From CNN...



Questions for Debate:
1. Do NK's actions change the dynamic of this situation? Why/Why not?
2. How should the US/UN respond to such statements?
3. Should we be worried about Military/Nuclear reprisal from NK?

No, this is just more sabre-rattling. They aren't planning on doing anything to anyone they just want to give off the appearance of a serious world power. What's the alternative? Is North Korea planning to invade someone? Or maybe they're just going to nuke a country? I doubt it since both would effectively end the existence of North Korea.


Loudly state that the resolution isn't an act of war [and if you look at the UN's history of following through on them that should be proof enough ] and re-explain why we've done what we've done.


Nope. If North Korea nukes any country, it will become the newest part of seabed in the sea of Japan. Also, from what I understand, the North Korean army has very little offensive capabilities.

CP

I agree that there is about a 99.99% chance that there are Seawolf Subs within minutes distance of nuking NK into sawdust, but the real question is whether after Iraq the US would actually take military action.

I fear that after the gov't's blunders in the middle east that our nation will be far too apprehensive to take action, and that the UN is toothless as a general rule. North Korea's army is manned predominantly by underfed and under-equipped men using 30 year old technology. Unlike the first incursion, they won't have Chinese support if it came to that. I just worry that these sanctions would push ol' Kim Jong Il into a corner, of which he's already proven to be unstable...

If the sanctions don't work... what's next?

1. Do NK's actions change the dynamic of this situation? Why/Why not?

I think what this shows is the change of the dynamic of the relationship between the US and China. So I feel DPRK's actions, it's even more apparent and actual physical (DPRK is said to be readying for 2nd test) aggressiveness is it's reaction to this change.

I believe that current US-Sino ties and relations are the best they have ever been right now, and China seems very happy and boastful about this. Our admin has taken on a new policy and approach with China regarding our economic and trade relations and our new Treasury Secretary had a very successful meeting last mo. in China. I think the reluctance to allow the DPRK to threaten and destabilize the region has become more prevalent to the Chinese now that they have established power and relations with us economically.

1. Do NK's actions change the dynamic of this situation? Why/Why not?

No, not really. As DaytonRocker argued in the previous thread, even the Il one isn't going to just start throwing nuclear weapons around the globe in the hope someone will notice. Therefore, it's an idle threat.

2. How should the US/UN respond to such statements?

By reiterating our position...that being than if N. Korea seriously feels threatened, then by all means they should sit down to the six party talks and discuss the situation.

3. Should we be worried about Military/Nuclear reprisal from NK?

Not really. I don't see any way in which Kim benefits from initiating an actual confrontation. Remember...we don't know if their recent nuclear test was even successful, so we're not even sure at this time that they actually have any nuclear capability.

US confirms North Korea nuclear test.

1. Do NK's actions change the dynamic of this situation? Why/Why not?

First they whip out a knife at an NRA concealed carry rally, and now they're mouthing off. I think NK is asking, maybe even begging, to be conquered.

2. How should the US/UN respond to such statements?

Make it the UN/US. The UN Security Council ought to point out that refusing to allow exports to a country isn't exactly an act of war. It's an act of commerce. Granted, it's not a very nice act of commerce, downright aggressive. So's blowing up a nuke.

3. Should we be worried about Military/Nuclear reprisal from NK?

No. They might try to attack SK, which action would then open the doors to invasion of NK. My guess is that this will happen.

Conventional weapons would bring them down, or actually, just freeze the supply lines and keep them busy until they run out of ammo and/or food. No need to nuke anything and create fallout for Japan, Hawaii and the West Coast of the US.

I'm assuming that Russia and China won't try to supply NK. The days of war over communism are over. Russia and China now have big stakes in the global economy. The UN is ticked at NK, so there's world opinion against NK. I think this means that when troops are needed, they will come from all over the place, including China. Maybe NK becomes annexed to China, maybe rejoins SK. I bet those negotiations are going on right now.

However it goes, I also bet the people of NK will welcome the change. There isn't a problem with factions within the country, except maybe the privileged ones versus the peasants. Get China coming in from the north, SK and allies from the south, maybe put east/west squeezing like two rice bowls coming together--yep, relatively simple.

The first thing I noticed after the announcement from Kim Jongs administration was how China reacted. They are now supporting nearly all aspects of the UN resolution so, I would have to say yes to your question.




The US has already started preparations for the likely event, NK takes military action agianst one of the nations apposed to NK's nuclear ambitions. The UN, unfortunately, tend to debate the issue until a situation escalates beyond repair. Granted, they were quick to initiate the UN sanctions after NK's initial test of their nuclear device.



My personal feeling on this issue is YES. Kim Jong has a mental state simular to Hitler during the Russian theater to where he thought he was invincible. He now owns the stage and will be reluctant to give it up. My greatest fear is for the people of Japan. The first strike will be there, forcing the hand of the US based upon the Japan-US Security treaty of 1951.

(CNN) -- Blaming the United States for instigating U.N. Security Council sanctions against it, North Korea on Tuesday called the resolution approved over the weekend a "declaration of war."


Questions for Debate:
1. Do NK's actions change the dynamic of this situation? Why/Why not?

Calling the santions an act of war may not be that far from the truth. Part of the reason that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor was the economic sanctions that were level against them because of their invasion of Manchuria. Japan was getting 80% of its oil from the U.S. and that threatened to criple them, which of course was the whole idea. Don't think for a minute that economic sanctions don't do anything, they can devastate a nations ability to provide for it's people. They are allready depending on humanitarian aid to feed a lot of their people, something like this can upset things in North Korea in a profound way.

2. How should the US/UN respond to such statements?

They had better be using whatever diplomatic clout they have to get North Korea to the bargining table. Sure it's a lot of bluster but Kim Jong is not a stable person and their diplomats are not talking rationally. They boycotted the debate over the sanctions and wonder why they went through anyway. The UN is going to have to stand their ground, the nuclear program in North Korea has to be stopped and economic sanctions may well be the only option available now they they foolishly decided to detonate one of their nukes.

3. Should we be worried about Military/Nuclear reprisal from NK?


After 4 years in the Navy supporting ballistic missle subs and now on active duty with the Army I think I can assure you that any military reprisal would be suicide for the current regime. The U.S. would neutralize the threat with a swiftness and finality that North Korea might never recover from. North Korea knows this and I am hoping that they still have some friends in China that will help them find a solution before they do something stupid.

Personally I think this is high drama that will ultimately end in a political stalemate. if on the other hand they are really reckless enough to retaliate militarily there will be a regime change. It won't happen though, dispite the fact that I think they're nuts I don't think they are that stupid

1. Do NK's actions change the dynamic of this situation? Why/Why not?
NKs actions are only isolating Kim Jong Il further. What Kim Jong Il is hoping for is that he can use his nuclear weapons to blackmail other countries into giving his regime aid. If the world opinion is united against that maniac, his blackmail won't work. The World hopefully would have learned lessons about the appeasement towards Hitler.


The problem here is that Kim Jung Il has been stealing the International Aid and using the proceeds to fund his nuclear weapons program as well as buy luxury toys for the elite ruling party of his country. This is why the US and the Western countries had to step in and freeze North Korea's access to the International banks.

2. How should the US/UN respond to such statements?
Sanctions at this moment are the best option. One thing the US could do, although it would be politically embarrassing, is offer Kim Jung Il and his regime a golden parachute in exchange for relinqueshing power and allowing a peaceful change with international monitors present.

I would like to correct this statement...it is in fact China who under US pressure or diplomacy or negotiations who recently froze DPRK accounts in both Macau and Mainland China. I have brought this up several times trying to get people to focus on the financial aspects of all of this, you are the first one I have read who recognizes the importance of how economic conditions have recently changed a great deal for North Korea and that it is likely this pressure (not Bush's name calling or the Iraq war) that has heightened this conflict. You just forgot to include China's role, which is pretty important to the current admin's approach.