The New York Times reports that South Koreans are Divided on North Korean Atom Threat
"I should not say this here, but I hope North Korea has nuclear weapons," Shim Wan Kyu, a 31-year-old financial worker, said while taking a cigarette break outside his office. Asked about a nuclear threat to this affluent society, he replied: "They wouldn't attack South Korea with it. It is not for attack, but for defense."There have always been those who play down the hostile intentions of belligerent neighbors. And what would these missiles be used to defend? Not the North Korean people, who are already starving to death, but only the corrupt and incompetent regime. Furthermore, I'm not sure whether people who smoke cigaretters and deliberately fill their lungs with known carcinogens are the ones I would turn to for rational advice about self-preservation.
On a busy shopping street, Kim Hyo Jin collected signatures urging the United States to negotiate with North Korea. "A country that is threatened by nuclear weapons has the right to have nuclear weapons," said Ms. Kim, a 26-year-old university student. "If North Korea would be threatened by the United States with nuclear weapons, North Korea can also have them."I don't think that the issue is whether North Korea "has the right to" or "can" have nuclear weapons. I think the question is whether it is a good idea for the rest of the world to let them get away with it.
In past crises, North Korean military brinkmanship has produced "panic gaps" between Washington and Seoul, with the South Koreans largely inured to half a century of North Korean bluster.Given North Korea's history of threatening not only South Korea, but also exporting weapons and nuclear technology to countries such as Iran, Iraq, Syria and Egypt, it is a global problem, not only a South Korean problem.
On Dec. 19, it was largely voters in their 20's and 30's who overwhelmingly elected as president Roh Moo Hyun, a 56-year-old liberal who advocates a relationship with North Korea based on aid, trade and dialogue. As soon as the election was over, North Korea moved to free its nuclear program from international controls.Interesting timing, no?
... several thousand largely young people, turned out for a candlelight vigil outside the United States Embassy. Their demands ranged from a more equal partnership between Seoul and Washington to the expulsion of the 37,000 American troops stationed here.Right, we'll move toward an "equal partnership" with South Korea when they're willing to take responsibility to help us shut down the North.
One Korean who, according to news reports, did have a relaxed day was North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Il, who attended a concert, where an army choir praised him in song.And hopefully this will be one of his last days, relaxed or otherwise. This is a man who has broken his agreements with the US and simply cannot be trusted. The Bush Administration is talking of exerting "economic pressure" to force Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear program. But what then? If Kim Jong Il promises to shut down the program, will we reward him with economic assistance until the next time he threatens to build a bomb? It's time to put an end to his pathetic regime and free his long-suffering people. A few well-targeted missiles should do the trick. But first let Shim Wan Kyu and Kim Hyo Jin go north as human shields. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 29, 2002 01:16 PM
I'm all for regime change in N. Korea as well, but don't you think it would require more than just a few well-targeted missiles?
Posted by: Haggai on December 30, 2002 04:59 PMI got a better idea.
If the NK's want to take over their southern counterparts, let them. If SK's population thinks that NK isn't any big deal and are tilting more and more anti-American, then it's time to recall the 30,000+ US military personnel stationed there and put them to better use someplace else.
For those who would argue on economic reasons against leaving SK, well, memory chip fabs can always be set up somewhere else.
It's well past time to allow South Korea to stand or fall on its own. We should remove our forces & renegotiate our relationship with South Korea. The South Koreans, after all, are the ones who will have to live with the consequences of our decisions as well as their own. As far as I'm concerned, our primary goal should be to prevent North Korea from exporting arms. If South Korea wants to pay protection money to a Stalinist murderer while he continues to develop WMD, that's fine, but I don't want my tax dollars contributing to yet another failed state.
Posted by: ellie on December 31, 2002 03:15 PMStefan also mentioned nuclear technology and missile technology - one reason it would be dangerous indeed to leave the North Koreans alone. All options seem pretty grim. Apart from the tragedy of allowing one of the worlds few open democracies to fall, it would be hard to avoid a huge blow to American prestige - no matter how many sharks you see, there will be many more once there's actually blood in the water.
This is the only blog I've seen so far advocating war with North Korea. I don't favor that, I have a horrible fear the alternatives could be worse, but still hope I'm wrong.
The second Korean war could be bloodier than the first one.
Posted by: David Weisman on January 1, 2003 01:06 PMWhere I work, there are many of my co-workers who have lived in S. Korea and as far as they are concerned, the US should just walk away and let S. Korea "negotiate" with their brothers to the north. N. Korea has nukes and a basket-case economy and S. Korea has no nukes but a very robust economy. How long do you think before the negotiations stop and S. Korea becomes N. Korea's "sugar daddy"? N. Korea would have the best of both worlds, no reason to change and a rich neighbor to "extort" money from.
Posted by: Jeffy on January 2, 2003 01:56 AMThank you very mutch!
Posted by: free mature pussy picture on September 20, 2005 10:43 PM