Who's got the better North Korea policy?

[Silent Hunter]

Vote and discuss.

[Akno21]

John Kerry.

Bush hasn't achieved much of anything in his version of talks, and he is sending mixed signals to the South Koreans.

[Silent Hunter]

I'm saying neither. Only way to get rid of the nukes is to get rid of Kim Jong-Il and force is not an option here. Not unless you want to Seoul destroyed by DPRK artillery.

[AuH2O]

For the record, people that know what they're talking about say one of two things:

1) Multilateral talks (Bush)
2) Let NK have nukes, but make sure they don't export the technology

Two is a fairly hardcore neorealist position, but I imagine Waltz would support it. I raised the possibility in an IR class of letting NK have nukes but making them withdraw their artillery to the point where it can only reach their 'half' of the neutral zone, as well as reducing their army size.

Not only is Kerry wrong, but he is laughably, unarguably wrong. It's almost like he took his position just to be different from Bush and hoped no one would really think about it, because it's the worst idea either candidate has on any issue.

Kerry's position is a borderline voting issue all by itself.

Military force can theoretically be used against NK, but it would be very hard. You would have to hit their advance positions with everything we have... all our heavy bombers, 500+ cruise missiles, etc. Seoul would still not be in real great shape, but most of the people would probably survive.

The nukes are a problem, of course. It's fairly easy to stop tactical delivery by airplane, but missiles are hard to intercept. We'd have to know all their capable missile sites and destroy them. Then you have to hope they just decide not to use any that survive... after all, they probably have some kind of survival instinct.

[Blue Rectangle]

The Bush administration fought long and hard to open multi-nation talks with North Korea.  Basically, North Korea has to face down China, Russia, South Korea, Japan and the US.  NK desperatly wanted to keep the issue between themselves and us.  Now Kerry thinks it would be a good idea to simply give them what they want and ask for nothing in return.  How is this good negotiation?  Oh wait, this is the same guy who advocated a quick concession in Vietnam and who pushed for unilateral nuclear force reductions during the Reagan administration.  See a pattern here?  I find this revelation far scarier than any statement Kerry has made about Iraq or terror.

I was hoping for Kerry to make a major mistake on his Iraq policy, but he left almost no opening for Bush.  This very well may be as important of a mistake, but will the voters care about North Korea this election?  Will the Bush team pick up this issue and run with it?

[The Duke]

Kerry is right about bilateral talks, but wrong for being willing to put the terms of the 1953 armistice back on the table.  He's giving away things North Korea hasn't even asked for.

Bush is right about missile defense, but wrong not ot put anything at all on the table (like the non-aggression pact).

Bush is slightly better, because:

1. If Kerry's policy fails, and NK launches an attack on America, Los angeles gets blown up.
2. If Bush's policy fails and NK launches an attack on America, we shoot their missiles down.

Only GW Bush has a little thing called a back-up plan.

[Blue Rectangle]

 

Kerry is right about bilateral talks, but wrong for being willing to put the terms of the 1953 armistice back on the table.  He's giving away things North Korea hasn't even asked for.

How can Kerry be right about bilateral talks?  What do we gain by conceding that point?  I agree that bilateral talks could be held out as a bargaining chip, if we can get something substantial in return, but how Kerry's public concession strengthen our position?

Kerry just ensured that no meaningful talks can occur until after the election.  North Korea now sees that all they have to do is wait and maybe the US will choose a president that will give them what they wanted for free.

[NYGOP]

Bush

[The Duke]

Kerry is right about bilateral talks, but wrong for being willing to put the terms of the 1953 armistice back on the table.  He's giving away things North Korea hasn't even asked for.

How can Kerry be right about bilateral talks?  What do we gain by conceding that point?  I agree that bilateral talks could be held out as a bargaining chip, if we can get something substantial in return, but how Kerry's public concession strengthen our position?

Kerry just ensured that no meaningful talks can occur until after the election.  North Korea now sees that all they have to do is wait and maybe the US will choose a president that will give them what they wanted for free.

Fine, so use the bilateral talks as a chip in exchange for a cessation of uranium enrichment until the bilateral talks can begin, but in order to eventually fix this it will be a two-way solution, not a six way solution.

Bush's China syndrome blinds him.  Who do you think is propping up Pyongyang's government right now?  Its the PRC!  And bush says we need the PRC to disarm North Korea, hell there wouldn't be a North Korea today if the PRC wasn't on their side.

[AuH2O]

You think the Chinese want some madman with a bunch of nukes and an unstable country on their border?

Uh, no.

Bilateral talks are a loser.

[The Duke]

You think the Chinese want some madman with a bunch of nukes and an unstable country on their border?

Uh, no.

Bilateral talks are a loser.

Then why do the CHinese send so much foreign aid to North Korea?  The PRC has a long alliance with the DPRK, and they have been of no help in these failed six party talks.

How can you assert that bilateral talks are a loser when we have seen two years of six party talks fail?

[ATFFL]

You think the Chinese want some madman with a bunch of nukes and an unstable country on their border?

Uh, no.

Bilateral talks are a loser.

Then why do the CHinese send so much foreign aid to North Korea?  The PRC has a long alliance with the DPRK, and they have been of no help in these failed six party talks.

How can you assert that bilateral talks are a loser when we have seen two years of six party talks fail?

The Chinese want a buffer state.  If the US says disarm him or we do, and we do so by invading, the Chinese will cut Kim off.  They are already upset that the US now has bases in the borderng -istans.  If they thought they were about to lose N. Korea they would take action.

[Minarchist]

Definately Bush.

[AuH2O]

You think the Chinese want some madman with a bunch of nukes and an unstable country on their border?

Uh, no.

Bilateral talks are a loser.

Then why do the CHinese send so much foreign aid to North Korea?  The PRC has a long alliance with the DPRK, and they have been of no help in these failed six party talks.

How can you assert that bilateral talks are a loser when we have seen two years of six party talks fail?

They give NK so the country doesn't collapse. But that will happen eventually anyway... the real solution has to deal with their nuclear program.

Bilateral talks failed. Multilateral talks are in early stages and are the only chance for success.

Note that, in my opinion, the main concern is no NK having nukes- it's them helping other people get them. But, no one wants to accept NK as a nuclear state. Eventually, we may have no choice, but at the very least we need to stop proliferation beyond the current level.

[The Duke]

You think the Chinese want some madman with a bunch of nukes and an unstable country on their border?

Uh, no.

Bilateral talks are a loser.

Then why do the CHinese send so much foreign aid to North Korea?  The PRC has a long alliance with the DPRK, and they have been of no help in these failed six party talks.

How can you assert that bilateral talks are a loser when we have seen two years of six party talks fail?

They give NK so the country doesn't collapse. But that will happen eventually anyway... the real solution has to deal with their nuclear program.

Bilateral talks failed. Multilateral talks are in early stages and are the only chance for success.

Note that, in my opinion, the main concern is no NK having nukes- it's them helping other people get them. But, no one wants to accept NK as a nuclear state. Eventually, we may have no choice, but at the very least we need to stop proliferation beyond the current level.

The aid is not for practical reasons, the PRC has aided the DPRK for decades.  Its out of legitmate friendship.

The bilateral talks failed because Clinton signed a bad deal, not becuase they were destined to fail.  A better foreign policy team could have gotten it done.  In any case, all we should hope for is a holding measure.  The final solution will be to bring about the collapse of the DPRK from within.  We just need to hold them off for a while.

[© tweed]

Neither.

There is no right answer.  It's a scary situation and the only way to stop them is to bribe them.

[Blue Rectangle]

The aid is not for practical reasons, the PRC has aided the DPRK for decades.  Its out of legitmate friendship.

The bilateral talks failed because Clinton signed a bad deal, not becuase they were destined to fail.  A better foreign policy team could have gotten it done.  In any case, all we should hope for is a holding measure.  The final solution will be to bring about the collapse of the DPRK from within.  We just need to hold them off for a while.

I think the relationship was friendship 30 years ago, but now it is out of necessity.  China has evolved, North Korea has not.  I'm sure some of the old guard in China still like NK, but most of the leaders probably see it as a dangerous burden.

Bilateral talks could lead to "progress" and six-way talks will not--I think we agree there.  I also agree that "holding them off" is a good strategy for the time being.  I am not sure that any progress we could make in bilateral talks would benefit us.

Perhaps if we suggest to China that a nuclear Korea is a threat to our economic investments in the area (i.e. we may "re-examine" our trade status with China) then maybe we could prod China into putting more pressure on North Korea.

[Huckleberry Finn]

1. If Kerry's policy fails, and NK launches an attack on America, Los angeles gets blown up.

I don't think that North Korea has capacity to build intercontinental missiles and hopefully never will have. However  they can strike against South Korea and Japan and sell they weapons to terrorists!

Bush did the mistake when he decided to decrease your troops in South Korea. Kerry is against that. He could get at least some extra Korean-American votes because of it.

Btw. What is Nader's North Korea policy? A capitulation?

[The Duke]

1. If Kerry's policy fails, and NK launches an attack on America, Los angeles gets blown up.

I don't think that North Korea has capacity to build intercontinental missiles and hopefully never will have. However  they can strike against South Korea and Japan and sell they weapons to terrorists!

Bush did the mistake when he decided to decrease your troops in South Korea. Kerry is against that. He could get at least some extra Korean-American votes because of it.

Btw. What is Nader's North Korea policy? A capitulation?

The Taepodong 2 missile can reach the west coast of the United States.

[romeomustdie]

Kerry

[Huckleberry Finn]

1. If Kerry's policy fails, and NK launches an attack on America, Los angeles gets blown up.

I don't think that North Korea has capacity to build intercontinental missiles and hopefully never will have. However  they can strike against South Korea and Japan and sell they weapons to terrorists!

Bush did the mistake when he decided to decrease your troops in South Korea. Kerry is against that. He could get at least some extra Korean-American votes because of it.

Btw. What is Nader's North Korea policy? A capitulation?

The Taepodong 2 missile can reach the west coast of the United States.

Really? I didn't know that. Where that information is from?

[The Duke]

1. If Kerry's policy fails, and NK launches an attack on America, Los angeles gets blown up.

I don't think that North Korea has capacity to build intercontinental missiles and hopefully never will have. However  they can strike against South Korea and Japan and sell they weapons to terrorists!

Bush did the mistake when he decided to decrease your troops in South Korea. Kerry is against that. He could get at least some extra Korean-American votes because of it.

Btw. What is Nader's North Korea policy? A capitulation?

The Taepodong 2 missile can reach the west coast of the United States.

Really? I didn't know that. Where that information is from?

From the congressional testimony of former CIA Director Tenet.

[Silent Hunter]

I read that too. It could hit LA or Frisco, if it's accurate.