US Stresses No Hostile Intent Toward NK

[Judi Lynn]

(12-19-2004 16:37)
US Stresses No Hostile Intent Toward NK



By Reuben Staines, Park Song-wu
Staff Reporters
The United States is stressing that it has no intention of launching a military strike against North Korea, despite reports that it plans to deploy bunker-buster missiles to the Korean peninsula next year.

James Kelly, U.S. assistant secretary of state, reiterated over the weekend that Washington is seeking a gradual ``transformation¡¯¡¯ of the communist regime and will not use force to remove leader Kim Jong-il from power.

This message was conveyed to Pyongyang during an informal meeting between North Korean and U.S. nuclear negotiators in New York late last month, Japan¡¯s Asahi Shimbun quoted Kelly as saying.

The term, regime ``transformation,¡¯¡¯ rather than regime ``change,¡¯¡¯ has been adopted by U.S. officials over the past month in an apparent bid to calm the North¡¯s security fears and draw it back to the six-party talks on the nuclear standoff.
(snip/...)

http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/200412/kt2004121916360110160.htm

[necso]

1. Some interesting stuff here...

And the last part of the article largely contradicts the first part.

One more quote: "However, the reassurances threaten to be undercut by claims that the U.S. is preparing to deploy {nuclear} bunker-busters to South Korea capable of destroying suspected underground facilities for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in the North."

Of course, these nuclear "bunker-busters" could also be used to attack more conventional targets, like NK fortifications north of the DMZ. (There are apparently circles that think that this is a peachy keen idea.) I have seen a number like thirty batted about for this purpose, although this number strikes me as rather optimistic.

And Powell is, of course, on his way out.

Oh well.

[daleo]

2. This month's Harpers had an interesting article re: nuclear bunker busters

Essentially:
- they would throw up immense amounts of radiation, contrary to claims, due to the fact that no bomb can really penetrate very far.
and
- the wouldn't work anyway, contrary to claims, due to the fact that no bomb can really penetrate very far.

It is easy enough for nations to dig a little deeper or in harder rock to get around these weapons. They would probably kill a lot of people with fallout though.

[necso]

3. In certain quarters, "hype" about weapons

is of more interest than any performance data... or reasonable expectations in wartime circumstances. And it is usually possible to create "models" or "games" that give the desired results.

In this instance, one might have concerns about fallout and, more generally, overall performance.

There are all sorts of practical issues related to using any weapon, including accuracy of targeting. Of course, to some, simply believing "creates" reality -- a case in point being the "missile shield". (Personally, I plan on going outside and throwing rocks when the time comes -- it will probably work as well -- and it will be lot more satisfying.)

In the past, the usage of nuclear weapons has generally been considered a matter of last resort. There are, however, in these days, some (possibly influential) people who think otherwise.

I would not be of the latter opinion. But then again, I try not to be an idiot.

As a Canadian, you might be interested in great circle routes to prominent potential target (US) cities... and the possibility of "shortfalls". -- This would make the matter one of some common interest.

And, of course, the entire thing could be BS... Who is to say?

[daleo]

5. We always seem to be on the great circle routes

Russia, China, now North Korea - it never fails. Oh, for that glorious day when Brazil is the primary threat to Republican fantasists.

Actually from the old globe and string method it looks like an attack on the west coast of the U.S. wouldn't overfly Canadian territory, but any attack much further inland certainly would. Also, if the miraculous should occur and the shield worked, it might well divert even an attack on the U.S. west coast further north.

Given that, as well as fallout concerns, and just the general desire not to see our friends and neighbors killed, we do naturally share all concerns related to nuclear destruction. Most of us are of the opinion (according to the polls I have read) that a defense shield that won't work is worse than no defense shield at all - it just encourages reckless behavior and brinkmanship in leaders with militarist inclinations.

[Bono71]

6. This part of your post is the scariest to me...

"In the past, the usage of nuclear weapons has generally been considered a matter of last resort. There are, however, in these days, some (possibly influential) people who think otherwise."

Unfortunately, I agree with you. Even more unfortunately, some of these "influential people" occupy the white house.

[bemildred]

4. That was an excellent little piece in Harper's. nt