being a good parent" has to do with anything. Kim IS NOT a child even though he might be acting like one. Everyone who is equating Kim to a child is rolling some very important dice by assuming you can handle this like you'd handle a 5 year old.



How about because the Agreed Framework in 1994 was between the United States and North Korea? Not China, US, N.Korea...not Japan, US, N.Korea, China....just US and N. Korea. When North Korea admitted to a highly enriched uranium program back in Oct. 2002, Bush suspended the supply of heavy oil to North Korea. After this, the Agreed Framework largely broke down. Part of that agreement was that the US would provide formal assurances to North Korea, against the threat or use of nuclear weapons by the US. Since the collapse of the Framework, N. Korea has repeatedly asked for a nonaggression treaty. They have also continued building nuclear weapons as a "defensive measure" because they don't have any standing agreement between with the US. All they know is they're part of the "axis of evil" Only the US can guarantee the security of N. Korea...not China, not Japan, not S. Korea and the break down of the Framework that was between only the US and N. Korea is a perfectly valid reason why we should be the only ones engaged in the discussion.

Reason number two would because we're still technically at war with N. Korea. Now you and I might not think that we are but we never signed a treaty. I bet a final resolution concerning the Korean war as well as security agreements would make for a very big and tasty carrot. And what's the harm in signing a treaty to the Korean war? If anything it's a potential nice first gesture that the US could undertake to begin bilateral talks with North Korea. There, KJI gets what he wants and Bush doesn't look like he gave in to the "axis of evil." Heck, I bet we could even continue multilateral talks along with these bilateral talks.

And finally, reason number three would be because look where "dismantle now, dialog later" has gotten us. Look where moral absolutism and "we don't negotiate with evil" (Dick Cheney) has gotten us. I think both Bush and Kim Jong Il are being childish. "I'm not talking to you" is sooooo 4th grade. I can't help but think cowboy's ego is what is getting in the way of making progress over proliferation of nuclear *$@%*ing weapons. I'd much rather have force Bush or Condi to sit down with N.Korea rather than banking on China to lean on them. (There's those awfully big dice we're rolling again.)

The test of a nuclear weapon by North Korea has shown that time is not on our side and things will continue to get worse if we don't change our present course. And it has shown that our present course isn't working.

What will North Korea gain from conducting such a test, especially after being told by both China and Russia (their two greatest allies) NOT to do so?
The North Koreans will assure themselves an increased level of security if it is found that they have truly successfully tested a nuclear weapon. After being labeled a member of the "axis of evil" and seeing what happened to Iraq, another members of the so-called "axis", North Korea determined that the best way to secure themselves against a foreign attack or invasion would be to procure nuclear weapons. History shows that this moves reduces the possibility of war.

What will the U.S. response be? What do you think the goals of such a response will be, and do you think it will be effective?
The U.S. response will be to isolate N. Korea from the rest of the world. Which will not be difficult considering that the rest of the world stands firm against nuclear proliferation. The U.S. will push for tough sanctions ,but, if history is any indication, the international community will not support such sanctions. The goals of such a response will be the same as it always has, to get N. Korea to dismantle its' weapons program, return to the Six Party talks and stop the enrichment of uranium in return for a Light Water Reactor.

What will be the response from Russia and China?
Same as our response, but China and Russia will not be as dedicated to punishing N. Korea as the United States. This is more of a problem for South Korea and Japan than it is for China or Russia.

What do you think the significance of such a test is, and what do you think the response should be?
This test is a clear indication to the United States of two things: North Korea will defend themselves against the perception of attack or invasion and secondly, that if we want them to dismantle their nuclear program that we had better produce the Light Water Reactor first before any concessions are made by them.

In the short term, this move does nothing because Bush fails to address N. Korea directly. In the long term, this move is effective because once Bush leaves office, whether he serves his term or is impeached, a Democratic successor will move quickly to negotiate and this time N. Korea will not be crawfished like last time.

You're right, psyclist, we shouldn't treat him like a child. That wasn't my intention. However, the analogies about understanding how and why he is acting this way still apply, IMHO>



You are referring, of course, to the Agreed Framework that N. Korea used to build the very weapons we are dealing with now, the framework that they broke at every opportunity, and the one which clearly wasn't working?



First, part of the Agreed Framework did indeed stipulate a standing agreement between N. Korea and us. Second, there are a lot more reasons N. Korea would attack South than there are reasons we would attack them. I'm really not sure where anyone has any basis to claim that any of those stemmed from our actions...almost any action we took was a result of something N. Korea initiated...this goes back to the Clinton administration also.



Case in point....maybe if they stopped acting like the Axis of Evil, they stopped being called out.



We do you say that? It would seem China would be much more able to guarentee N. Korea's security...they're neighbors, after all, and China has assisted them in the past. What could we do that N. Korea would believe, anyway...after all there was just such a guarentee in the framework, and N. Korea routinely stated the opposite to its people to rally support. I would argue that the breakdown of the framework is rather exactly why we should NOT be the only ones engaged in the discussion. I'd be further interested in your viewpoint on why this should all be on us, when S. Korea and Japan have much more at stake than we do, and are in the geographic location. Ditto for China, who has a lot more influence on N. Korea than we do. There's one and only one reason N. Korea wants to talk directly with us...they think they'll get more that way. Further, they know that if the talks break down, or the whatever agreement that comes out of them, they can always blame us. This is much harder to do in multilateral talks...there's only so many fingers you can get away with pointing. I'm not really sure why people aren't grasping this...we should inherently be suspicious of anything N. Korea wants, as it is almost surely to their advantage and our disadvantage.



I don't disagree with any of this.



I disagree. I would say look where bilateral talks have gotten us. Look where creating frameworks has gotten us. Look where giving them incentives has gotten us.



Again, I disagree. I think it is primarily Kim Jong Il that is being childish. I think Bush is being very pragmatic....probably one of the few instances where he is employing the correct diplomacy and policy. I find it a little ironic that it is almost always the very same group of people complaining that Bush wasn't multilateral when it came to Iraq that turn right around and blame him for being so with N. Korea. In general, multilateral talks wouild be the correct policy...and that is what we are pusing towards. It is purely KJI's stubborn refusal to accept such talks that is causing the problem...and I'm a little nonplussed as to why anybody in the United States would advocate KJI's point of view, when it is almost certainly to our detriment to do so. As Sun Tsu states "Know thine enemy". Don't forget, as you have stated here, that's what KJI is. It isn't wise to advocate your enemy's point of view.



I would argue that is has shown how poorly the past course was working...after all, that's when all the technology and facilities being used were built. However, I don't think a purely confrontational approach will work either. As I argued above, we need to have an end game in mind. If we had a really solid one, we could even engage in bilateral talks towards it. History has shown that we can't offer N. Korea much in the way of appeasement...that's what got us where we are. I think you have some good suggestions as to what could be included in such a package.



Let's examine this scenario in more detail, as once again it is advocating bilateral talks. Suppose we were to implement this scenario. Why would we think it would be successful this time, when it was so disastrous the previous time? What exactly could we offer them that would cause N. Korea to rescind its program? It would almost certainly be alot...after all, N. Korea's economy is in a complete shambles, and anything short of alot wouldn't do anything for them. Would we give them such a package, particularly when we gave them something similar before, and they quickly used it against us? How does excluding the very parties most concerned with N. Korea (S. Korea and Japan) help? This would like advocating that we dealt directly with Bosnia, and just left Europe to deal with any issues that were left behind. That's not likely to lead to a workable long term solution. Or to put it another way, it would like advocating that one worker negotiate with a coworker over a dispute that involved several other people...and those other people just had to accept whatever solution was arrived at, without being allowed any input. How long do you think such a solution would last? I'd give it less than a minute...in fact, it would start to deteriorate the minute the terms were disclosed, and all the other parties so things in it they didn't like.

Hobbes I think we have a genuine disagreement on the effectiveness of the Agreed Framework. Prehaps that is a topic for a different thread?



Yes, that's the one I'm talking about. However, you're going to have to explain how N. Korea used the Framework to "build the very weapons we are dealing with now" and how that framework "clearly wasn't working".

Again, from Gallucci:

The Noth Korea War Game




Prehaps I didn't make myself clear, let me rephrase: The only ones who can guarentee the security of N.Korea from an attack from the US, is the US.



First of all, multilateral negotitations are not mutually exclusive with bilateral negotiations. I think it would be best to have both going on at the same time rather than not talking at all.

It doesn't make sense to me that N.Korea just wants to talk to us because we'll give them the biggest cookie. After the breakdown of the framework, why didn't we go back to the table? Why did Bush just let it die? There was no attempt to salvage the agreement, we could created a new agreement with tougher terms because N.Korea cheated but instead we just let it die.






Seemed to be a lot more effective than the stalemate we're at now.

Seems this issue is evolving into a blame the Democrats during an election season spin.

Fact of the matter: NK did not have nukes six years ago. Now they do. I think it's fair to say that Republicans have had their shot at controlling this country.

1) Push the Bush Doctrine of preemptive invasion

2) Label NK as part of the Axis of Evil

3) Invade Iraq

4) Make lots of noise about Iran

So, it looks like NK is thinking it's next, you know, after Iran.

And it's all the fault of those darn Democrats.

Just wanted to clarify my personal opinion (as I know there has been a 'blame Clinton' mentality elsewhere): Although I do believe that the previous agreement was not effective, I also believe that it was entered into with good faith and intentions. You try something, and sometimes it doesn't work....that doesn't always mean it was a bad thing to try. I have been very careful NOT to post that I think this is Clinton's fault...just that I believe it didn't work.




Actually, as I read through the rest of your post, psyclist, I'm not sure we disagree on this. We do seem to agree that the framework didn't achieve its goals. I also agree with your quote from Galluci:



Which is why I think the terms of the framework, and anyone's opinions about it, are very relevant to this debate. As I have stated previously, regardless of what type of negotiation we proceed with, we have to have a deal in mind. 'Do this or else', IMHO, isn't going to work. Actually, if the goal is to get DPRK to rescind its nuclear capabilities, I don't think anything will work...that's simply not a realistic goal. So, the goal should be containment. What would N. Korea need from us (and others) to get them to agree (and follow through) on not proliferating their nuclear capability? Given that the goal has now changed, the previous framework is really now irrelevant, as its goal was to prevent the acquisistion of nuclear capability. I do think that all of the parties involved need to be at the negotiating table, otherwise whatever agreement is reached won't succeed. S. Korea and Japan actually, IMHO, have more at stake here than we do. N. Korea is really not a threat to us, as they'd never be so stupid as to attack us. We do, however, have defense agreements in place with those countries that are more likely to be threatened (S. Korea and Japan), so we probably do need to be at the table. We would also be a likely target for those to whom N. Korea might sell a nuclear weapon to.

So, if we need to be at the table, and we need to offer N. Korea something to get what we want...what could that 'something' be? I firmly believe that whatever we offer can't be seen as appeasement, as that would only encourage other nations to proceed down the nuclear path. I have heard a couple of good suggestions in this thread, including yours, psyclist. In general, those suggestions have been in way of restored relations as opposed to gifts. I don't see anything wrong with that.

I just wanted to chime in on this point. Leaving aside my thoughts on the N.K.situation generally, this statement (and Hobbes' question that prompted it) got me to thinking.

I'm not sure I agree. Certainly, only the US can absolutely promise that the US won't do something however there is more than just a promise to consider here. The US has kept to the existing cease fire since it was negotiated in 1953. This was, in part, to protect South Korea, in part because the US saw no compelling interest to violate the cease fire and, one presumes, in part because the costs of violating the cease fire were too large to justify whatever benefits might be gained by doing so. Furthermore, while the US may or may not want a war with North Korea, the US (at least today) clearly seems to NOT want war with China. So, you have a state claiming fear of an invasion that hasn't happened despite 30 years of US troops on their border and despite having a major military power implicitly ensuring that border. Basically, the costs of a NK invasion would be huge, if China were to intervene the success of such a venture would be unlikely yet NK insists that the US must make it promises (promises, btw, it refuses to make vis-à-vis missile strikes against the US and Japan, military action against South Korea, etc).

It seems to me that NK uses US force as a bogey man, a way of pretending that there is a monster under the bed (or across the DMZ) which hence justifies it's actions. It is worth noting that the same country that worries about US invasion has also stated that significant sanctions will be seen as an act of war.

To put it another way; could the US decide to damn all the costs and all the difficulties and all the risk and invade North Korea regardless? Sure. Of course, Taiwan has the same fear vis-à-vis China yet no one is encouraging Taiwan to go nuclear or claiming such actions would be justified unless China absolutely guarantees never to attack Taiwan.

Whatever one may feel about the current administration, to suggest that a lack of US security guarantees and a fear of US agression are the cause of this situation seems a bit....naive.

Umm... let's work backwards.
1. We do invade nations that can fight back, as Iraq had the world's 4th largest Army, albeit a pennance against the US. Aside from the Nuclear weapons, North Korea generally has a less respectable military than Iraq did. Furthermorre, their forces and weapons systems (old Russian models) are what our generals and military leaders spent most of their careers learning to fight.

2. North Korea and terrorists would have something in common, a hatred for the US. I can't imagine Kim Jong Il seeing the Taliban/Al Qaeda as a threat against their security, as Muslim extremists have NEVER attacked North Korea or its assets. You might be right about the notion that NK doesn't want this to be uncovered... so there might be a reason for them NOT to sell to terrorists... but I guarantee they're not worried about terrorists attacking their interests.

3. Just like Pakistani scientists, I'd venture to guess that the financial interest in selling these weapons, coupled with the nearly guaranteed use against the US would be a nearly obvious and resounding YES.

4. Sanctions MIGHT work, but only in the face of a coup, in which Nuclear weapons would be at the hands of an unstable government. It's hard to say how the world will/would react. Naval blockades might be effective in stopping NEW MATERIAL from being given to NK, but most likely we'll have to pray that China or someone in the UN can cool these flames... Clinton has already proven that American ignorance in diplomacy with NK is completely ineffective...

Ok, let's take this absurd premise apart one by one. First, although N. Korea has been a supplier of technology, there is no evidence they've supplied anybody with WMD. Just because they sell delivery systems doesn't mean they sell stuff which could make half of N. Korea go away very quickly.

1. When we invaded Iraq in Gulf War 2.0, we knew their capabilities were nowhere near the capabilities they had in Gulf war 1.0. We rolled over the Iraqi military in Gulf War 1.0 like they weren't even there. We knew that their military was far less than it was in Gulf War 2.0. Rumsfeld knew this and sent in much smaller forces to occupy the country. They had plenty of troops for the defeat. They didn't have enough troops to maintain security afterwards.

Your point regarding this is completely bogus. You act as if somehow their military capability increased since Gulf War 1.0 and there is no evidence anywhere to support that premise. This last time, most of them never even fought back.

2. Countries like Korea and Iran would not even put themselves in the position to be linked back to an attack on us by weapons they supplied because it would result in their country's complete destruction. Bush has made you so afraid, that he got you to believe the leaders of these countries are suicidal. It is absurd to believe they would weaponize a rogue group and hope they use them somewhere else instead of using the weaponry for extortion/blackmail locally. This is not to suggest that rogue groups would not try to attain WMD. Of course they would and probably are. But nobody is going to simply give it to them because it's suicide.

3. See #2. Your arguments assume terrorists can be trusted and the suppliers are suicidal. Not.Gonna.Happen.

4. You have a point - sorta. Although that could happen, it's probably already happened - WITH RUSSIAN WEAPONS. This is the dirty little secret nobody wants to talk about. We can't account for all of Russia nukes. Even though this is the highest probability of nuclear risk, we leave our borders and ports open while instilling fear in our fellow man using Korea, Iraq, and Iran while we do nothing about any of it. Except jump up and down and preach to us how invading Iraq makes us much safer. Or send a strongly worded letter to Korea. Bush's grand plan is so nutty, it's unbelievable such a large group of intelligent people would fall for his crap. Fortunately, that percentage is down to small minority. But way too late.

In any case, Korea is doing what any country wanting to defend themselves from us would do. I say kudos to them for pulling it off. They sat on their plutonium enrichment program for 10 years while asking for a non-aggression policy from us to keep it under lock and key. Bush told them to go screw themselves, so they kicked out inspectors and developed nukes post haste. Now what cards does Bush have to play? He has none because Korea is a nuclear threat. Korea played Bush like a cheap fiddle. Bush couldn't even manage to do what Clinton could - delay the inevitable nuclear production Korea would follow for 10 more years. Maybe by then, we'd have a working defense system.

Agreed, TheCook. In fact, US forces in South Korea haven't been so weak in decades. When I was over there in the mid-90s, the DPRK was insistent that US military forces at the DMZ were a threat to their security. We moved those forces out. Now, we have scaled back tens of thousands of troops and have plans to remove more. Furthermore, regarding Psyclist's reference to the DPRK demands for "formal assurance against the threat or use of nuclear weapons by the U.S" that's a foregone conclusion....We made that specific assurance back in 1991 when we removed our nuclear warheads from South Korea and signed the North- South bilateral denuclearization agreement.

What Psyclist indicated regarding the 1994 Agreed Framework is partly true, but he left out pertinent details. The deal was announced by south Korean government officials after cabinet approval. It was not unilateral, KEDO is an international organization and the Japanese and South Koreans funded a large part of that effort. Problems first arose over the inspection of the DPRK sites to ensure that no weapons grade materials had been produced. The DPRK told South Korean inspectors, “You can’t look, and there aren’t any.” Then, they allowed IAEA inspectors only at the Yongbyon facility. Later, they finally admitted to having a surreptitious nuclear weapons' program (AFTER being confronted with evidence…of course the DPRK denied this and claims they simply decided to be candid at that moment). The DPRK then refused to pledge to dismantle it, though required by the agreement (as well as the NPT, the safeguards agreement, and the 1991 joint declaration). Japan and South Korea continued to send some shipments of oil at that point, but not the 500,000 tons we had been sending. KEDO than announced that unless the DPRK dismantled its program, the reactor project would be scrapped. Again, the DPRK refused and made additional demands for compliance*. In the meantime, South Korea went forward with other unrelated agreements. They cleared mines and built a reunion center near Pakdu mountain, as well as the construction of the aforementioned industrial complex.

*Regarding those demands...When the 1994 agreement started to break down, the DPRK didn’t only want the US to sign a non-aggression treaty, but insisted on two other conditions. First, the US must recognize North Korean sovereignty and second, normalize trade relations (the DPRK’s term was “not interfere in the country’s economic development). We refused. Either way, signing a nonaggression pact with this country isn't what some seem to believe it to be. In such a case, we could have no naval blockade. We’d have to rely on Kim Jong Il’s good word that he isn’t exporting anything untoward. We couldn’t intercept DPRK ships after signing such an agreement, regardless of what they are carrying…even if the boat glowed with radioactivity and it’s on it’s way to Yemen.....

Consider this: They signed the NPT and then proceeded to violate it. They signed additional safeguards guarantees and violated those. They signed the denuclearization agreement and violated it. Each and every time they received rewards. The DPRK nuclear program originated with a nuclear reactor gift for signing the NPT.....when faced with evidence of violations, the DPRK admitted their deception, but refused to dismantle unless we signed further agreements. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice shame on me; fool me ten times?....well, we'd be fools to sign anything unless and until we have tangible guarantees.

I think I should add regarding the "formal peace treaty" idea as some "wonderful carrot", we cannot sign a formal peace treaty in lieu of the ceasefire with the DPRK, as we weren't signatories of the armistice to begin with...nor was South Korea, incidentally. The signatories were China, the DPRK, and the UN. The Korean war was a US-led UN mission.

No it's nothing