----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary L. Nunn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin Mail List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 3:21 PM Subject: Breaking news, N. Korea & the UN
> > I get the Breaking News stories from ABCnews.com and the breaking news > of the day was centered around the Turkish vote to allow American troops > or not. Usually they send out some lame stuff like interest rates > changes and the like. > > I couldn't help but notice a news article today where the president of > North Korea is threatening nuclear war (see link below). I guess that > ABC doesn't consider that breaking news? They've been doing it for weeks. Its important, but not breaking news. > So the second point of this post comes up. Sure Saddam is an a**hole and > has missiles and anthrax, but North Korea is threatening a nuclear war. > So why is the UN and countries surrounding Korea not all over that? I > can't help but think that a nuclear exchange on the Korean peninsula > would take a bit more priority than Iraq? My understanding is that it is because our options are much more limited in Korea. The risk from even a conventional war is very high. let me quote from: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/28/opinion/28KRIS.html <quote> South Korean defenses could be pummeled for several hours by as many as 500,000 artillery rounds per hour from North Korean positions just 30 miles from Seoul. Tens of thousands of North Korean commandos, many disguised as civilians or South Korean troops, would probably sneak south in midget submarines or drop in by parachute. North Korea's 500 to 600 Scud missiles, many carrying chemical weapons, could pound targets across South Korea, and longer-range missiles could hit civilian and U.S. military targets as far as Japan, possibly even the western USA.... <end quote> And from another source: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/28/opinion/28KRIS.html <quote> The North has 13,000 artillery pieces and could fire some 400,000 shells in the first hour of an attack, many with sarin and anthrax, on the 21 million people in the "kill box" - as some in the U.S. military describe the Seoul metropolitan area. The Pentagon has calculated that another Korean war could kill a million people. <end quote> I can see why we are not as interested in starting a regime change war in N. Korea as we are in Iraq. What I don't understand is why we are not accepting the reality that imposes on us. Talk of presenting South Korea with a fait accompli (sp) Second Korean War is not very realistic, IMHO. Neither is the view that we can hit N. Korea without them attacking the South. The "failed" policy of Clinton resulted in the ability of N. Korea to create nuclear bombs all but frozen in 1994. It is true that they confirmed the existance of a slow process to obtain enough material for an additional weapon around 2005, but the path they were on to be able to produce 50/year was halted. It is now restarted, with one reactor being able to produce enough material for 1 bomb a year restarting, and some signs that the may be restarting the processing plant. They may have 6-8 bombs by summer if they do restart the reactor. The mistake that I think Bush made was giving the N. Korean government the view that they were about to be attacked next. Given that, it makes sense to get 6-8 A-bombs as soon as possible in order to have a deterrant. After every step down that path, they are asking the US to go into bilateral talks to discuss, to be blunt, a suitable bribe for not doing this. It was stated that we would be able to push China to do something about N. Korea. I've yet to see it, and time appears to be drawing short. Instead, China, South Korea and Russia all appear to be applying pressure on us to negociate one on one with North Korea. Dan M. > http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030301_927.html > > Gary > > Wondering WTF Maru > > > > > _______________________________________________ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
