----- Original Message ----- From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 9:28 PM Subject: DPRK Alternate History Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful changeL3
> Dan, > > You asked what I would have done, had I been in Bill Clinton's shoes.... > > I think that my first criticism of Clinton's greatest failure would not be > his broad strategic decision to negotiate and cut and deal. Similar to > your central criticism of George W. Bush in regards to Iraq, my first > criticism would be in the *execution* of the broad strategic decision. I > am not convinced that it is a given that any negotiation and deal-making > with the DPRK beginng in 1994 or so would result in their taking our bribes > and then building nuclear weapons with us completely unawares. But, we have additional data, now. We know what happens when the payments are stopped; the material for 6 more weapons are processed, and the reactor is restarted, and 2-3 years later it is halted, with the ability to extract spent fuel rods for another 6 atomic bombs. We know that Clinton had, as a given, the extraction of enough fuel for 1-2 bombs, and the ability to kill hundreds of thousands in South Korea > Certainly, part of the execution would have been his lack of leadership in > overhauling the US Intelligence System in the post-Cold War environment, > even as failures of US intelligence began to mount. He didn't do as well as he should have; I'll agree with that. But, at least he listened to those that were best qualified instead of proof texting the intelligence reports for those that supported what he knew to be true a priori. He has/had more respect for data than GWB. > I don't have the information Bill Clinton did to fullly evaluate all the > options in the DPRK, so he may well have chosen the best strategic option. > He may have even executed it to the best that any US President would have > been able (which I find less plausible.) Suffice to say, now that the > DPRK has nuclear bombs, I feel Much, Much, Better that one of the DPRK's > wealthiest and most-proactive potential customers is safely off the market. Actually, that isn't suffice to say. With Clinton's actions, a situation where N. Korea had enough material for 7-8 bombs, and would immediately be producing enough for 6 bombs/year and would, within 3-4 years, be producing enough for 50 bombs/year was reduced to one in which they had enough for 1-2 bombs as well as the capacity to start secret production of enough material for 1 more bomb every few years in about 10 years. Now, that's not ideal, but it's better than Bush's way. If he proceeded as GWB did, then, given GWB's successes in curtailing N. Korea's nuclear production, N. Korea would be producing enough material for 50 bombs/year by the time GWB was elected..as well as being able to have >100 bombs, and enough to spare for a very good nuclear testing program. Why is this better than what Clinton did? You have said very many times that you preferred GWB's approach to Clinton's. On what basis would one decide is it turning out better? Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
