Analysis: NKorea widens threat, limits US options


WASHINGTON – North Korea's nuclear test makes it no likelier that the regime will actually launch a nuclear attack, but it adds a scary dimension to another threat: the defiant North as a facilitator of the atomic ambitions of others, potentially even terrorists.

It presents another major security crisis for President Barack Obama, already saddled with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a nuclear problem with Iran. He said Monday the U.S. and its allies must "stand up" to the North Koreans, but it's far from clear what diplomatic or other action the world community will take.

So far, nothing they've done has worked.

At an earlier juncture of the long-running struggle to put a lid on North Korea's nuclear ambitions, the administration of President Bill Clinton in the mid-1990s discussed with urgency the possibility of taking military action. That seems less likely now, with the North evidently nuclear armed and the international community focused first on continuing the search for a nonmilitary solution.

Meeting in emergency session in New York, the U.N. Security Council on Monday condemned North Korea's nuclear test as a clear violation of a previous U.N. resolution banning such testing. The council said it would begin work immediately on a new legally binding resolution.

The North's announcement that it conducted its second underground test of a nuclear device drew quick condemnation across the globe, including from its big neighbor and traditional ally, China. The Obama administration, which said the North's action invited stronger, unspecified international pressure, has consistently called for Korean denuclearization but seemed not to have anticipated a deepening nuclear crisis.

Just two weeks ago, the administration's special envoy for disarmament talks with North Korea, Stephen Bosworth, said during a visit to Asian capitals that "everyone is feeling relatively relaxed about where we are at this point in the process." If so, they are no longer.

Obama, appearing Monday in the White House Rose Garden, condemned the nuclear test and North Korea's subsequent test-launch of short-range missiles. He called the actions reckless and said they endanger "the people of Northeast Asia."

North Korea conducted its first atomic test in 2006 and is thought to have enough plutonium to make at least a half-dozen nuclear bombs. It also is developing long-range ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, in defiance of U.N. actions.

One of the first estimates of the size of Monday's nuclear explosion came from the Russian defense ministry, which put the yield at between 10 and 20 kilotons — comparable to the U.S. bombs that flattened Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan in August 1945. But a senior U.S. administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said it appeared the explosive yield was much smaller, perhaps a few kilotons. The official said more technical analysis would be done in coming days.

The administration official also disclosed that North Korea notified the State Department less than one hour before the explosion that it intended to conduct a nuclear test at an unspecified time. The U.S. then notified China, Russia, Japan and South Korea, the official said.

Obama made clear his intention to work with other world leaders to bring diplomatic pressure to bear on Pyongyang, and the United States could still try to resuscitate so-called six-party talks with the North as well as work with other members of the United Nations. North Korea has vowed not to resume participation in the six-party talks with the U.S., Japan, South Korea, China and Russia.

Reflecting his view that only unified international action will compel North Korea to change course, Obama said that Russia and China, as well as traditional U.S. allies Japan and South Korea, have come to the same conclusion: "North Korea will not find security and respect through threats and illegal weapons."

The Bush administration worked hard to get China, in particular, to press the North Koreans to denuclearize, and it seems likely that Obama will push equally hard with Beijing, which sided with the North Koreans against U.S. and United Nations forces during the 1950-53 Korean War. In recent years the Chinese have openly criticized the North Koreans for the nuclear arms program.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stressed the importance of a strong, unified approach when she spoke by phone Monday to her counterparts in Japan and South Korea, Clinton spokesman Ian Kelly said.

Two of the main worries about North Korea are left unsaid: Would it use a nuclear bomb to attack a neighbor or the United States? And might it continue an established pattern of selling nuclear wherewithal and missiles to foreign buyers?

Graham Allison, an assistant secretary of defense in the Clinton administration and now director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University, said Monday that the international community regularly underestimates North Korean leader Kim Jong Il's willingness to do the unexpected.

"Could this guy believe he could sell a nuclear bomb to Osama bin Laden?" Allison asked in a phone interview. "Why not?"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090525/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_north_korea_analysis

Because the US will not attack a Nuclear Power!

Their rhetorics has been consistence for a long time. They only want to use it for civilian purposes.

"The Bush administration worked hard to get China, in particular, to press the North Koreans to denuclearize, and it seems likely that Obama will push equally hard with Beijing, which sided with the North Koreans against U.S. and United Nations forces during the 1950-53 Korean War. In recent years the Chinese have openly criticized the North Koreans for the nuclear arms program."

*****************

Once again, Obama falls back on Bush policy. By keeping Gates as Secretary of Defense there will be no major foreign policy changes. No administration before Obama has ever kept an opposing party's active Secretary of Defense. Obama will make slight adjustments and then try to spin it as his own to his still "in denial" supporters.

Really?

How tough is it to see that if a country as powerful and able in war as United States, can not see itself existing without a nuclear weapon, than any small country, particularly neighboring those constantly invaded, or that is directly receiving threats to be invaded itself, definitely needs them?

If was a small possibility that a small country could afford a peaceful attitude, then a big country definitely could.

With this in mind, why don't you tell us why any empire-sized country need a nuclear weapon?

Iran doesn't have a nuclear program, neither ever said wants nukes. the International Atomic Energy confirmed that they got no weapon program, they only got low level plutonium, which is not good for a nuclear bomb. Iran is more monitored by various watchgroups than any other country.

Name one country, that has ever used nukes against civilians. There is only one.

The whole "Iran wants to build nuclear bombs" is nothing but garbage. Reminds me the none existing WMD search in Iraq. They couldn't find the excuse why Iraq had to happen.

By the way, did anyone ever thought logically ever about Iran using a nuke against Israel?

Just stop for a second and imagine a nuclear bomb dropped there, and not only killing the Jews, but destroying one of the holiest sites of Muslims and Christians too. Iran not only would pi$$ off Christians and Jews (the Entire Europe and USA) but make a giant bulls-eye target by other Islamic states, and it would be them wiping Iran off the map (Saudi/Turkey/Jordania etc)

Now, do you still believe the Iran's nuclear bomb building myth?

You can walk softly where ever you want, when you have the very big stick.
It commands respect or fear.
Signifies that you are a major player in world politics. At least that's one of the perceptions.
A huge bargaining chip to negotiate with.

That's a pretty reasonable answer.


You hear this, man? (to OP).

"
You can walk softly where ever you want, when you have the very big stick.
It commands respect or fear.
Signifies that you are a major player in world politics. At least that's one of the perceptions.
A huge bargaining chip to negotiate with.
"

It doesn't sound like a promise of attack. It sounds like an assurance of not being attacked. Isn't that an absolute dream of free people, to live and not ever being attacked, being left alone, doing your own thing?

Id say the number of dead that occurred during the two world wars!
Whole generations died!
Immense destruction.
Immense economic losses.

The US opened up a whole new can of worms with Nuclear weapons.
Perhaps the only way to keep true and lasting peace would be to allow everyone to have them.
Fear of Mutual destruction you know.
It seems we are unable to stop their proliferation anyway!
Just go ahead and give them each one or two.

Germany would had it or the Soviet Union. One or the other it was a race.

On the other hand, I think using nukes to conquer is becoming the past.
Why would anyone want to kill millions of potential credit card owners?

That sounds like a militaristic maneuver that can't be won unless actual force has been carried out. I don't think the Iranian regime would do anything to retaliate and ostracize themselves out of favor of the international community. And everybody knows that Iran has been victimized by United States past intermingling into their domestic affairs.

If I am in charge in Iran.

You bet your ass I want nukes.

/points to North Korea and walks away whistling

You make some very good points!
If everyone has Nukes mutual destruction would be a deterent from all wars!

Or would it?

There will always be one who wants to smack the bees nest with a stick.

When a bully puts your back against the wall, and the only way out is thru them, you bluff or fight..... To bluff, you have to be able to convence them your capable of your threats, but that doesn't mean you want to risk the fight.

We are too involved elsewhere (for no good reason now) to spread ourselves that thin, the world knows it. We need to be stepping back and taking up defensive posture and end our offensive bullying elsewhere. Bring our troops home, quit wasting our money, soldiers and ammo, and let the rest of the world fall to chaos if they choose to. There's just no profit potential in peace for a corporate world however, so on we go!

The US didn't need the nukes to win WWII, we had already won by the time we dropped them. Japan hadn't surrendered yet, but they were down to their last leg, last eye and last arm and could not have continued much longer. We dropped the bombs to establish US superiority in world.
I had read recently that Iran had tested rockets that they say could reach the US. Iran also has the support of a Russia that is backsliding into communism and an already communist China. Iran is a situation that needs to be closely monitored, but a stupid knee jerk reaction of preemptive attacks would be a bad move at this time. The possibility of a nuclear threat from AL Qaeda in Pakistan is more troublesome.

To kill people and break things or in technical terms, "to blow sh^t up!"

"North Korea's nuclear test makes it no likelier that the regime will actually launch a nuclear attack, but it adds a scary dimension to another threat: the defiant North as a facilitator of the atomic ambitions of others, potentially even terrorists."

I thought now that Bush is gone the world was going to get in line and play nice. Didn't they get the memo? Bush is gone.. Obama wants to talk. He has that certain "creditability" with the muslim world.

HAHAHAHAHA

HEADLINE: Iraqi Head Seeks Arms

Yep. This is where we stepped away from what America is. We did that to announce to all that there is no more fair America, and that we now wish to be the biggest bully. That instead business with all and alliance with no one, we are now intend to ally with (of all people) Britons in pushing everybody around, interfering with everybody's affair.

I think we need to stop and return to our roots. Screw the world, it is their own business, ain't ours.

If Saddam had actually had nukes or WMDs, we wouldn't be there, no matter how bad the Bush family wanted to smack Saddam down for hating them and trying to kill Sr. Bush. If he had succeeded (in killing GHW Bush), the world would be a different, more peaceful place I believe, and we wouldn't have had to deal with 8 years of Jr.!

Iran wants nukes for the same reason the Third Reich wanted nukes. To threaten, coerce and prevail in forcing their disreputable antisemitic misanthropy and militant (islamic) nationalistic superiority ideologies upon others.

ugh.