They have consented to "talk" with a six (?)-member multilateral group, but still want to sit down individually with the U.S.-why?
Any speculations?
Printable View
They have consented to "talk" with a six (?)-member multilateral group, but still want to sit down individually with the U.S.-why?
Any speculations?
There's little point in having the cosmetic conferences if you don't sit down with the organ-grinder at some stage and come to some sort of agreement.
Now far be it from me to make any suggestions here. However it appears to me that your country is gradually spending more and more on what other people don't do, rather than what they do.
i am so confused on what N Korea is doing. do they WANT to go to war?
i know they want free shit from the US, but its not gonna happen.
They got the nuke so, "Bush shitting it."
Neil
Do you really think that nuclear weapons are like a pea shooter.
To have the capability to make a war-head is one thing.
To have the ability to accurately deliver it, over thousands of miles is another.
To be prepared to live with the ramifications of using it is yet another.
I think North Koreas' strategy by dealing only with the U.S. is to make the U.S. look like the bullies trying to pick on yet another nation. If the North Koreans deal with the other 6 nations which are their neighbors their argument is reduced to nothing. Six neighbors concerned about their nuclear weapons program is harder to argue against than the U.S. which is much further away.
That's an interesting theory CD, but I,m wondering if there is a rational reason behind KJ Il's actions at all.
He may just be motivated by a desire for more Scotch and DVD's.
True Clocker!!!
Why bother with the poor when you can talk directly with the rich.
The US can provide "mucho dinero" for them which I believe they've done in the past.
;)
I'm still baffled, and if I'm still baffled, I then wonder how detailed media accounts of any one-on-one talks are likely to be. :huh:
I would be very surprised if there were any media coverage of the 1:1 talks.
There may well be a blanket press release agreed by the 6 regarding the overall summit but the talks between the US and NK will be held in camera. Colin Powell may emerge to say the talks were "useful" but that will probably be all.
I have always understood the primary aim of NK was to secure a non-aggression pact with the US. In return the North will continue to observe the 1953 armistice.
The situation regarding nuclear power is one for the region to deal with. NK has a large if rather elderly industrial complex (mostly tanks and tractors) it needs power but has little oil and coal. Nuclear energy is its only viable means of energy that is not subject to sanctions and blockade. If it could obtain favourable agreements with its neighbours and the US then it could ease up on the nuclear front.
The difficulty is that everybody (but not least the NK leadership) is suffering from a great deal of paranoia regarding the motives of the other side. Given the NK propensity to believe everyone is against them it is unlikely any assurances given by the US in the 1:1 will paper over the cracks for long.
I am working on the assumption that the US will not sign a non-aggression pact. I may be wrong and some move towards this may be made. A war with a country with the military resources of NK would wreck the region, kill 100,000s and plunge the Pacific rim into further recession - this is unlikely to make good copy prior to an election in 15 months.
They don't have to deliver it anywhere just having it is enough.Quote:
Originally posted by JPaul@1 August 2003 - 22:06
Do you really think that nuclear weapons are like a pea shooter.
To have the capability to make a war-head is one thing.
To have the ability to accurately deliver it, over thousands of miles is another.
To be prepared to live with the ramifications of using it is yet another.
And will Bush allow thousands of troops to be vaporised on Korean soil. Remember the premier of N. Korea is clinically insane so what consequences will he be worried about.
Neil
We all have to remember that the US have used nuclear weapons as a warning, under the pretext of ending the Japanese part of the second world war. The real reason for Nagasaki and Hiroshima was to stop the soviet Union from invading Japan, which it was capable of doing, as it had only a few miles to travel and no longer had much commitment in the west. Had the Soviet Union invaded Japan it would then have controlled the western Pacific and the US would probably never have been able to gain any control there. This is only my opinion through reading between the lines of various historical literature. So who do you think is likely to use these weapons first?
It's so difficult to get decent sane leaders these days, isn't it. So poor countries have to make do with the insane ones. <_<Quote:
Originally posted by Neil__@20 August 2003 - 14:09
Remember the premier of N. Korea is clinically insane so what consequences will he be worried about.
The French leaders cant be insane or they would drown. :rolleyes:
That's quite a bit of "reading between the lines" you've done there, bigboab.Quote:
Originally posted by bigboab@20 August 2003 - 16:31
We all have to remember that the US have used nuclear weapons as a warning, under the pretext of ending the Japanese part of the second world war. The real reason for Nagasaki and Hiroshima was to stop the soviet Union from invading Japan, which it was capable of doing, as it had only a few miles to travel and no longer had much commitment in the west. Had the Soviet Union invaded Japan it would then have controlled the western Pacific and the US would probably never have been able to gain any control there. This is only my opinion through reading between the lines of various historical literature. So who do you think is likely to use these weapons first?
At the end of WW2 the Soviet Union was hardly in any shape to initiate an invasion , having suffered massive personnel losses repelling Germany.
Recent published Japanese War Dept. information along with memoirs of Japanese military and political leaders from the era suggest that the Japanese military leadership was willing to suffer complete annilation of the country before surrendering. This would tend to lend creedence to the US claim that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were meant to bring an end to the war, rather than some sort of obscure warning to the Soviet Union.
Do you think that if the soviet Union was 'hardly in any shape' the US would have stopped at Berlin? I dont think so.
If the Japanes were going to fight to the last man why did they surrender after the bombs then?
The Japanese surrendered becaause their political leadership realized that they were in a hopeless position.
The military was unwilling to concede.
The US and the rest of the Allies could easily have continued on to Moscow. With a very good chance of success. This is exactly what Patton wanted to do.
Again, political leadership (Truman/Churchill) intervened.
How different the world might have been had they decided to continue.
*Double post*
Check the military might of the Soviet Union against all of the super powers as at august 1945. Then reassess your theories. Remember the Allied forces would be taking on the might of the Soviet Union on their own territory.
Knowing the history of armies trying to wrest Russian soil, it likely would not have gone well. Winter always seems to come early when that happens.
:ninja:
Just so-
The Steppes have ruined many a conquest; maybe, though, we would have waited 'til spring? :huh:
Who knows? Winter may've stayed late. ;)
:ninja:
I am hardly an expert in military tactics, nor in the history of WW2, but...
At the end of hostilities with Germany, we could have engaged Russian forces in Europe where Father Winter was not the ally they were used to having. We didn't have to march to Stalingrad and endure the waiting game that the Soviets were so good at playing.
The Soviet Union's population had been decimated (almost literally), their production facilities lay in ruin, their ability to feed their populace was very precarious. They were not the same foe that Napoleon met.
Our troops were already deployed and well trained, battle tested and we had not suffered the terrible losses that Russia sustained. Our production of war materiel was increasing and maintaining/ extending supply lines was not an issue.
I once read that Kruschev said that the Russian military leadership was amazed that the Allies did not immediately turn on them and attack, for that is exactly what they would have done had they been able. From this, the Russians concluded that the West was weak and susceptable to the "big lie". Bluffing became one of the USSR's most successful techniques when dealing with the West and they managed to carry it off for 50 years.
We all know what happened then.
I can't see why the N Koreans presumption that they should get to speak with their main detractors is unexpected? or even unreasonable?
To think that the USA, or Pakistan, or Israel, the UK, or France would consider relinquishing their atomics would be so optimistic as to loose one credibility.
The possession of atomics has a perceived 'status' which has been used historically by most in the atomic weapons holding community to provide greater height to their soap boxes.
Although this status may be useless security blanket, the demonstrated lesson from the Iraq excursion is that places without credible mass destructive capabilities are liable to be invaded.
i can't see why China, Russia and the USA couldn't organise a private little chat between themselves and N Korea, as a way of placating N Korea, as nuclear big brothers with the means to close down supplies i doubt that it could be described as appeasement.
I've come to consider that the world is governed by a system of 'mafiocracy' to an ever growing extent since at least the late seventies [this system acts shielded in institutions called monarchy, democracy, socialism, theocracy, etc. which hold historical positions of power and are therefore obviously appealing sites for Mafiosi]
Gangs and governments are the same, governments are just the biggest gangs and thereby rule the streets 'nation-wide'.
So the families should have words with the new upstart, and that needs to happen in private.
After all only a crazy Don would want to stage a brawl on china and Russia's front steps, not that it hasn't already been tried and look what a great outcome that has been.
The Soviet Union had 12.8 million fighting forces on their own land plus twice that in reserve. The combined allied forces had 22 million fighting forces, most of them in the US, the rest of them deployed all over the world. I am sorry but I know who my money would have been on in an immediate conflict in 1945. Do you honestly think that in this day and age you can believe history that has been written by the people who end up in charge of any of the countries of the world. The eastern world are mostly dictatorial, some 'freely' elected. Bush dictatorial, dubiously elected. Blair fawning. These are the people who sent young men to their deaths, yet not one of them has ever donned a uniform in the name of their own country. Unless it was a boy scout one. Can you tell me why they are not allowed to publish the truth of history until all the antagonists are dead? Some truth after 50 years the majority after 100 years. Just look at the sinking of the Belgrano and the mysterious disappearance of the submarines log book to name but one of the more recent conflicts. I could go on all day but I think I will close now because we would be beating our heads against a brick(no I have not already done it!) wall trying to get the truth. I personally think that the first troops into a conflict should be the politicians on both sides. I think this says it all.
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/Sack...1/sack%202.jpg
So who was best at playing the waiting game ?Quote:
Originally posted by clocker@21 August 2003 - 05:29
We didn't have to march to Stalingrad and endure the waiting game that the Soviets were so good at playing.
.....
Bluffing became one of the USSR's most successful techniques when dealing with the West and they managed to carry it off for 50 years.
We all know what happened then.
Whilst contra-factual history is fun as a palour game, it sheds little light on what any outcome may actually have been. There are simply too many variables.
The World was war-weary in 1945. The political leaders knew only too well that their people wanted their boys home. To embark on another war immediately after the defeat of the Axis powers would have been less than popular to say the least. Russia was not on its knees in 1945 - it had made enormous sacrifices and had basically modernised its military capability whilst on the run from Germany. In 1945 apart from nuclear weapons, there was no technology gap. A war would have been long and bloody if it required the capture of Moscow. The liberation of Poland etc., may, on the other hand, have been a practical proposition -but there simply wasn't the stomach to go to war with people we had just celebrated victory with.
Furthermore, there was an extremely strong socialist movement in Europe in the 40s. The 1945 election in the UK ditched Churchill and returned a huge majority to the Labour party (a pretty left wing Labour party at that) - this was repeated all over Europe. I believe Italy voted in Communists. There simply was no desire amongst ordinary people to go after Russia and the western leaders resigned themselves to a de facto partion of Europe.
The Cold War that followed is now over and we have won. Well in so much as one can win a "cold war". What have we won? We are still here. The former head of the KGB is in charge of Russia. The criminal gangs that operate from the former Soviet block are responsible for a huge incease in drug smuggling, traffic in human beings, etc., etc., right down to something like 1 in 3 car thefts in mainland Europe (and fair number in the UK too). The Russians are, for the most part, no better off - although they are now free to complain about being no better off. Who is to say they may not have reached this stage faster without a cold war? I have never been convinced that Castro would have lasted more than 10 years if the US had encouraged trade and travel. Isolation can often set things in aspic.
In a sudden sweep to get on topic (a token discipline our heavily moderated work board has instilled)- I am not sure isolating NK is going to achieve anything. As Churchill said "Jaw jaw is better than war war" lets get talking. Their leader may be clinically loopy but he won't last forever and the next guy may actually be a Gorbachev (apologies if I got the spelling wrong there).
Good post, Biggles-
I am curious, though:
Quote: Biggles-
"Who is to say they may not have reached this stage faster without a cold war?"
Absent a Cold War, what else?
The expansionist U.S.S.R., I believe, was responsible for that scenario, though it cannot be denied the U.S. played the game, too.
As to N.K. and Kim Jong Il, I think the key to understanding our concern with him is his stated intent to trade/sell/distribute nukes to other entities much moreso than the likelihood of his using them himself. ;)
Our resistance to a 1:1 sit-down with them is rooted in this, and our desire to spur some more "localized" pressure (South Korea, China, Japan, etc.) on N.K. to behave.
Edit: dbl post.
No you spelled NK corectly BIGGLES. B)
J2k4
:rolleyes:
Agreed - postulating no cold war was in fact contra-factual history (my old professor would have bust a gut) It is a most seductive pastime though.
I understand the US's desire for a local solution but looking for logic from someone as paranoid as KJI is perhaps asking too much. Hence, in my view, the US's fairly realistic agreement to a short 1:1. I am moderately hopeful that NK will be reasoned with through diplomatic means, but there are a lot of variables in international relations at the moment so I am perhaps making my assessment on hope rather than judgement.
Biggles-
I wasn't familiar with your term "contra-factual" but find it apt and suitable to describe a friend who likes to engage in such (historical) debates as exercise-I tell him that if he desires "exercise", actual events are a much more worthwhile application of effort, as well as an opportunity for a friendly wager as to relative prognosticative accuracy.
He then lords his two advanced degrees over me, as I have none; it is at this point I trump him with my physical superiority.
We get along famously.
J2K4
:D
What is known as a "full and frank" exchange views. I have similar friends whose eyes narrow and say "you are not going to let it lie are you"? I find the bruising goes down relatively quickly.
Contra-factual history was a pet hate of an eminent professor at my old university - that and split infinitives (as I found to my embarrassment). For all I know, he may have actually coined the term.
Although I am sure you must consider some of my views seriously liberal (the parameters of Scottish culture make it hard to be otherwise) I enjoy your posts. A well structured argument never hurt anyone - unless delivered on the end of a baseball bat. :rolleyes:
Does anyone know why Kazaa collapses on such a regular basis? After posting last night it subsequently gave me an error message for the rest of the evening.
Somewhat OT, but I assume you mean this forum rather then Kazaa.Quote:
Originally posted by Biggles@22 August 2003 - 18:00
Does anyone know why Kazaa collapses on such a regular basis? After posting last night it subsequently gave me an error message for the rest of the evening.
I believe the official reason is still that the board is getting DOS attacks, but I think that someone found that there is a reported bug in the version of MySQL currently being used, which makes one (or more) of the files appear to be missing. And if there's no-one around to correct the fault the problem presumably lasts for quite a while. I suspect that this bug has actually existed for quite a while, and that there was a work around which caused problems about once an hour, but only for a few minutes. I expect that the recent move to the new server has 'lost' this work around, leaving us with the current disasters.
Lynx
Yes! MySQL that is the one.
You are of course right the rest of Kazaa is creaking under the strain of the bizarre Japanese Anime music my daughter insists on downloading and is working perfectly. Even more bizarre is that other people upload this stuff totally ignoring my Dr. Strangely Strange songs - how can this be? :(