North Korea and nuclear weapons

[Grudge]

North Korea: “Sanity” at the Brink



By Michael Parenti

June 20, 2009





Nations that chart a self-defining course, seeking to use their land, labor, natural resources, and markets as they see fit, free from the smothering embrace of the US corporate global order, frequently become a target of defamation. Their leaders often have their moral sanity called into question by US officials and US media, as has been the case at one time or another with Castro, Noriega, Ortega, Qaddafi, Aristide, Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Hugo Chavez, and others.



So it comes as no surprise that the rulers of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK or North Korea) have been routinely described as mentally unbalanced by our policymakers and pundits. Senior Defense Department officials refer to the DPRK as a country "not of this planet," led by "dysfunctional" autocrats. One government official, quoted in the New York Times, wondered aloud "if they are really totally crazy." The New Yorker magazine called them "balmy," and late-night TV host David Letterman got into the act by labeling Kim Jong-il a "madman maniac."



To be sure, there are things about the DPRK that one might wonder about, including its dynastic leadership system, its highly dictatorial one-party rule, and the chaos that seems implanted in the heart of its "planned" economy.



But in its much advertised effort to become a nuclear power, North Korea is actually displaying more sanity than first meets the eye. The Pyongyang leadership seems to know something about US global policy that our own policymakers and pundits have overlooked. In a word, the United States has never attacked or invaded any nation that has a nuclear arsenal.



The countries directly battered by US military actions in recent decades (Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, then again Iraq), along with numerous other states that have been threatened at one time or another for being "anti-American" or "anti-West" (Iran, Cuba, South Yemen, Venezuela, Syria, North Korea, and others) have one thing in common: not one of them has wielded a nuclear deterrence--until now.



Let us provide a little background. Put aside the entire Korean War (1950-53) in which US aerial power destroyed most of the DPRK's infrastructure and tens of thousands of its civilians. Consider more recent events. In the jingoist tide that followed the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President George W. Bush claimed the right to initiate any military action against any "terrorist" nation, organization, or individual of his choosing. Such a claim to arbitrary power--in violation of international law, the UN charter, and the US Constitution--transformed the president into something of an absolute monarch who could exercise life and death power over any quarter of the Earth. Needless to say, numerous nations--the DPRK among them--were considerably discomforted by the US president's elevation to King of the Planet.



It was only in 2008 that President Bush finally removed North Korea from a list of states that allegedly sponsor terrorism. But there remains another more devilishly disquieting hit list that Pyongyang recalls. In December 2001, two months after 9/11, Vice President Dick Cheney referred chillingly to "forty or fifty countries" that might need military disciplining. A month later in his 2002 State of the Union message, President Bush pruned the list down to three especially dangerous culprits: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, who, he said, composed an "axis of evil."



It was a curious lumping together of three nations that had little in common. In Iraq the leadership was secular, in Iran it was a near Islamic theocracy. And far from being allies, the two countries were serious enemies. Meanwhile the DPRK, had no historical, cultural, or geographical links to either Iraq or Iran. But it could witness what was happening.



The first to get hit was Iraq, nation #1 on the short list of accused evil doers. Before the 2003 US invasion, Iraq had the highest standard of living in the Middle East. But years of war, sanctions, and occupation reduced the country to shambles, its infrastructure shattered and much of its population drenched in blood and misery.



Were it not that Iraq has proven to be such a costly venture, the United States long ago would have been moving against Iran, #2 on the axis-of-evil hit list. As we might expect, Iranian president Mahmoud Amadinijad has been diagnosed in the US media as "dangerously unstable." The Pentagon has announced that thousands of key sites in Iran have been mapped and targeted for aerial attack. All sorts of threats have been directed against Tehran for having pursued an enriched uranium program--which every nation in the world has a right to do. And on a recent Sunday TV program, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that the United States might undertake a "first strike" against Iran to prevent its nuclear weapons development.



Rather than passively await its fate sitting in Washington's crosshairs, nation #3 on the US hit list is trying to pack a deterrence. The DPRK's attempt at self-defense is characterized in US official circles and US media as wild aggression. Secretary Clinton warned that the United States would not be "blackmailed by North Korea." Defense Secretary Robert Gates fulminated, "We will not stand idly by as North Korea builds the capability to wreak destruction on any target in Asia--or on us." The DPRK's nuclear program, Gates warns, is a "harbinger of a dark future."



President Obama condemned North Korea's "belligerent provocative behavior" as posing a "grave threat." In June 2009, the UN Security Council unanimously passed a US-sponsored resolution ratcheting up the financial, trade, and military sanctions against the DPRK, a nation already hard hit by sanctions. In response to the Security Council's action, Kim Jong-il's government announced it would no longer "even think about giving up its nuclear weapons" and would enlarge its efforts to produce more of them.



In his earlier Cairo speech Obama stated, "No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons." But that is exactly what the United States is trying to do in regard to a benighted North Korea--and Iran. Physicist and political writer Manuel Garcia, Jr., observes that Washington's policy "is to encourage other nations to abide by the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty--and renounce nuclear weapons--while exempting itself." Others must disarm so that Washington may more easily rule over them, Garcia concludes.



US leaders still refuse to give any guarantee that they will not try to topple Pyongyang's communist government. There is talk of putting the DPRK back on the list of state sponsors of terrorism, though Secretary Clinton admits that evidence is wanting to support such a designation.



From its lonely and precarious perch the North cannot help feeling vulnerable. Consider the intimidating military threat it faces. The DPRK's outdated and ill-equipped army is no match for the conventional forces of the United States, South Korea, and Japan. The United States maintains a large attack base in South Korea. As Paul Sack reminds us in a recent correspondence to the New York Times, at least once a year the US military conducts joint exercises with South Korean forces, practicing a land invasion of the DPRK. The US Air Force maintains a "nuclear umbrella" over South Korea with nuclear arsenals in Okinawa, Guam, and Hawaii. Japan not only says it can produce nuclear bombs within a year, it seems increasingly willing to do so. And the newly installed leadership in South Korea is showing itself to be anything but friendly toward Pyongyang.



The DPRK's nuclear arsenal is a two-edged sword. It can deter attack or invite attack. It may cause US officials to think twice before cinching a tighter knot around the North, or it may cause them to move aggressively toward a confrontation that no one really wants.



After years of encirclement and repeated rebuffs from Washington, years of threat, isolation, and demonization, the Pyongyang leaders are convinced that the best way to resist superpower attack and domination is by developing a nuclear arsenal. It does not really sound so crazy. As already mentioned, the United States does not invade countries that are armed with long-range nuclear missiles (at least not thus far).

Having been pushed to the brink for so long, the North Koreans are now taking a gamble, upping the ante, pursuing an arguably "sane" deterrence policy in the otherwise insane world configured by an overweening and voracious empire.



Michael Parenti's recent books include: Contrary Notions: The Michael Parenti Reader (City Lights); Democracy for the Few, 8th ed. (Wadsworth); and God and His Demons (Prometheus Books, forthcoming). For further information, visit his website: <!-- w -->www.michaelparenti.org<!-- w -->.

[baron von blondle]

[quote name="ManOfSteel"]

After years of encirclement and repeated rebuffs from Washington, years of threat, isolation, and demonization, the Pyongyang leaders are convinced that the best way to resist superpower attack and domination is by developing a nuclear arsenal. It does not really sound so crazy. As already mentioned, the United States does not invade countries that are armed with long-range nuclear missiles (at least not thus far). [/quote]



there is no justification for ANYONE developing a nuclear arsenal, that IS fucking crazy.

[Grudge]

As I have mentioned before, such indignant cries against the defensive nuclear development by a nation threatened by antagonistic nuclear powers are empty and hypocritical.



The existing nuclear powers must first disarm their nuclear arsenals, before calls for other nations to stop their nuclear development are given out. Otherwise, such calls merely boil down to, "Disarm so that we (the unrepentant nuclear powers) can wring your arm easily and have you bend to our will."

[baron von blondle]

[quote name="ManOfSteel"]As I have mentioned before, such indignant cries against the defensive nuclear development by a nation threatened by antagonistic nuclear powers are empty and hypocritical.



The existing nuclear powers must first disarm their nuclear arsenals, before calls for other nations to stop their nuclear development are given out. Otherwise, such calls merely boil down to, "Disarm so that we (the unrepentant nuclear powers) can wring your arm easily and have you bend to our will."[/quote]

[Ninny]

[quote name="ManOfSteel"]The existing nuclear powers must first disarm their nuclear arsenals,[/quote]

It's being worked on <!-- m -->http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/ ... me=topNews<!-- m -->

[TamPron]

I have a nuclear weapon in my pants

[droidspawn]

[quote name="Ninny"]
[quote name="ManOfSteel"]The existing nuclear powers must first disarm their nuclear arsenals,[/quote]

It's being worked on <!-- m -->http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/ ... me=topNews<!-- m -->[/quote]





this will never be done, we are all too bloodthirsty

[Haunty]

I'd chalk it up more to the distrust of the bloodthirst in others.

[Noyka]

if countries like the US didn't have nuclear weapons and a country like North Korea fired on them there would be no way to protect themselves or fire back. You all seem way too idealistic, once something has been introduced it's highly unlikely we can live without it again. It's unfortunate but it's true wars, nuclear arms, and destruction are now and forever will be a part of our lives. In the case of war and destruction it's always been a part of the human life. Get used to it.

[baron von blondle]

[quote name="Noyka"]It's unfortunate but it's true wars, nuclear arms, and destruction are now and forever will be a part of our lives..[/quote]



they won't be after we all live in a rubble strewn wasteland eating irradiated dogs and fighting off giant mutated ants with sharp sticks.

[jawn galliano]

[quote name="baron von blondle"]
[quote name="Noyka"]It's unfortunate but it's true wars, nuclear arms, and destruction are now and forever will be a part of our lives..[/quote]



they won't be after we all live in a rubble strewn wasteland eating irradiated dogs and fighting off giant mutated ants with sharp sticks.[/quote]



personally, i can't wait for this. i'm level 20 in fallout 3, so i think i'm pretty well prepared for our future post-apocalyptic world!

[beandorkio]

You're a waste of a good education, Imran.



So if this article is to be believed, then the US and the rest of the west can stop giving aid to Korea and let them have their nukes.



And North Korea won't launch any more missiles over Japan.

And North Korea then won't try and sell that technology to anyone and everyone.

And North Korea will continue to do a stand-up job of feeding its own people.



I reckon the taliban in the swat valley could do with some nukes right now, those poor US-maligned misunderstood sweetums.



Don't you?

[beandorkio]

....and any point to that message from B.R.R you sent to sade, Chaohinon, Famous Mortimer, abzu, and me?

[jawn galliano]

i still can't figure it out, other than the hard-on bearer obviously digs on communism but for reasons unknown, isn't willing to engage the rest of the board on it. i still can't figure out what i've done or said to get in his good graces as i don't recall being especially sympathetic to the communist cause

[Grudge]

Noyka and Beandorkio can't seem to understand that the whole reason why North Korea developed armed nuclear capababilities was in reaction to US aggression, to have something to deter the US with. You two are regurgitating views that are not an ounce different from those put forward by the warmongers in your governments, who want to show their people that the North Koreans just can't do any good no matter what. 'Independent', or 'neither left-nor-right' my ass, you are through and through typical right-wing conservatives. Just look at Beandorkio's acceptance of the racist-fascist BNP. Is it any surprise? I think not.



Ending of hostilities by the US, and dismantling of nuclear arsenals by the imperial powers is the only way to ensure peace between North Korea and US. Why else would you keep nukes other than to use them?



Your reference to the Taliban is quite ridiculous since there is really no comparison to be made between an expansionist pan-Islamic, jihadist movement (Taliban), and a state that wants to exercise control over its own resources (North Korea). Cuba exercises control over its own resources. Does that mean Cuba and Taliban are one and the same?



There should be limits to which you can stretch analogies to accommodate absurd views Beandorkio.



My reason for sending that private message to you Beandorkio, was to rub it in your face that my views have gained acceptance on this board. I have doubts as to whether the same can be said about you. Perhaps it is because your views lack substance to begin with.

[jawn galliano]

I have a difficult time imagining any of the nations equipped with nuclear weapons will dismantle their stockpiles in the near future, unless it were somehow coordinated and simultaneous (doing so in a staggered manner, which to me seems the more plausible case, would put various countries at strategic disadvantages, a position I don't think anyone is going to put themselves in).



Even then, you're taking a significant gamble on hostile countries' willingness to peacefully follow suit and continue to maintain that position. Following from that, the (perception of, at the very least) uncertainty of NK's leadership in the coming years essentially guarantees no type of disarming will happen.

[baron von blondle]

Aint never gonna happen, communists, racists, buddhists, luddites, cats and dogs will all die together cos they can't stop fucking arguing over politics and religion.



give me a planet with room for one..well maybe a few others...

[beandorkio]

[quote name="ManOfSteel"] You two are regurgitating views that are not an ounce different from those put forward by the warmongers in your governments[/quote]



As opposed to regurgitating views from marxist pamphlets, perhaps, issued by ideological backers of people who ruin their own peoples?



[quote name="ManOfSteel"] who want to show their people that the North Koreans just can't do any good no matter what[/quote]



I don't remember putting those words in my mouth? - to quote dusty.



But if we're on the topic, do you think - not that I think you have the intellectual capacity to actually answer ONE of my questions - that North Korea's previous famine could have been averted if the nuclear programme's funding was perhaps put into feeding the populace? Or does the Juche idea only stretch as far as nukes for the military?



[quote name="ManOfSteel"] 'Independent', or 'neither left-nor-right' my ass, you are through and through typical right-wing conservatives[/quote]



says Mr.Not-Biased-In-Any-Way.



Face it - every single one of your political ideas is based on the assumption that everything is the West's fault, and you absolve the failures and crimes of any leaders and countries with that excuse.



Korea shooting missiles over Japan? West's fault.

Inflation and cholera in Zimbabwe? West's fault.

Tiananmen Square? Hell, you probably think it was some Chinese reaction to Western meddling.



It's the same reason why I disdain the white power guys - any reason why their life (foreigners taking jobs, houses, etc) is crap is always someone else's fault, and your rotten blame-the-west-for-everything mindset is as corrupt and infantile. Which brings me to...



[quote name="ManOfSteel"] Just look at Beandorkio's acceptance of the racist-fascist BNP. Is it any surprise? I think not[/quote]



Not quite sure how you took my post saying "let me state that I am totally against the BNP" and changed it to 'acceptance'. I guess that's the same kind of critical reading you apply to your so-called political pamphlets?



My point in that thread was the best way to challenge the emergence of a fascist element is to not abandon your democratic principles and become a fascist yourself.



Welcome to enlightment, Imran.



[quote name="ManOfSteel"]Your reference to the Taliban is quite ridiculous since there is really no comparison to be made between an expansionist pan-Islamic, jihadist movement (Taliban), and a state that wants to exercise control over its own resources (North Korea). Cuba exercises control over its own resources. Does that mean Cuba and Taliban are one and the same?



There should be limits to which you can stretch analogies to accommodate absurd views Beandorkio.[/quote]



So the Taliban doesn't count, because they are actually threatening and hostile to your country? And it's OK for other countries who are threatening and hostile to the west to have nukes? It's funny how your view changes when it's your country or your friends in the range of a threat, doesn't it? That's the only reason you don't like this analogy, because it brings home the irresponsibility of your views. I bet your country loved it when India got an arsenal. What was the fuss? They just needed to improve security and exercise control over their own resources, yes?



I'd believe NK only wants control over its own resources if it'd stop launching missiles over Japan, and started using its resources to feed its people without western aid.



Cuba isn't part of this discussion. The discussion is about hostile threats armed with or desiring nukes, which Cuba isn't last time I checked.



[quote name="ManOfSteel"]My reason for sending that private message to you Beandorkio, was to rub it in your face that my views have gained acceptance on this board. I have doubts as to whether the same can be said about you. Perhaps it is because your views lack substance to begin with.[/quote]



Hey, there's entire countries out there that agree with you....unfortunately, because they seem to be the ones people are moving to my countries to escape from.



The fact that you sent that private mail out to a few of us - I wonder how the sender feels about that, by the way? - indicates you think there's a few people who needed it 'rubbed in their face'.



It doesn't matter if one person agrees with you, or the whole board. It doesn't make these ideas of yours, which boil down to "everything which is wrong with the world is the West's fault" any less stupid. All it takes for idiocy to flourish is for it to remain unchallenged. I challenge you, and you'll thank me for it in ten years time when you're less dumb.

[Abzu]

[quote name="ManOfSteel"]As I have mentioned before, such indignant cries against the defensive nuclear development by a nation threatened by antagonistic nuclear powers are empty and hypocritical.



The existing nuclear powers must first disarm their nuclear arsenals, before calls for other nations to stop their nuclear development are given out. Otherwise, such calls merely boil down to, "Disarm so that we (the unrepentant nuclear powers) can wring your arm easily and have you bend to our will."[/quote]



As I have said before, there is nothing defensive about nuclear arms. The opposition of such weapons development is neither empty nor hypocritical, but rather rational and logical. Just to make it clear, I feel the same about my own nation's nuclear arsenal, not just the so-called "axis of evil" countries.

[Abzu]

[quote name="Noyka"]if countries like the US didn't have nuclear weapons and a country like North Korea fired on them there would be no way to protect themselves or fire back. You all seem way too idealistic, once something has been introduced it's highly unlikely we can live without it again. It's unfortunate but it's true wars, nuclear arms, and destruction are now and forever will be a part of our lives. In the case of war and destruction it's always been a part of the human life. Get used to it.[/quote]



Explain to me, Noyka, how having a nuclear weapon will protect, say, the US against an, as you hypothetically stated, already detonated nuclear attack from North Korea? It would be retaliatory only.

[jawn galliano]

It all goes back to the deterrence strategy, it won't protect us once an attack has been successfully executed. The point is to simply have the weapons in enough quantity to deter other nations from deploying theirs in the first place; it's the whole idea of mutually assured destruction. If they launch on us, we have the capability to launch a counterattack which completely annihilates them, thus negating any benefits of the initial attack and deterring it from happening in the first place.



It's a twisted kind of logic, but the prevailing view during the arms race and initial rounds of nuclear proliferation between world powers, was that the point of developing and stockpiling nuclear weapons was to ensure nobody uses them. Keep everyone at a stalemate, and all that.



I'll freely admit up front that I might be getting some of this wrong, I'm kind of piecing it together from what i remember from my modern US history class which I took in high school about 9 years ago

[Abzu]

[quote name="Famous Mortimer"]It all goes back to the deterrence strategy, it won't protect us once an attack has been successfully executed. The point is to simply have the weapons in enough quantity to deter other nations from deploying theirs in the first place; it's the whole idea of mutually assured destruction. If they launch on us, we have the capability to launch a counterattack which completely annihilates them, thus negating any benefits of the initial attack and deterring it from happening in the first place.



It's a twisted kind of logic, but the prevailing view during the arms race and initial rounds of nuclear proliferation between world powers, was that the point of developing and stockpiling nuclear weapons was to ensure nobody uses them. Keep everyone at a stalemate, and all that.



I'll freely admit up front that I might be getting some of this wrong, I'm kind of piecing it together from what i remember from my modern US history class which I took in high school about 9 years ago [/quote]



I fully understand our mentality behind it, but explain to a suicide bomber how that logic is successful and will work for the US.

[Noyka]

[quote name="abzu"]
[quote name="Noyka"]if countries like the US didn't have nuclear weapons and a country like North Korea fired on them there would be no way to protect themselves or fire back. You all seem way too idealistic, once something has been introduced it's highly unlikely we can live without it again. It's unfortunate but it's true wars, nuclear arms, and destruction are now and forever will be a part of our lives. In the case of war and destruction it's always been a part of the human life. Get used to it.[/quote]



Explain to me, Noyka, how having a nuclear weapon will protect, say, the US against an, as you hypothetically stated, already detonated nuclear attack from North Korea? It would be retaliatory only.[/quote]



Having them shows that we aren't going to bend to a country like North Korea, which is important to protect the people. I hate them as much as the next person but they're a necessary evil for right now. I see no reason why the US should disarm first people like Imran just like to blame all the world's evil on the country currently doing the best and will lump anyone who sees things differently in the group he has the least respect for.

[Redd]

The U.S. isn't doing great right now, Liz.

[Abzu]

Doing the best? That's a freakin' joke. Freedom? Sweden. Economic growth? We're miles behind China. Motor vehicles? Tell that to GM's balance sheets.



United States GDP Real Growth: 3.222% per year (133d place)

China's GDP Real Growth: 9.9% per year (8th place)

China has a 4% unemployment rate. The US has a 7.2% unemployment rate.



How about health care? We rank 37th, according to the World Health Organization.



I love my country but to be realistic, in what way are we doing the best? Please, enlighten.



And just how does nuclear disarmament on our part become bending to North Korea? They've never demanded we do so. They simply want to arm because their enemies are armed. The same is true for Iran.

[Lavabug]

[quote name="abzu"]

I love my country but to be realistic, in what way are we doing the best? Please, enlighten.

[/quote]

Military/defense, I mean the US does have the most badass weaponry ever made! Biggest budget:

[bills bro]

[quote name="abzu"]United States GDP Real Growth: 3.222% per year (133d place)

China's GDP Real Growth: 9.9% per year (8th place)[/quote]



In absolute GDP the US is almost triple any other country

It's much easier to get 9.9% growth when you start at such a low level.



And GDP per capita wise, the USA isn't top, but the countries above the US are not major players in the international scene.

[Abzu]

[quote name="sade"]
[quote name="abzu"]United States GDP Real Growth: 3.222% per year (133d place)

China's GDP Real Growth: 9.9% per year (8th place)[/quote]



In absolute GDP the US is almost triple any other country

It's much easier to get 9.9% growth when you start at such a low level.



And GDP per capita wise, the USA isn't top, but the countries above the US are not major players in the international scene.[/quote]

The numbers are pre-crash. Im curious to see the next set. How about debt and currency dilution?

[Abzu]

[quote name="Lavabug"]
[quote name="abzu"]

I love my country but to be realistic, in what way are we doing the best? Please, enlighten.

[/quote]

Military/defense, I mean the US does have the most badass weaponry ever made! Biggest budget:



[/quote]

Epic truth, bugger.

[baron von blondle]

[quote name="Lavabug"]

Military/defense, I mean the US does have the most badass weaponry ever made! Biggest budget:

[/quote]



you just need proper soldiers to use it all :D

[djonni greazo]

[quote name="baron von blondle"]
[quote name="Lavabug"]

Military/defense, I mean the US does have the most badass weaponry ever made! Biggest budget:

[/quote]



you just need proper soldiers to use it all :D [/quote]



truth.

[Lavabug]

I find it hilarious how people are shitting themselves over North Korea and Iran's military capabilities, when both of their budgets combined would barely show up on that pie chart.

[Ninny]

One bomb already is too much. We must squash these rogue states before it's too late. In North Korea's case it might already be too late

[Charles Bronson]

[quote name="Ninny"]One bomb already is too much. We must squash these rogue states before it's too late. In North Korea's case it might already be too late [/quote]

I still find it funny that NKorea is threatening us. They can even build anything that works, and we have the worlds most advanced military. Time we liberate the fuck out of them.



We need to call up all vets of the Korean War and let them finish the job. I'm sure they would be more than willing.

[Abzu]

[quote name="Lavabug"]I find it hilarious how people are shitting themselves over North Korea and Iran's military capabilities, when both of their budgets combined would barely show up on that pie chart.[/quote]

I don't think it is general military capability so much as potential nuclear capability. I mean, their military otherwise are... haha... I would fight them.