----- Original Message ----- From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 1:16 PM Subject: Re: N Korea threatens to 'destroy world'
> > >From what I read, given the present state of the > > sanctions, if we try to > > apply containment to Iraq, they may have a A-bomb or > > two with a medium > > range delivery capacity in 5 years. If we apply the > > same principals to N. > > Korea, they may have 50 with some delverable by true > > ICBMs to the US West. > > Is that a reasonable assessment? If so, isn't N. > > Korea more dangerous? > > > > Dan M. > > I think (and I don't necessarily agree with this, I'm > just saying what I think they think) that the > Administration thinks Iraq is more dangerous because > it assesses the rationality of the two states > differently. Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate > George Bush, after all, and had he succeeded he would > have guaranteed his own destruction. That's > irrational, and suggests that Iraq would be willing to > risk destruction for fairly trivial ends. But, there is another explaination besides simply being irrational. Hussein could have totally misunderstood US politics. Watching Bush's ratings fall through the floor and then have Bush's "enemy" elected president, he might have concluded that Clinton would not have had the guts or the will to start a new war. Mind you, he'd be wrong, but wrong is not crazy. (This does effectively counter Dr. Brin's assessment that he would be too bright to use WMD, though.) Looking at N. Korea, I can envision a time where the government would be on the verge of collapse and they would, simultaneously, have 50 nukes. Would it be irrational to roll the dice and threaten to use the nukes unless extortion money was paid by Japan? Or to invade the South conventionally, and tell the US to stay out of it unless they want LA to glow? > North Korea, OTOH, they seem to think is rational and thus > can be deterred in a normal fashion, and is thus less > dangerous than Iraq. > I think you (and I) think that North Korea has mor > _capabilities_ to be dangerous than Iraq, and they > agree with that (I think). But they assess North > Korea as being less dangerous because of its > intentions. I don't know enough about the North > Korean government to be able to assess the quality of > that judgment, so I'm defering to the Administration, > which (hopefully) does, and certainly has more than I > do. >From what I've seen, they have been surprised by the latest reactions of N. Korea. I don't think they have a good handle on the N> Korean thought processes. Since there are some reasonable folks at high levels, I'm thinking they know what they don't know, and are simply trying to put a good face on the fact that their hands are tied with N. Korea in a way they are not with Iraq. For example, if you were no more sure of the ability of the US to deter N. Korean than you are of our ability to deter Hussein, would you attack now instead of wait; or would the potential harm to allies from an attack require you to be more circumspect? Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
