Korea

Do any of you actually expect your enemies to act as you want them to?

What is wrong is that we are all TOO predictable and this is dangerous.

N.Korea Moves on Missile, Nuclear Plant Seen
2 hours, 29 minutes ago
By Paul Eckert

SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea, believed to have just activated a key nuclear reactor, now appears set to raise tensions further by preparing to start reprocessing plutonium and test a ballistic missile, officials and reports said on Friday.



As South Korea's new government scrambled to cope with the apparent firing up of the Yongbyon reactor, reports from Tokyo and Washington indicated that the North might be moving to cross what experts call critical "red lines" in the nuclear crisis.

In Washington, U.S. officials and congressional sources said Thursday that North Korea was continuing to ready a spent fuel reprocessing plant and could have the facility operating as a source of weapons-grade plutonium within a month.

Pyongyang's apparently determined march to revive a fully operational nuclear arms program is a huge headache for the Bush administration, which is on the verge of war with Iraq and has tried to avert a confrontation with North Korea.

The nuclear developments were likely to increase the drumbeat of calls from Seoul, Beijing and Moscow for the United States to talk directly to North Korea -- a course Washington has resisted in favor of multilateral diplomatic pressure on Pyongyang.

In another sign of North Korean brinkmanship, a major Japanese daily reported Friday that U.S. satellite photos and other intelligence indicated that North Korea had tested a rocket booster in January for a Taepodong ballistic missile capable of hitting Tokyo.

Japan's defense minister, Shigeru Ishiba, told reporters he had no information about the report, in the mass-circulation Yomiuri Shimbun, but said Japan did not believe that North Korea was about to launch a ballistic missile.

"We don't have a view that the danger of a missile launch is imminent," he said.

Asked about the missile booster report, a spokesman at South Korea's National Intelligence Service said: "We still don't have tangible material to confirm that."

STEADY ESCALATION BY NORTH

In August 1998, North Korea launched a three-stage Taepodong-1 missile over Japan, demonstrating that major population areas including the capital were within its estimated 1,000-km (600-mile) range.

That missile -- and longer-range rockets the North is thought to have built but not yet tested -- compound worries about the nuclear ambitions of a militant state that also has chemical and biological weapons and the world's fifth largest standing army.

Wednesday, U.S. officials said that the North had restarted a five-megawatt research reactor at Yongbyon, north of Pyongyang, which had been mothballed in 1994. At an adjoining reprocessing plant, plutonium for use in nuclear warheads could be extracted from the reactor's spent fuel rods.

Thursday, other U.S. officials told Reuters that a steam plant associated with the reprocessing facility had been fired up and chemicals delivered that could be used for reprocessing.

"They could start (reprocessing) on fairly short notice but they haven't yet," said one official who, like the others, spoke on condition of anonymity.

"There also seems to be some effort to make sure they have the necessary chemicals in stock for reprocessing. There have been railroad cars full of chemicals arriving at Yongbyon," said another official.

Previously, Reuters and other media reported that the North Koreans have been moving fuel rods around the Yongbyon complex, possibly including some of the 8,000 spent fuel rods stored there.

Activating the reprocessing plant would give North Korea the means to boost its nuclear inventory quickly. The 8,000 spent rods could be used to make another five or six bombs -- about one a month through the summer.

Pyongyang has not commented on any of the latest developments in the crisis, which it blames on U.S. hostility and says can only be defused by bilateral talks and a non-aggression treaty.

DIPLOMACY URGED

A move by Pyongyang to begin reprocessing nuclear fuel would give credence to the view that North Korea was not just saber-rattling but actually intended to develop nuclear arms, said Bill Rammell, minister for Northeast Asia at Britain's Foreign Office.

"I think this is going to get worse before it gets better," Rammell said in Tokyo Thursday.

In the United States, many opposition Democrats and experts believe the Bush administration is foolishly playing down the risk of Pyongyang's activities and unnecessarily provoking the isolated communist regime by refusing to engage in direct talks.

"This can't be resolved without the U.S. sitting down and talking to the North," said Daniel Pinkston of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute in California.

"I can't see how U.S. interests are served by stalling."

The North Korean crisis was sparked last October when the United States said Pyongyang had admitted developing a secret program for highly enriched uranium in violation of a 1994 accord and various international commitments.

Under the 1994 accord, signed with the United States, Pyongyang agreed to freeze its plutonium-based nuclear program in exchange for two light-water power reactors and fuel oil deliveries.

But the United States concluded last year that the North several years ago had launched a second nuclear program that used highly enriched uranium as a fuel source.

The North's moves add pressure on new South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun as he forms a government at a time of strained ties between Seoul and Washington.

Roh, who was sworn in Tuesday and named his cabinet on Thursday, wants to avoid using military force against Pyongyang and has said that the North's collapse would devastate the South.

Roh told security ministers Friday to verify the status of North Korea's Yongbyon reactor and prepare countermeasures, his chief spokeswoman said.

It was not immediately clear what countermeasures would be sought by Roh, who has called for a peaceful, diplomatic solution to a crisis that North Korea has escalated since he was elected in December on a platform critical of U.S. policies in Korea. (Reporting by Teruaki Ueno in Tokyo and Carol Giacomo and Tabassum Zakaria in Washington)

Web Page with Links

So what is the bottom line here Lazarus? Being that you were stationed in Korea.

Do you think that the DPRK is just flexing to get a sweet deal or do they really intend to go permanently nuclear?

My own assessment is that they do intent to go permanently nuclear because it would be the best way to deter of us and to ensure the stability of the regime.

On the other hand, a nuclear armed North Korea would receive no economic assistance from the US and its allies. This could result in economic instability within North Korea and possibly regional instability as a result.

The whole situation just doesn't bode well with me. The analyse never breaks even, let alone in the plus column. The problem is the regime, specifically the regime. The regime is too clever to allow real economic reform because they know it could bring about its own down fall. So the situation we are left with is a brutal totalitarian state that doesn't care at all about 3/4 of its population, constantly blackmailing its neighbors with the potential of a nuclear arsenal (plus a million man army), and no potential for economic reform or improvement. If you are a geo-stategist you would have to be a massacist to specialize in North Korea.

The more serious threat posed by North Korea is the proliferation of nuclear components to other rogue states. As I stated on another post, a quarantine may be effective in isolating North Korea and preventing the proliferation we are afraid. Realistically, I wouldn't place much faith in this kind of tailored containment. I can't imagine us being 100% successful in intercepting all of North Korea's illicit shipments, and even if we are 99.9% successful we lose. Further, without the help of China our efforts would be futile anyway. Finally, with North Korea being crunched economically as a result of the embargo that (I presume) would be taking place, they would probably be even more eager to sell off whatever weapons they could. Once again, our actions (intend to be a firm response) could have the effect of forcing the DPRK's hand. ARGH!

It makes me so mad because I know that the DPRK is China's proxy. China must be laughing it up right now. What we should do to spite China and show that we will not be intimidated is nuclearize the region (AKA South Korea and Japan). I wonder what kind of traction such sentiment has within the Administration?

South Korea and Japan are already nuclear powers by proxy. We already have enormous arsenals present in both countries of nuclear weapons. We even tacitly allow both country's militaries to train as if they had access to our arsenals

Japan has Constitutionally outlawed actually having Nuclear weapons and this may get challenged in the Diet soon, and South Korea just plain doen't want anymore there in the first place.

How many times can you die with overkill anyway?

There is already enough nuclear weaponry facing North Korea to obliterate much of the South China Sea from the face of the Earth and it has been there for years.

The more serious threat posed by North Korea is the proliferation of nuclear components to other rogue states.

Kissinger,

Nuclear proliferation is becoming a greater threat all the time.

bob

Indeed it is Bob. However, North Korea's potential for proliferation is definitely on the US' list of priorities.

Lazarus, I am well aware that Japan and South Korea are under our nuclear umbrella (and that Japan could go nuclear in a week if it wanted to). My question was more regarding the political implication of having a Japanese nuclear arsenal. Further, could threatening the creation of a Japanese arsenal add some additional leverage on China to pressure North Korea? Or is this just wishful conjecture?

North Korea doesn't have a "potential" for being a proliferator of Nuclear Weapons, they are in fact doing so. They have been selling weapons and technology all around the world to any and all cash buyers.
Thye have proven capability to produce Nuclear Arms as well as the infrustructure already in place.

Stop trying to create a foreign policy predicated on wishful thinking. The DPRK isn't bothering to wait until the Bush administration is "ready" and "willing" to address them and they aren't just posturing. They rightly see themselves as next on the global hit list and have adopted a preemptive strategy of their own.

Now perhaps you will begin to appreciate the problems with MAD as the basic application of WMD Tactics and strategy.

Ask instead is North Korea prepared to commit a Nuclear Suicide Bombing that also causes us to self destruct the infrustructure of our economic supply chain to much of the world just in order to get them?

Stop trying to create a foreign policy predicated on wishful thinking.

This would more describe you than me. Sorry, but I am not the one fantasizing about a New World Order.

Now perhaps you will begin to appreciate the problems with MAD as the basic application of WMD Tactics and strategy.

I have never endorsed MAD as a legitimate policy against rogue states. As I have stated previously, when two states encounter a situation where a MAD policy has been adapted, and the two states are disproportionate in terms of their geo-political power, the situation changes from a nuclear standoff to nuclear blackmail.

Don't get all snippy with me. I was asking you legitimate questions about US-DPRK policy. Since you were stationed there I wanted to know what your opinions on said topic were.

This isn't a non applicable variant of MAD, it is a situation deteriorating directly out of a MAD Strategy that can be seen to be failing.

This all is coming about BECAUSE of the reliance on a MAD Strategy of WMD. We created the impetus for DPRK to develop these weapons by confronting them with them in perpetutity and now we are faced with the reality that they are faced with the option of use them or lose them.

And they are thinking of using them instead of succumbing to our authority, moral or otherwise.

Me snippy, naw

And you are the fossilized mind that is insisting on old fashioned strategies in the face of complex new scenarios.

Going on 24 and fossilized. Man, I hate to imagine where my brain will be at when I am 2,400. lol

Ok, since you still haven't really presented a coherent policy approach to North Korea I am going to put words in your mouth ) .

You are definitely not for my proscribed pre emptive nuclear strike (let me know if you change your mind [wacko] ).

We both agree that there is not a military option in North Korea.

So we have two options left

Quarantine--Which you probably view as an escalation and counter productive.

Sit down and talk. Work out a negotiated solution. --- I think this is your approach, right?

This is, in all probability, going to be the approach of the current Administration. And guess what, I also think it is probably the best way to go. All of the other approaches have serious negative repercusions. Even the quarantine approach would have dire political implications for the region (think about the Chinese and Japanese reaction to having a quarantine in the Sea of Japan). So if we can have a serious discussion with the DPRK then I am for it.

Your arguments about MAD are touching, but how do you propose to change our current predicament? That is what I never quite get from you-- how do you initiate the change? Obviously MAD is not a good thing. So why can't we find alternative solutions to geo-political interaction. Answer-- because we don't trust each other. The DPRK is a perfect example. We don't trust them and they don't trust us. And for good reason.

We are the big boys on the block who have a different pol/eco system that is diametrically opposed to them. Plus we nearly wiped them out of existence.

They are the little crazy regime, with death camps and mind control, that doesn't act logically based on international norms. They are the remenants of the Cold War.

So how do you build trust in this most extreme situation? Is this just indicative of the human condition or can concrete steps be taken to reduce tensions and increase understanding?

I do not believe that the Administration trusts North Korea. I know that I don't. However this isn't a matter of trust, is it? Doing away with MAD isn't an apparent priority with this Administration lol . What is really at question is whether we can build a level of trust necessary to initiate effective negotiations with concrete, verifiable results.


The United States' goals are

1. Stopping the nuclear processes that have restarted within North Korea.

2. Dismantle to the nuclear infrastructure.

3. Extract the nuclear infrastructure.

4. Verify that the process' integrity is maintained.

5. Initiate economic reform (I'm speaking generic here) that would elleviate the North's dependency on selling arms and other contra band.

6. Reduce tensions on the Korean peninsula.

And of course, for all of this, we would have to offer the North a very generous package indeed. It would probably include a security guarantee.

Can we get the North to trust us enough to make the deal? That is the real question. Because if we can it would be worth the price, well worth the price. North Korea is an enemy that America wants no part of.

Now from my perspective North Korea is a situation that dictates diplomacy and Iraq is one that dictates force.

From your perspective North Korea is a situation that dictates diplomacy. However, because the North Korean situation warrants diplomacy you feel this makes us look hypocritical in our approach to Iraq. You probably also feel that dealing with the DPRK while taking out Saddam sets a dangerous precendent and adds even greater incentive for rogue regimes to try to acquire nuclear weapons for their deterent effect.

The second point--the possible counter productive incentives our current foreign policy approach will have on rogue states to go nuclear-- is a legitmate point of contention. However, my personal assessment is that the effects will be negligable. These states are trying to go nuclear anyway.

We both agree that there is not a military option in North Korea.

Kissinger,

While a Jimmy Carter would agree, I don't agree. The US has displayed a lack of resolve far too long in its policies going back to the Nam War and perhaps even going back to the Korean War.

http://images.google...immy.carter.gif
Jimmy Carter

I believe a military option should always be an option but not necessarily the first option.

I do not believe that the Administration trusts North Korea.

I don't trust N. Korea either. For trust to occur, the other party needs to be trustable.

You are definitely not for my proscribed pre emptive nuclear strike (let me know if you change your mind  ).

Making a habit of using a pre-emptive nuclear strike is a very risky one. Once a major power commences down this slippery slope, its competition begins to consider this option as well.

Even if the competition doesn't first strike the US, those of us in the US could still suffer if a series of unilateral first strikes would occur because of the potential of nuclear winter.

Sit down and talk. Work out a negotiated solution. --- I think this is your approach, right?

Talk about what? Negotiate what?

Even the quarantine approach would have dire political implications for the region (think about the Chinese and Japanese reaction to having a quarantine in the Sea of Japan). So if we can have a serious discussion with the DPRK then I am for it.

The first priority to consider is whether a quarantine would be effective. When has a quarantine in the last 50 years been effective?

We are the big boys on the block who have a different pol/eco system that is diametrically opposed to them. Plus we nearly wiped them out of existence.

The US has economic issues that need to be considered if it wants to remain a super power. For example, the US has an ever growing National Debt that is approaching $6.4 Trillion. Plus, the US has a continuing trade-deficit that I understand was about $500 Billion last year.

They are the little crazy regime, with death camps and mind control, that doesn't act logically based on international norms. They are the remenants of the Cold War.

True.

How many crazy regimes are there currently in the world?

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 01 March 2003 - 01:43 PM.

http://story.news.ya.../korea_north_dc

Korea Says U.S. Spy Flights Prepare for War (excerpts)

Sat Mar 1, 7:07 AM ET

By Kim Yeon-hee

SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea (news - web sites) accused the United States on Saturday of stepping up spy flights as a preparation for war as South Korea (news - web sites)'s new president vowed to work for a swift, peaceful end to the nuclear crisis on the peninsula.

The U.S. imperialists committed over 180 cases of aerial espionage against the DPRK in February by mobilizing strategic and tactical reconnaissance planes on different missions," the North's official KCNA news agency said, quoting military sources.

DPRK is an acronym for Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the state's official name.

The agency said an RC-135 strategic reconnaissance aircraft -- the plane used to probe Soviet air defenses during the Cold War -- "illegally intruded into the air above the territorial waters in the East Sea (Sea of Japan)... almost every day from February 21 and made shuttle flights in the air for hours to spy on major targets in its east coastal area."

KCNA said other spy flights were carried out by a U-2 high-altitude plane and an EP-3 electronic reconnaissance aircraft.

The U.S. military had also mobilized at least 130 warplanes on February 25 alone for attack drills in South Korea, it said, concluding:

"All these espionage flights and air war games clearly indicate the desperate efforts of the U.S. to start a war against the DPRK."

"These unceasing U.S. war drills drive the situation on the Korean peninsula to such a dangerous pitch of tension that a nuclear war may break out on it any moment," KCNA said in another report.

"The DPRK is keeping itself fully ready to repel the U.S. military attack," it added.

The U.S. military command in Seoul, the South Korean capital, could not be reached for comment.

In Beijing, a European Parliament member fresh from a visit to the isolated communist state said officials there had told him North Korea wanted to avoid a conflict but any sanctions or any U.S. attack on its nuclear facilities would trigger a war.

http://story.news.ya...satoday/4907592

Steep price tag expected for victory in N. Korea

Fri Feb 28, 7:28 AM ET

Paul Wiseman USA TODAY

SEOUL, South Korea (news - web sites) -- The United States and South Korea would almost certainly win any war on the Korean peninsula, but the cost of victory could be appalling.

The threat of so much death and devastation means the United States would face a terrifying choice if it can't find a diplomatic solution to the standoff over North Korea's nuclear weapons ambitions: whether or not to launch a preventive strike against suspected North Korean nuclear facilities and risk another Korean War.

The threat is one reason the South Koreans -- who have the most to lose -- are reluctant to go along with the Bush administration and take a tougher line toward the North. The North Koreans have said any preventive strike would mean all-out war and have warned that they could launch one themselves if they felt threatened.

Nonetheless, President Bush (news - web sites) has not ruled out military options in dealing with North Korea and the crisis over its nuclear programs.

http://story.news.ya...ned_terrorism_1

Non-Aligned Leaders Reject 'Axis' Label (excerpts)

Tue Feb 25,10:08 AM ET

By JASBANT SINGH, Associated Press Writer

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia - In a snipe at the United States, leaders of the Non-Aligned Movement denounced the "axis of evil" label for member states Iraq, Iran and North Korea, describing the tag Tuesday as "a form of psychological and political terrorism."

Without naming the United States or President George W. Bush (news - web sites) — who coined the phrase last year — leaders of the group said in a summit statement that the label was used by "a certain State to target other countries on the pretext of combatting terrorism."

The leaders of the 116 member nations "strongly condemned any labeling of countries as good or evil and repressive based on unilateral and unjustified criteria."

"These actions constitute, on their part, a form of psychological and political and political terrorism."

While a Jimmy Carter would agree, I don't agree.  The US has displayed a lack of resolve far too long in its policies going back to the Nam War and perhaps even going back to the Korean War.

Man, you have even less respect for Carter than I do. Does he represent for you everything that is wrong with liberal pacifism? I guess you have reasons to be more agitated with this inferior former President, being that you had to live with him .

I believe a military option should always be an option but not necessarily the first option.

As do I. However, the prospects for a military conflict in North Korea are not favorable. It would be a lossing equation for us. Plus North Korea may be very close (if not there already) to acquiring a significant nuclear arsenal which would make a conventional military campaign irrelevant. The problem is that we probably don't really know how close the DPRK is to actually having the nukes ready to go. This uncertainty is a deterent in and of itself.

I don't trust N. Korea either.  For trust to occur, the other party needs to be trustable.

I am in full agreement.

Making a habit of using a pre-emptive nuclear strike is a very risky one.  Once a major power commences down this slippery slope, its competition begins to consider this option as well.

Even if the competition doesn't first strike the US, those of us in the US could still suffer if a series of unilateral first strikes would occur because of the potential of nuclear winter.

Of course. There are significant political consequence to using nuclear weapons. The problem with Korea is that there maybe no other good options. Especially if North Korea starts selling nukes whole sale. That kind of proliferation can not be permitted.

Talk about what?  Negotiate what?

Wow, you much more hard line on this then I would have expect. I outlined what we would be negotiating. Stopping their nuclear program and dismantling it. And also, of course, having an effectibe verification process. We are going to have to try and give diplomacy a chance on this one. All of the other options are contigencies.

The first priority to consider is whether a quarantine would be effective.  When has a quarantine in the last 50 years been effective?

No argument on this point. And we are also not talking about "effective". We are talking about "100% effective". However, if this method were adopted, and we were serious about it, it could be a viable policy option. You don't really want to try and cross the DMZ in an offensive campaign, do you?

The US has economic issues that need to be considered if it wants to remain a super power.  For example, the US has an ever growing National Debt that is approaching $6.4 Trillion.  Plus, the US has a continuing trade-deficit that I understand was about $500 Billion last year.

I am also a deficit hawk. Two points though. 1. We have had unanticipated expenses (fighting war on terror and home land security, plus the economic losses sustained from 9/11).
2. The national debt is less of a percentage of GDP now then it was through the 70's and 80's.

How many crazy regimes are there currently in the world?

Quite a few, but North Korea and Kim Jong Il is high on the list. Yes?

As do I. However, the prospects for a military conflict in North Korea are not favorable. It would be a lossing equation for us. Plus North Korea may be very close (if not there already) to acquiring a significant nuclear arsenal which would make a conventional military campaign irrelevant. The problem is that we probably don't really know how close the DPRK is to actually having the nukes ready to go. This uncertainty is a deterent in and of itself.

You realize Mr. Kissinger that the argument you make here is why our enemies consider us cowards culturally and are encouraged as opposed to discouraged to engage us in conflict?

S. Korea Warns of Possible 'Calamity'
Sat Mar 1, 6:36 PM ET
By SANG-HUN CHOE, Associated Press Writer
http://story.news.ya.../koreas_nuclear

SEOUL, South Korea - South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun, in his first policy speech since taking office, on Saturday warned of a "calamity" from the standoff over North Korea's nuclear program unless a peaceful resolution is found quickly.

After his speech, Pyongyang issued a dispatch threatening that nuclear war could break out on the Korean Peninsula at "any moment," an escalation of the communist North's hostile rhetoric as international pressure grows for it to disarm.

On the eve of Roh's inauguration Tuesday, North Korea fueled tensions by test-firing a missile into the sea off its east coast. Anticipating a second test, Japanese Deputy Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe said Saturday that Pyongyang may fire its long-range Taepodong ballistic missile toward the sea between Japan and the Korean Peninsula, Kyodo news agency reported.

The North's official news agency also accused Washington of planning massive war games to prepare for an invasion, and said the country is "fully ready to repel the U.S. military attack."

North Korea will take "a self-defensive measure when it thinks that the U.S. pre-emptive attack is eminent," the agency KCNA said, without elaborating.

KCNA — the reclusive Stalinist regime's bulletin board for the outside world — claimed an American RC-135 reconnaissance plane had intruded into North Korean airspace over its east coast almost daily since Feb. 21.

The U.S. military does not comment on such reports, said Stephen Oertwig, a U.S. military spokesman in Seoul. But North Korea's east coast is dotted with guns and missile bases that U.S. intelligence officials believe can launch ballistic missiles.

The allegations of intrusions came as the United States and South Korea (news - web sites) planned two joint annual military exercises on March 4-April 2 and March 19-26.

"These unceasing U.S. war drills drive the situation on the Korean Peninsula to such a dangerous pitch of tension that a nuclear war may break out on it any moment," KCNA said Saturday.

Washington has repeatedly said it has no plans to invade North Korea.

On Saturday, 100,000 pro-U.S. demonstrators jammed a downtown Seoul plaza to support the presence of 37,000 U.S. troops in South Korea and condemn the North.

The demonstrators, many of them veterans in military uniforms who waved South Korean and U.S. flags, want the troops to remain to defend the South from a possible Northern attack.

In addition to the missile test, North Korea has reactivated a 5-megawatt reactor that could produce material for nuclear weapons, U.S. and South Korean officials said earlier this week.

South Korea sees Pyongyang's recent maneuvers as aimed at forcing the United States into direct dialogue on a nonaggression treaty.

Washington has refused to hold direct talks unless Pyongyang abandons its nuclear programs and has ruled out a formal nonaggression treaty with Pyongyang, saying it has never signed such a treaty with any country.

But U.S. officials say they could give the North with a letter guaranteeing its security. They also say the issue should be handled by the U.N. Security Council.

In his speech, President Roh said he adamantly opposes North Korea's nuclear development, but the issue must be resolved peacefully.

"If peace on the Korean Peninsula collapses for whatever reason, it would bring about a tremendous calamity that we cannot cope with," Roh said.

The nuclear dispute flared in October when Washington said North Korean officials had admitted pursuing a nuclear program, which violated a 1994 pact.

Washington and its allies cut off oil shipments to the impoverished communist state. The North responded by saying it would reactivate its frozen facilities. It also expelled U.N. monitors and withdrew from the global Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Quite a few, but North Korea and Kim Jong Il is high on the list. Yes?

Kissinger,

The book China Threat includes some formerly classified documentation at the rear that is one of my major concerns.

Check out the information below.

bob

http://www.amazon.co...48941?vi=glance

The China Threat: How the People's Republic Targets America

by Bill Gertz



Editorial Reviews

Book Description

Bill Gertz has now written the definitive book on China's threat to the United States. Highlights of The China Threat include espionage, military escalation, economic warfare, and diplomatic treachery. The China Threat sheds new light on the next "Evil Empire" and suggests where China will strike next. --This text refers to the Paperback edition.


Book Info

(Eagle Publishing Company, Regnery Publishing) The inside story on the plot of Communist China to threaten the United States with military force. Contains a significant number of government documents revealing information about the threat. DLC: United States--Foreign relations--China.


Spotlight Reviews


The China Threat : How the People's Republic Targets America, November 3, 2000

Reviewer: mikebmikeb from Dallas, TX, United States

Nehao! I found the book to be easy to read. If you're less than enamored with the current administration, or are a veteran China watcher, you'll love this book. If you're a dyed-in-the-wool, "they can do no wrong" Clinton-Gore fan, you won't like the book, probably ought to save your money, and should go to the next review now.

This book is more of an indictment of the Clinton-Gore administrations' naivity than anything else: You can't blame the Chinese for trying to get the upper hand when offered to them.

Mr. Gertz provides well researched and clear perspectives on China's intentions, and on the well meaning but misguided "backwoods" approach to a country that looks at foreign policy over decades and centuries, not by the current term of office.

He illustrates through released documents that Bill Clinton is the very best president Chinese money could buy, or at least that the Chinese government could hope to have. He points out correctly that the US has no published consistent foreign policy, allowing the US State Department to take short-term-positive but long-term-bankrupt positions, resulting in backroom deals good for the current administration but highly inconsistent with national longevity or will of the American people.

My personal bias: I voted for Clinton for the domestic policies, but deal with the PRC on a daily basis. Gertz is "dead nuts" right.


Devestating!, October 31, 2000

Reviewer: kujo@cavalry.com from Washington, DC

In CHINA THREAT, Gertz warns fellow Americans:

*How the FBI pursued six Chinese intelligence agents and never found a senior Chinese mole inside the U.S. government code-named "Ma" who had access to top secret intelligence.

*"The Hug": How spy suspect Wen Ho Lee was embraced by China's top nuclear weapons scientist during a visit to the United States. The nuclear scientist, Hu Side, was overheard by an FBI informant at the time as saying Wen Ho Lee provided great assistance to China's nuclear weapons program.

*How a classified Chinese government document, known as Document 65, reveals that China is willing to attack the United States with nuclear weapons if U.S. forces intervene to defend Taiwan in a regional conflict.

Gertz unleashes a Chinese spying manual, translated into English, revealing a massive weapons technology collection effort involving the gathering of data and covert espionage.

The timing of the book's release -- just days before the election -- has raised eyebrows in official Washington.

Gertz reported in recent days: If Texas Gov. George W. Bush is elected president, Republican national security officials are planning a major house-cleaning for the CIA's China analysis division. The Clinton-Gore administration has favored a dangerous "benign view of China," claims Gertz.

In his new book, Gertz publishes a secret White House report by NSC staff aide Gary Samore offering missile technology to China if it agrees to join the Missile Technology Control Regime limiting missile exports.

Edited by bobdrake12, 02 March 2003 - 04:29 AM.

The national debt is less of a percentage of GDP now then it was through the 70's and 80's.

Kissinger,

This fiscal year's projected deficit is less of a percentage of GDP then it was through the 70's and 80's.

The current national debt is a higher percentage of GDP than it was through the 70's and 80's.

For example, in 1980, the National Debt was $1 Trillion. Currently it is approaching $6.4 Trillion. The National Debt is now about 6.4 times higher than it was in 1980.

Check out the chart below:

http://www.poop.org/...bt/nd-main.html



The following chart shows that the US' GDP annual growth rate ranged from 3% to 4% during 1970-2000.

http://www.eia.doe.g...s/figure_40.gif



The average compound interest to grow a $1 Trillion principle to have a future value of $6.4 Trillion in 23 years is slightly more than 8%.


bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 02 March 2003 - 05:50 AM.

http://www.cnn.com/2...ning/index.html

NK warns of 'horrifying disasters' (excerpts)

Sunday, March 2, 2003 Posted: 7:05 AM EST (1205 GMT)

PYONGYANG, North Korea (CNN) -- North Korea warned Sunday that if the United States ignites a war on the Korean peninsula, the world "will suffer horrifying nuclear disasters," according to a newspaper article released by Pyongyang's Korean Central News Agency.

The article in Rodong Sinmun also said the U.S. is "pushing ahead with nuclear war preparations in full swing on the Korean peninsula," according to the news agency.

North Korea has issued several warnings through its government-controlled media in recent weeks that the United States is preparing to launch a large-scale attack on the peninsula.

The United States denies it has any plans to attack North Korea, consistently saying it is seeking a diplomatic and political solution to the increasing tensions sparked by Pyongyang's decision to reactivate its nuclear program.

The newspaper article, as quoted by KCNA, also said U.S. Central Intelligence Agency operatives staged a "secret drill" in preparation for a surprise attack on the Yongbyon facility in order to destroy it.

If that happens, it "presupposes a nuclear war," the article says.

"If the U.S. imperialists ignite a war on the Korean peninsula, the war will turn into a nuclear war," the article says.

Taking on Iraq is easy, and we appear no more than a bully, taking on Korea IS TOUGH, and our collective denial and avoidance of the seriousness of what is going on makes us appear cowardly, foolish, and worst of all, VULNERABLE! [!]

We are encouraging systematic escalation when our oponents see us as unable to be flexible, imaginative, and proactive. Simply put we are following THEIR lead, not the other way around.

Since Grenada the United States can be seen to have been fighting nothing BUT asymetric warfare. It is the US that is seen to be exercizing overwhelming military superiority with no concurrent will or desire to take any real risk. We choose consistently weaker opponents that can NEVER offer any real resistence and/or threat.

It can also be said that we have been testing our forces and technologies and incrementally picking tougher and tougher opponents, But now enters Zeno's Paradox, we have been only making half way attempts all along and our enemies have observed this and found us vulnerable.

Our insistence on going at Iraq unilaterally is forcing a paradigm shift in global strategies and also exposing us as still committed to ONLY going after opponents we feel confident a priori we can defeat.

North Korea has determined that it won't wait around for US to come to them but will test our resolve while we are too busy elsewhere in the world to do anything about it.

Does this surprise anyone?

North Korea is deciding to ally itself with Iraq and I am not convinced they would have done so, if we hadn't boxed them into a corner with the "Axis of Evil" speech followed by the Overt policy of Unilateral Intervention in Iraq.

Foreign policy shouldn't be determined by how it "sells" to the domestic market.

Ladies and gentleman it is about time to realize that we have a situation.

Perhaps it wuold be helpful to think of it this way... "Houston we have a problem..."

http://timesofindia....?artid=39110877

Kim offers asylum to Saddam: Report (excerpt)

HARVEY STOCKWIN

TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ SUNDAY, MARCH 02, 2003 02:46:40 PM ]

HONG KONG: North Korean leader Kim Jong Il has offered political asylum to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, according to a front page story in Sunday's South China Morning Post.

This fiscal year's projected deficit is less of a percentage of GDP then it was through the 70's and 80's.

The current  national debt is a higher percentage of GDP than it was through the 70's and 80's.

To clarify, I meant to put deficit, not debt. Just trying to look on the bright side. My whole point was that the national deficit and the national debt are not yet effecting our economy significantly. This is not to say that it couldn't become a problem.

Edited by Kissinger, 02 March 2003 - 08:02 PM.

You realize Mr. Kissinger that the argument you make here is why our enemies consider us cowards culturally and are encouraged as opposed to discouraged to engage us in conflict?

NO, THE REASON OUR ENEMIES VIEW US AS CULTURAL COWARDS AND ARE ENCOURAGED TO OPPOSE US IS BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO ARE AFRAID OF COLLATERAL DAMAGES, OFFENDING OTHER CULTURES, AND MAINTAINING A STRONG DEFENSE.

You continue to criticize the policies of the United States, but you have yet to make a coherent policy statement. There is no use crying over spilt milk. My grandmother always said, if you have nothing good to say don't say anything at all.

To clarify, I meant to put deficit, not debt. Just trying to look on the bright side. My whole point was that the national deficit and the national debt are not yet effecting our economy significantly. This is not to say that it couldn't become a problem.

Kissinger,

Thanks for the clarification.

What has been hurting the US economy (an example would be the US job market) is the trade deficit (trade deficit meaning that the US has more imports than exports). See charts below:

http://www.econedlin...fm?lesson=EM249






The National Debt is of concern since it is one of the two factors that drive interest cost on the public debt (the other factor is interest rate). For the FY 02 federal budget, the interest on the public debt was 14% which was only 1% lower than the budget for the national defense.


http://www.kowaldesi...ercentages.html




bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 02 March 2003 - 09:50 PM.

Being cautious and responsible is not cowardice and being reckless isn't going to make this work just because of a BOLD stroke or a large font.

Being foolish and thinking you can sell me a bill of goods for a war I don't think will provide the promise that is claimed, in the manner being promised is just illogical. You haven't made your case sufficiently and it isn't cowardice to call your bluff. The issue of the aftermath isn't secondary and in your case I wish it were just that, your probelm and yours alone if you go forward without a consensus even at home. But I have a RIGHT and a DUTY to challenge the claims of this admistration as a citizen

You are upset because you expected that everyone would accept your analytical version of events, goals, risks, and opportunities, and clearly we all don't agree and the level of division is very significant and it doesn't represent cowardice at all. It represents the lack of popularity that this Adminstration must face.

Just winning battles of this kind won't even be enough. More arrests like the one yesterday are the real war and for that one thank the Pakistani's not our Military. But we need to concentrate force in a clear and effective manner not simply a very violent one. Taking Iraq and getting into a collateral war in Korea is a strategy that these guys are pushed to from their perspective, they didn't plan this out, yes they are reacting.

Korea may not have been a member of an Axis Power with Iraq before the speech but now it has nothing to lose and everything to gain be behaving as such. Luckily for us Iran is taking a more neutral and even handed supportive role with us since they know they can't trust Saddam. But most of the promises being made at the moment about the aftermath are empty and there is little that explains the actual cost or even a long term coherent plan. There is time yet to consoldate a regional conflict THAT DOES INCLUDE many of the States and encourages constructive change with our presence too.

I have not made incoherent alternatives, I have made some very rational ones that are only irrelevant only if there is no intent, and never really was any, other than unilateral action. The argument for such action doesn't meet a number of Legal Tests of Domestic Constitutional Law, International Law, and even the moral measure of Theological Canon. It doesn't even meet the pragmatic tests of mere logic.

Please don't think that threatening and insulting me inspires confidence in your proposals, or that I disagree with you out of fear. If I were afraid I would be arguing Appeasement clearly I see this current state of affairs as the squandering of advantage and resources.

I am not afraid of Saddam such that I see the necessity of war starting on schedule as credible, though necessary for tactical reasons it is counter productive for STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES. Our enemies aren't encouraged by wiser minds that want a more deliberate and a more professionally appropriate response than playing Rambo. These enemies of our State are encouraged to play the WMD Card because we rely on it too.

Sooner or later somebody is going to use Nukes at this rate and then saying we might use them first is just worse. It forces their hand even more. It is seen as cowardice because we have such overwhelming conventional Superiority, how can the threat in Iraq offer justification of our full arsenal?

But the threat in Korea is almost officially a Nuclear Standoff and the Clock there is probably already ticking. That situation will go critical as Iraq escalates. If I were your enemy I would. I see all your military might focused on someone elsewhere but I have every reason to suspect myself of being next. I wouldn't wait for you to regroup after your expenditure of manpower and resources in the MiddleEast.

In fact the quite the opposite. I would force you to start dividing your forcs or take advantage of your relative distraction, especially if I felt that you might have over estimated the aftermath of conflict and the ease with which you might be able to hold the region. It all comes down to the Physic of Politics not morals, or even Law. And I have long argued that the Physics of Politics isn't about the distinction betwen Capitalism and Communism or between Democracy and Tyranny.

But it can become those quickly. I don't like the pretext of giving up MY OWN Freedom to defend it either. I intend to push to stop the Patriot II Act as well. It isn't cowardice to stand up against the excess and fanaticism of ones' own people, in fact it is frightening to as a lone individual and that is all I really am. Just like most other people.

I am not a group, I am not an organization, hell, the only party I belong to at all is the Republican Party. I just don't agree with the claims you have put forth and I am showing you Mr. Ananlyst how your enemy thinks of you and why from their perspective.

Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. Keep this in mind; it may offer a way to make him your friend. If not, you can kill him without hate -- and quickly.  

A brute kills for pleasure. A fool kills from hate.  

from The Notebooks of Lazarus Long, by R.A. Heinlein

I am not saying don't conduct a war, I am saying conduct one we can win and do so justly. Get over it, there is International Law, grow up.

A zygote is a gamete's way of producing more gametes. This may be the purpose of the universe.  

Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something.  

Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again, too. Who decides?

from The Notebooks of Lazarus Long, by R.A. Heinlein

Well maybe it could just be the Law of of the Jungle in this world but I hope you can give me, and certainly every other American a better argument. More importantly I hope this Administration does soon or there will be serious problems at home and abroad.

Lazarus Long, Kissinger, and All,

Four news items have just come up:

1) Pyongyang restarts nuclear reactor - By Bill Gertz - THE WASHINGTON TIMES

http://www.washtimes...ional/gertz.htm

2) The most recent headling on the Drudge Report states, "GERTZ: Terrorists aim at Pearl Harbor; Plan to hijack airliners, fly them into nuclear subs"

Quoting from the Drudge Report:

"Terrorists linked to al Qaeda have targeted U.S. military facilities in Pearl Harbor, including nuclear-powered submarines and ships, The Washington Times has learned."

"Intelligence reports about the terrorist threat to the Hawaiian harbor bombed by the Japanese in World War II were sent to senior U.S. officials in the past two weeks and coincided with reports of the planning of a major attack by Osama bin Laden's terrorist group."

http://drudgereport.com/

3) Mexico Seeks Peaceful Resolution in Iraq - The Associated Press - Sunday, March 2, 2003; 6:58 PM

http://www.washingto...0-2003Mar2.html

4) WAR against Saddam Hussein will start as soon as next Thursday, The Sun can reveal.

http://www.thesun.co...3100298,00.html


Probably by the time you read this post, other significant data will have been revealed.

Based upon all the information you know to-date, if you were given 5 minutes to speak with President Bush, what would you say to the President?

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 03 March 2003 - 05:32 AM.

[quote]Being foolish and thinking you can sell me a bill of goods for a war I don't think will provide the promise that is claimed, in the manner being promised is just illogical.  You haven't made your case sufficiently and it isn't cowardice to call your bluff.  The issue of the aftermath isn't secondary and in your case I wish it were just that, your problem and yours alone if you go forward without a consensus even at home.  But I have a RIGHT and a DUTY to challenge the claims of this Administration as a citizen[/quote]

I never thought I could sell you my goods Lazarus. We have our positions. Further, I may not have made a sufficient case for you, but I have convinced many others. Just because you haven't been appraised of the Administration's plans for the aftermath doesn't mean that a plan doesn't exist. It does exist and you will soon be seeing its effective implementation. And Lazarus, I will support to my death your right to say what you say.

[quote]It represents the lack of popularity that this Adminstration must face.[/quote]

Bush's approval rating holds firm at 60%.

[quote]Taking Iraq and getting into a collateral war in Korea is a strategy that these guys are pushed to from their perspective, they didn't plan this out, yes they are reacting.[/quote]

I am going to have to put an end to you saying this right now. This is a false statement. The Administration most certainly did plan out a campaign in Iraq. Claiming that the Administration is being reactive and not proactive in Iraq is absurd. As far as the DPRK goes, just wait and see--you may be surprised. [B)]

[quote]Luckily for us Iran is taking a more neutral and even handed supportive role with us [/quote]

Oh really?? I wouldn't say neutral. Clever is the right terminology. Iran is skirting the edge of IAEA protocol. By developing nuclear power facilities that are within IAEA guidelines they will not be in technical violation until it is too late for us to react through international legal means. They have learned the proliferations game all too well. Russia should not be let off easy on this one. They are copable on this matter.

[quote]I have not made incoherent alternatives, I have made some very rational ones that are only irrelevant only if there is no intent, and never really was any, other than unilateral action.[/quote]

You are just figuring this out now?? [huh]

[quote]The argument for such action doesn't meet a number of Legal Tests of Domestic Constitutional Law, International Law, and even the moral measure of Theological Canon.  It doesn't even meet the pragmatic tests of mere logic.[/quote]

We haven't really had an argument on logic, would you care to start it? Also, I will post an article on how the war does meet the standards of Theological Canon, although this doesn't matter one bit to me.

[quote]Please don't think that threatening and insulting me inspires confidence in your proposals, or that I disagree with you out of fear. If I were afraid I would be arguing Appeasement clearly I see this current state of affairs as the squandering of advantage and resources.[/quote]

Fair enough. You know I get heated sometimes, as do you. I have never called you an appeaser. (Actually I just went back and saw that I did, sorry lol ) I do, however, believe that some of the members of your camp are practicing a policy of appeasement because they are not using your logic to argue their cause. They are using the logic of concessions.

[quote]Sooner or later somebody is going to use Nukes at this rate and then saying we might use them first is just worse.  It forces their hand even more.  It is seen as cowardice because we have such overwhelming conventional Superiority, how can the threat in Iraq offer justification of our full arsenal?[/quote]

Your objections to MAD are duly noted.

[quote]But the threat in Korea is almost officially a Nuclear Standoff and the Clock there is probably already ticking.  That situation will go critical as Iraq escalates.  If I were your enemy I would.  I see all your military might focused on someone elsewhere but I have every reason to suspect myself of being next.  I wouldn't wait for you to regroup after your expenditure of manpower and resources in the MiddleEast.[/quote]

Then so be it Lazarus. If North Korea wants to cross the DMZ it will face a nuclear response. It will be committing suicide. It knows this. We know this.

[quote]In fact the quite the opposite.  I would force you to start dividing your forces or take advantage of your relative distraction, especially if I felt that you might have over estimated the aftermath of conflict and the ease with which you might be able to hold the region.  [/quote]

You don't get it, do you? We are not going to fight a conventional war on the Korean peninsula. Any conventional offensive action by the DPRK over the DMZ would result in a nuclear response.

[quote]It all comes down to the Physic of Politics not morals, or even Law.  And I have long argued that the Physics of Politics isn't about the distinction between Capitalism and Communism or between Democracy and Tyranny.[/quote]

Interesting train of thought. I agree that the "physics of politics" is not moral or even legal. Hence, my belief in real politik. As far as the "physics of politics" not being about the diametric opposition of capitalism vs communism or democracy vs tyranny-- this is a statement that needs backing up because it a widely held belief that has a lot of empirical evidence to back it up. Nice try slipping that one in without any proof.

[quote]I intend to push to stop the Patriot II Act as well.[/quote]

I also have concerns about Patriot Act II, but remember, it hasn't even been proposed yet. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

[quote]I am not saying don't conduct a war, I am saying conduct one we can win and do so justly.  Get over it, there is International Law, grow up.[/quote]

We are going to fight a war we can win, and we will do so justly. And yes, there is international law...for trade relations, human rights, etc... not when it comes to the sovernty of the United States or its national security. Events that are currently playing out are proving this true (even if the US does attain a second resolution, it will have acquired it through its influence, which illustrates that the UNSC is a charade).

[quote]Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something.[/quote]  

One man is prone to mistakes, the checks and balances of a democratic system weed out imprecision.

[quote]Well maybe it could just be the Law of the Jungle in this world but I hope you can give me, and certainly every other American a better argument. More importantly I hope this Administration does soon or there will be serious problems at home and abroad.[/quote]

It is the law of the jungle in this world. If I told you anything else I would be lying to you. I can give you moral or legal justification, but this doesn't change universal truths.

Edited by Kissinger, 06 March 2003 - 05:50 AM.

A satellite photo shows North Korea's suspected nuclear facility at Yongbyon.


Article & Links
Chronology of nuclear weapons development in North Korea:

1993: North Korea says it has quit the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty amid suspicions that it is developing nuclear weapons. It later reverses that decision.

1994: North Korea and U.S. sign an agreement. North Korea pledges to freeze and eventually dismantle its nuclear weapons program in exchange for international aid to build two power-producing nuclear reactors.

Aug. 31, 1998: North Korea fires a multistage over Japan and into the Pacific Ocean, proving it can strike any part of Japan's territory.

May 25-28, 1999: Former Defense Secretary William Perry visits North Korea and delivers a U.S. disarmament proposal.

Sept. 13: North Korea pledges to freeze long-range missile tests.

Sept. 17: U.S. President Bill Clinton eases economic sanctions against North Korea.

December: A U.S.-led consortium signs a US$4.6 billion contract for two safer, Western-developed light-water nuclear reactors in North Korea.

July 2000: North Korea again threatens to restart its nuclear program if Washington doesn't compensate for the loss of electricity caused by delays in building nuclear power plants.

June 2001: North Korea warns it will reconsider its moratorium on missile tests if the Bush administration doesn't resume contacts aimed at normalizing relations.

July: State Department reports North Korea is going ahead with development of its long-range missile. A Bush administration official says North Korea conducts an engine test of the Taepodong-1 missile.

December: President Bush warns Iraq and North Korea that they would be "held accountable" if they developed weapons of mass destruction "that will be used to terrorize nations."

Jan. 29, 2002: Bush labels North Korea, Iran and Iraq an "axis of evil" in his State of the Union address. "By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger," he says.

Oct. 4: North Korean officials tell visiting U.S. delegation that the country has a second covert nuclear weapons program in violation of the 1994 agreement -- a program using enriched uranium.

Oct. 16: U.S. officials publicly reveal discovery of North Korea's nuclear weapons program.

Oct. 26: Bush, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and South Korean President Kim Dae-jung meet at an Asian-Pacific regional summit in Mexico and agree to seek a peaceful end to the North's nuclear problem.

Nov. 11: The United States, Japan and South Korea halt oil supplies to North Korea promised under the 1994 deal.

Dec. 12: North Korea reactivates nuclear facilities at Yongbyon that were frozen under the 1994 deal with the United States.

Dec. 13: North Korea asks the U.N. nuclear watchdog to remove monitoring seals and cameras from its nuclear facilities.

Dec. 14: The U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency urges North Korea to retract its decision to reactivate its nuclear facilities and abide by its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Dec. 21: North Korea removes monitoring seals and cameras from its nuclear facilities

Jan. 10, 2003: North Korea withdraws from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Jan. 28: South Korean envoy Lim Dong-won meets North Korea's number two leader Kim Yong Nam. Lim says North Korean leader Kim Jong Il has received the letter from President Kim Dae-jung that suggests Pyongyang should reverse its withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Feb. 3: The U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld signs a "prepare to deploy" order that will send 24 bombers to the Pacific region.

Feb 4: Pyongyang describes the U.S. move as an attempt "to crush us to death."

Feb. 5: North Korea's official news agency says the nation has reactivated its nuclear power facilities.

Feb. 12: The 35-member IAEA board of governors declares North Korea in breach of atomic safeguards and refers the case to the U.N. Security Council.

Feb. 18: The (North) Korean People's Army threatens it will abandon the 1953 Korean War armistice if the United States continues its military buildup in the region.

Feb. 26: The United States says North Korea has reactivated its five-megawatt nuclear reactor at Yongbyon.

http://www.latimes.c...a...s-a_section

March 5, 2003
NEWS ANALYSIS/Los Angeles Times

N. Korea Wants Its Way Before a U.S. War With Iraq
By Barbara Demick, Times Staff Writer

SEOUL -- If anybody thought that North Korea was going to lie low to allow the United States to focus on Iraq, that misimpression was corrected by the interception over the weekend of a U.S. surveillance plane.

The incident is more proof, if any was needed, that the North Koreans are determined to force themselves and their problems on the agenda now. Veteran North Korea watchers say they think that the faltering regime is trying to extract economic aid, energy assistance and above all guarantees for its own survival -- and that it believes its bargaining position will be stronger before a campaign against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

"North Korea wants to conclude something while the U.S. position is weak," said Kim Tae Woo, a military expert with the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses in Seoul.

The shadowing of the U.S. RC-135S reconnaissance plane by North Korean fighter jets is just one more incident that might not amount to much on its own but sends a clear message when combined with other recent provocations.

North Korea has test-fired a short-range missile, sent a MIG fighter jet into South Korean airspace and fired up its 5-megawatt nuclear reactor, just to mention a few of the more noteworthy moves that have made headlines in recent days.

There is every indication that the provocations will continue until North Korea gets the response it wants.

"The North Koreans continue to come up with creative alternatives that are all designed to get the United States' attention," said Scott Snyder, Seoul representative of the Asia Foundation. "They feel they have a deadline. They can't afford to wait until after Iraq."

The North Korean shadowing of the reconnaissance plane was especially frightening not because of what happened but because of what could have happened. The North Korean fighter jets were said to have come within 50 feet of the U.S. craft, which by the standards of aviation meant within a hairsbreadth of a midair collision.

It is easy to imagine that had there been U.S. deaths, pressure would be high on the Bush administration to respond militarily.

Snyder said he believes the incident will increase calls from nervous allies in Asia for the United States to open bilateral talks with North Korea. During Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's visit to the region last month, the desire for talks was a message delivered repeatedly by Chinese and South Korean officials. The Bush administration has steadfastly eschewed direct talks, believing that North Korea poses an international threat and should be dealt with in a multilateral setting.

"The United States might have a great desire to put this aside until it can focus, but I don't think that view is shared by its allies in Asia. The more real the risks are growing, the less patience there will be," Snyder said.

Official reaction in Asia to the incident was conspicuously lacking in indignation about the conduct of the North Koreans in intercepting the reconnaissance plane.

The Chinese urged that "all sides keep calm and exercise restraint in order to truly safeguard peace and stability on the Korean peninsula," according to a statement from Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan.

The South Korean government made no statement criticizing the North Koreans, and some analysts dismissed the U.S. complaints as unwarranted.

"What North Korea did was nothing extraordinary," said Lee Jong Seok, a North Korea specialist with the Sejong Institute who has served as an advisor to South Korea's newly inaugurated president, Roh Moo Hyun. "A strange aircraft approaches, and they sent their planes to check it out. The United States shouldn't make a big deal about it."

An unnamed South Korean official was quoted in today's JoongAng Ilbo newspaper deploring the lack of dialogue between the United States and North Korea.

Tensions also are high because of the start this week of the annual war games that are staged by the 38,000 U.S. troops based here and the South Korean military. The exercise, called Operation Foal Eagle, began Tuesday and runs through April 2.

"This Foal Eagle exercise is escalating the danger of armed clashes on the Korean peninsula," Minju Joson, a North Korean newspaper, said in a report Tuesday that was monitored in Seoul. "If the eagle swoops down on us, a nuclear war will break out, and it is clear that the whole Korean nation will not escape nuclear holocaust," said the report monitored by South Korea's Yonhap news agency.

The U.S. military denied that there is anything out of the ordinary about the exercises. "The North Koreans say this is provocative, but it has been on the calendar for years," said Maj. Brian Mako, a U.S. Army spokesman.

The next big step that North Korea could take would be to start up a mothballed reprocessing plant that converts spent fuel rods from its nuclear reactor into weapons-grade plutonium. Satellite photographs of the plant at North Korea's Yongbyon nuclear complex suggest that such a move is imminent.

Many diplomats believe that reprocessing the fuel rods would be tantamount to crossing the "red line" because North Korea would be able to produce enough plutonium to build five or six nuclear bombs, in addition to the one or two it is suspected of already having. Although other measures could be dismissed as brinkmanship, the North Koreans appear to be intent on producing plutonium, perhaps using the distraction of a war in Iraq.

Analysts believe that North Korea is hedging its bets and figures that if it cannot strike an attractive deal with the United States, the plutonium could be sold for hard currency.

"North Koreans usually do things with multiple objectives. That's their style," said a U.S. intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

*

Chi Jung Nam in The Times' Seoul Bureau contributed to this report.
Los Angeles Times

We are going to fight a war we can win, and we will do so justly. And yes, there is international law...for trade relations, human rights, etc... not when it comes to the sovernty of the United States or its national security. Events that are currently playing out are proving this true (even if the US does attain a second resolution, it will have acquired it through its influence, which illustrates that the UNSC is a charade).

1. We aren't fighting a "war we can win," we are trying to pick only the "battles we can win". The difference is very significant if we are trading a short term victory for long term defeat.

2.As for the International Law of War, what would you call the Geneva Convention?

It is the one Legacy of the League of Nations that not only played a part in the conduct of World War II, but was the basis of all war crimes trials held by the Allies at Nuremburg. In fact it was in great measure the attempt to capitalize on the success of this notion that lead to creating the United Nations.

3. The odds of a second resolution are not only dimming at the moment but if we continue to be disruptive and openly hostile to the very concept of the Rule of Law in the one arena we are granted to demonstrate our own legitimacy to the world we may even force Britain into revolt against us before we are done, now that would be ironic.

As I am sure you have read China, France, and Russia (3 or the permanent 5) along with Germany are now moving to block and threatening veto. And as the article I pointed out in the thread on Iraq states even Britain is now willing to grant more time so long as it accompanies a deadline. Sadly, I think this is now a non starter option that we should have lead with a while ago instead of backing ourselves into a corner.

Now the Security Council is about to take up the issue of N. Korea soon and this is our issue, we must get involved and the article above outlines some of the reasons. So now we have a bilateral conflict and potentially two fronts. We are going to have to address what comes out of the Security Council or we could find them arguing to send Russian troops before this done to S Korea to beef up our lacking forces (just demonstrating a logical extreme).