JDG wrote: > I think this had something to do with Bill Clinton being completely > snookered by the North Koreans, resulting in the DPRK building > plutonium-based nuclear weapons. > > Only you, Dr. Brin, could manage to blame the Bush Administration for one > of Clinton's Top 5 failures as President.
Well, what option would you have had him choose? I agree with Gautam that the options with N. Korea are bad and worse. I see three for him at the time. 1) Bomb N. Korea to stop the nuclear program. Although N. Korea was and is extremely unpredictable, the consensus view was that there was a very good chance of starting a second Korean war with such a bombing. The US and S. Korea would win fairly quickly, but the collateral damage would have been horrid...roughly 200k. 2) Continue to bluster and threaten, while doing nothing. IIRC, the best guess at the time was that N. Koreans had already extracted enough plutonium for 1-2 bombs. The material that was under seal was enough for another 5-8 bombs. The reactors that they were working on, and that would be completed in several years, would produce enough material for 50 bombs/year. 3) Accept a deal for a fairly verifiable freeze on the production of nuclear material. The stoppage of work on the two new big reactors would be verifiable. The status of the spent fuel rods from the first reactor would be verifiable. There would be no way to know for sure, under the initial deal, that N. Korea didn't have a smaller underground facility. It turned out, that they were still interested in uranium extraction. The dates are unclear....but it is likely that they would have the capacity to generate another bomb every couple years by about now. Clinton chose #2, partially because there was a general consensus that N. Korea was on the brink of collapse. The collapse was averted...probably because the West couldn't see millions more starve in order to let the collapse happen. But, the greatest worry...that N. Korea would have enough plutonium for hundreds of bombs by now, was addressed. As an aside, Clinton's decision was remarkably similar to Bush I's decision on Iraq. They both expected the dictator to fall....and took limited action as a result. I don't think that I need to remind you that I strongly differ with db on the merits of Bush I's actions. Given the information available at the time, it was far better to keep his word and not invade Iraq than to break his word. Even without his word, I think Baker's analysis was correct....achieving a clear goal and then stopping was the best choice. Anyways, which choice would you have suggested for Clinton? Do you see a fourth choice? Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
