The UN must respond to North Korea with action and not words

I'm sorry, I've been away. I have just returned from the planet Zog, after 30 years. Have I missed something ? Did Michael Foot manage to get rid of our bomb, or something ? Why do Iran and North Korea want one, if we've all disarmed ? And there will eventually be 40 or 50 other countries making them in the end. Can somebody on this planet fill me in ? Thanks.

Exactly what qualifies you to make the sort of assumptions you are making here, Mike? Don't misunderstand me, when it comes down to moral and ethical questions in foreign policy, we're all citizens in a democracy, it's not just a privilege but a responsibility to have our say - but you've gone far beyond that.

To give an example,

"The crisis shows North Korean leader Kim Jong-il seeking to gauge the mettle of US president Barack Obama as well as cement a leadership succession plan for what appears to be his impending stand-down as the country's dictator."

Er, know him personally do you? Ask him, did you? There's no way you can possibly know any of this. You are simply bloviating. Sure, there are rumours about him standing down, but he was just elected leader again - which you don't mention. And his purpose vis a vis Obama, good luck substantiating that one. You're making it up as you go along.

As for the 'brinkmanship' of North Korea, you impute motivation by that word. Is it not equally possible that DPRK scientists had simply reached the stage where they needed to test the bomb, to see if they had overcome problems with the 'fizzle' detonation from 2006?

I don't care about the answers to these questions. I raise them to demonstrate how flagrantly irresponsible you are. Seriously, stick to domestic affairs; at least there we're all familiar with your facile argumentation.

Dave

I am sure that you undestand that LabourList is not a news agency - if you want that visit Reuters or PA. However LabourList is about comment and debate and my posting was my own personal comment on the present situation in North Korea - some of it speculation and some of it based on evidence from respectable sources. In what way was my comment irresponsible? I have some knowledge of such issues (I served for some years in the RAF)and I am gravely concerned about the spread of nuclear weapons to any country but particularly to unstable ones. As to my history of facile posts - all I can do is apologise and try and emulate more enlightened and gifted contributors like yourself.

Well Mike, I have a few friends who spent some time patrolling the DMZ, but that makes neither them nor me qualified to comment on the intent of the dictator of North Korea. Why does serving in the RAF give you that insight?

You've flagrantly ignored the thrust of my comment; I'm aware that this is not a news agency, but you are speaking from ignorance and instead should opt not to speak at all. If you aren't speaking from ignorance, cite your sources - but I'd be extremely surprised to see if there were any sources which credibly suggest that Kim Jong-il purposely wants to test Barack Obama's 'mettle'.

The US are still studying the seismological data but have already declared that the blast was sub-10 kilotons probably around 7 kilotons. Certainly more than the fizzle of the last detonation, it is important to understand the size of the blast to understand how much of their limited fissile material North Korea used in this test.

In terms of an expectation of action, it was intimated that North Korea would face military action if further detonations took place. However, this would be a very dangerous action to take.

North Korea has declared that further sanctions would be a declaration of war.

In terms of what the nuclear test may actually mean, diplomatic leverage is a predictable course of action, the last round of negotiation secured 1m tons of fuel oil.

What to do? I think what would really throw the North Korean leadership would be to do nothing. No negotiations for food or oil, simply refuse to cave in to any demands that surely will come in time. Simply turn up to the next round of talks, listen and simply say 'no'. No sanctions, no nothing. In terms of bilateral trade, certainly South Korea could diminish its trade with North Korea without sanctions.

The key is Chinese action to this detonation, China is just as uneasy as the rest of the world that it has an unstable potentially nuclear armed state on its doorstep.

North Korea would collapse without support from the Chinese. This would cause great suffering for the North Koreans but might be better overall than letting the current dynastic regime stagger on, accumulating more and more nuclear technology and weaponry. I'm afraid it would probably be better to call their bluff now rather than to continue trying to appease them. Same thing with the theocratic Iran.

I agree. Better to have a confrontation now, rather than later when they've managed to militarise their nuclear capability. The same applies, with knobs on, to Iran.

Appeasement is, like it was in the 1930s, wishful thinking that will cost us dearly.

max. Armchair generals like ion and yourself are usually impractical as well as wrong.

If you want a confrontation, where is your manpower going to come from?. Our army is overstretched, thanks to blair. Those personnel returning from iraq will soon be deployed in afghanistan. They are overstretched and many have poor kit and vehicles.

I doubt that you or mr ion would be willing to fight yourselves, any more than blair and his sycophants were.

We should keep out of it. The people of n korea wouldnt *thank* us for interferring any more than the iraquis did.

Alan, confrontation doesn't necessarily result in armed conflict.

Nuclear devices/weapons held by unstable and/or lunatic regimes is something to be concerned about.

The South Korean Army is not small (though admittedly smaller than that of the North) and the US has nearly 20,000 troops in Korea along the DMZ. China, meanwhile, isn't too happy to have a nuclear armed maniac on it's doorstep and may avert her gaze if someone else was willing to to the dirty work.

I agree that the UK armed forces are depleted and exhausted and can do nothing more. (And to think that we once ruled a quarter of the globe.... *sigh*)

wrong, wrong and wrong. I was in North Korea a month ago and can not stand it when people such as yourself, comment on countries they have not visited recently. The best thing to do is not to respond, N Korea is like a spoilt child who needs attention. The best you can do, is to turn away. They will not launch an attack, they do not have a means of accurate delivery and they know that they will be wiped out when they do, hence Kim Jong Il hiding for 6 months during Gulf War 2. The soldiers I spoke to, all of whom were starving and were basically kids, said that if America attacked, they would turn their guns back to Pyongyang rather than at US troops. The country is finished, it is in its final death throws, don't disturb the self-destructive process by getting the people to focus on an etheral outside threat, such as the West. Let the N Korean people kill this monstrous regime from with in, rather than attempt to do it from without.

Anita

I wish I shared your confidence that N Korea is close to pressing the self-destruct button but it is difficult to see the concrete evidence for this. In the meantime I think we should all sit up and take this situation rather more seriously than you suggest.

The "concrete evidence" is speaking to the North Korean people, nothing else and until you have done so, you are not in a position to make authoritative comments

Go there, speak to the people as I did a month ago, then tell me what you think. Armchair commentators do not help the world at all. I will even help you get your visa if you require?!

mike, with all due respect, you do write a load of right wing tosh, if you,ll allow me to say so. Shouldnt you be writing for conservative home?.

Whats your solution - send a gunboat?

Alan

Why is taking strong action against a vile, oppressive regime right wing? Please explain - or better still offer an alternative view and engage in debate and not some rather tired, outdated and rather sterile stereotyping

perhaps, mike, you could be a little less pompous?

Surely you can see that if *we* i.e. America with us as ever paddling along as the ever faithful poodle, that wouldnt be the end of it?. China would cide with n korea, and we would quite likely see the start of world war 3. Have the blairite cuckoos in labours nest learned *nothing* from our previous military adventures?

Alan

Your post is long on rhetoric but short on soloutions? Peddling myths and stereotypes is no replacement for ideas and actions. I ask again - what course of action do you suggest?

pretty long on rhetoric yourself, mr ion. We are not the worlds policeman. We shouldn,t do anything.

I despair of your sort. Do you want us to be involved in yet more military adventures?. Do you want war?. Do you want even more of our soldiers to *pay the blood price*?. Like blair, you wont be one of those paying it..

Alan could have a good point though Mike, I mean the old "lips and teeth" is only just beginning to waver. Any action against N. Korea may not be taken kindly by the Chinese and they're not exactly a tiny military force are they?

I can't see GB doing to much over it, but Obama could overreact and turn around Kim's current fortunes. Other than the threat of military force, are there other options that will really effect the situation?

Yes, the solution is this and I speak from just having been there. The solutionis to invest and start trading, like we did with China in 1982. Nothing kills a regime like this more, than opening its commercial markets. By trading the people travel and swap stories and learn that their country is truly bonkers. The workmanship skills in the North are particulalrl;y high, as good as their Southern countewr parts and this is why I am considereing investing in the factory site I have looked around in Pyongyang. Trade is the way out, not bombs. If we invest in infrastructure and provide technologies, they become part of the global community. THIS IS THE SOLUTION

Mike, howabout we do nothing and sort our own problems out, we have two Labour wars at the moment, lets do without another.

quite right charlie. I sometimes feel absurd gung -ho articles like mr ion,s are posted just to try to divert attention from nl,s embarrassing spivs.

why all the fuss? let them build bombs or are we taking the usual newlabour hypocrisy to new levels here?
NO ONE should have these weapons and therefore there trident should be scrapped and there should be no replacement.
the US has around 3 and a half thousand of these evil things and I know I was a hundred times more worried when reagan was in charge than I am now with the "threat" of N Korea and Iran combined!
why didnt the US threaten Israel when they built a bomb? double standards?
does N Korea not have the right to protect themselves in the same way as the US and the UK, who both say that they only have the weapons for protection?

micro shite - you undersell yourself, this is shite of the macro variety. You seem to be willing to allow as many rogue states as possible to have their nuclear arsenal - would you have allowed the Taliban to develop such weapons? Based on your posting I fear the answer would be yes.

Mike- Please can you make a distinction in that object that sits on your neck and seems to be made predominantely of ebony, between HAVING nuclear weapons and USING nuclear weapons. So what if countries have these weapons, its the usage that is important. Israel has weapons and has not used them, likewise the old USSR, likewise N. Korea, which has had these weapons since 1959, 50 YEARS!

Ever hear of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Anita?

Nuclear arsenals have, can and one day will again, I fear, be used as weapons of last resort in some military conflict in the middle or far east. With so many American troops deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq if North Korea were insane enough to mount an attack on South Korea that could not easily be repulsed by the South Korean army and 40,000 or so American soldiers permanently stationed in that country battlefield nuclear weapons might well end up being used by the Americans to repel the North Korean forces back across the border. If North Korea were then stupid enough to launch a nuclear strike on South Korea the North would be annihilated in the firestorm that followed, with much of what was left of prosperous South Korea also devastated in the aftermath.

Israel has never tested a nuclear weapon nor tried to use possession of nuclear weapons as a bargaining chip on the international stage. Unlike North Korea and Iran. The USSR was expansionist but relatively stable unlike North Korea or Iran and could be dealt with reasonably and diplomatically unlike North Korea and Iran. The potential here for an unthinkable loss of life exists and becomes ever more likely the longer the West backs down whenever North Korea rattles its nuclear sabres at us. You cannot reward such regimes for this kind of behaviour. The world must stand up to them.

Tim- Are you joking me about an attack?! I just seen the North Korean army, they are emaciated kids for heaven sake, they have no ability to launch an attack. They are more likely to shoot their own generals as they told me. Please, please visit and then comment on a place you know nothing about. Asw I said to Mike, I will help you get your visa if you want!

Sadly, Anita, I am not joking. In fact I couldn't be more serious. North Korea, Iran and Libya obtained military nuclear designs and technology third-hand from Pakistan, which country's own military programmes are based on science and designs stolen by Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan while working in the Netherlands.

I know what you are saying is true but it will not make a jot if Kim Jong-il ordered a massive attack on the South. Under these circumstances South Korea and its allies would have to try to push back any kind of conventional offensive made against it by North Korea which has a very large army numerically speaking. Were South Korea unable to repel a North Korean invasion conventionally due to a shortage of troops on the battlefield it is highly likely that America would be compelled to use a small number of limited nuclear strikes, possibly by means of nuclear shells fired from cannon, to destroy large sections of the North Korean army and prevent South Korea from being overrun. If North Korea then escalated the situation by launching and detonating a fission weapon in Seoul, say, the West would have to respond in kind, disproportionately, and North Korea would be reduced to a radioactive dust bowl.

I do not want this to happen nor is this some kind of jingoistic wish-fulfilment of my part. What I am doing here is reiterating received military wisdom - this is a doctrine decided upon and waiting to be implemented by the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia.

What you say is worrying if accurate, Steven. I didn't know that an American nuclear first strike against North Korean troops was as likely to happen as you describe.

Anita - I think possession is also quite important. You will also recall the age old story of the man who fell from a 20 storey buidling and as he passed each floor he said to himself that everything was OK because he had yet to hit anything!