Friday, June 23, 2006
Are the Norks sending a signal?
The Arms Control Wonk detects a subtle shift in North Korea's rhetoric. Has it made a "strategic decision" to give up its nukes?
I'd do more work on this, but I am blogging via Blackberry which is damnably difficult. You'll have to do the thinking -- or at least the writing -- for both of us, so offer your thoughts in the comments. I do have one tip, though: read Wretchard's post on the Democratic suggestion that we destroy North Korea's most advanced ballistic missile on the launch pad.
3 Comments:
By 
Hearing Voices, at
Fri Jun 23, 10:03:00 AM:
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Jun 23, 10:51:00 PM:
Without addressing the shit for brain hypothesis, it would NOT be an act of war absent the state of war. 1st of all, we do not, nor have we ever as far as I know, recognized the state of North Korea and we therefore do not accord them the rights or powers of a sovereign state, including the state of peace or war. Neither is it represented in the United Nations and therefore entitled to *ahem* 'protection' under The Charter (tm).
Secondly, the agreement ending the Korean War was an *armistice* with an enemy force, which has been routinely violated by the North in the form of commando raids, naval raids, and other armed incursions. The Korean War has not been restarted in reciprocation only by the good grace of the South and US.
Though I'm sure these points won't prevent legions of ignoramuses screaming about how an attack would be 'illegal.'
It would, however, be a ridiculous over-reaction to the present situation. This is just an example of Democrats making a token attempt at advocating an action so absurd and militant that it would never pass to try and concoct " national security credentials" before the new elections because they have none. US domestic politics in classic style. F'ing wankers.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Jun 24, 06:19:00 PM:
Yeah, hence my caveat, "Though I'm sure these points won't prevent legions of ignoramuses screaming about how an attack would be 'illegal.'" Although there was an amazing amount of duplicity in the Iraq debate by the French, Russians, (who had financial incentives; ref: Oil for Food Scandal) and Germans. (their Chancellor's political strength, a Green/Red coalition [I still laugh about it] rested squarely on pacifism and anti-Americanism) It wasn't a real, honest debate. Iraq was quite obviously in violation and had also routinely violated the ceasefire that guaranteed its continued existence. The fight in the UN was really about whether the US would allow itself to be constrained by the (corrupt and antiquated) UN. The answer turned out to be "no."
As for the invasion of Taiwan, China officially holds it as a rogue province still in a state of civil war and I don't think Taiwan has a UN seat. But buried somewhere in the depths of the State Department is an agreement between the US and Taiwan that promises to defend the little guys against attempted conquest by the mainland. Every few years when a pro-independence candidate does well in a Taiwanese election, the Chinese start conducting 'exercises' on their coast nearest Taiwan, and the US Pacific Fleet sends over a carrier battle group to conduct 'exercises' of their own. All beneath the notice of the public.
As one of my old IR professors said to me, "As far as international flashpoints go, Taiwan has the largest possibility of becoming a disaster." (Not necessarily for us, but in general. The Chinese Navy is pathetically weak in comparison to our own)
