Do we really know that Kim is a lunatic? Watching the campaign to make Ahmadinejad seem like one has me extra skeptical.
They've had the capability for a while, and it's already been factored. I love the speculation it may have been about the new Secretary General being a South Korean. Having nuclear weapons didn't help the Apartheid government; I don't think it's that big a deal, but it may accelerate other changes in the works, like the rearming up to nuclear level of Japan.
Meanwhile, the New Republic's urgent bulletins today continue to include
A) John McCain would be a great president, combining the utter managerial prowess of Republicans with the moderation and cautious approach to foreign policy of Democrats.
B) It would be unfair to Republicans if the Foley scandal was what caused them to lose in November. Especially because a fair and nonpartisan discussion of the "war on terror" issue would benefit the Democrats anyway. Why aren't we trying to team up with the Republicans to have a fair and nonpartisan discussion of the "war on terror" issue?
We don't, in the sense that we don't know anything that only comes through limited media sources. But I've been seeing coverage for a fairly long time of Kim Jong Il's personally erratic behavior, rather than just the sort of "He's leading a country that doesn't like us, he must be Mad, Mad I tell you, Mad!!!" stuff that gets said about Ahmadinehjad.
1 - I think he's definitely lunatic-y. I saw the documentary State of Mind a couple of years back, about a huge sporting exhibition they put on in North Korea and that was made by some Brits with the cooperation of the North Korean government and even then everything was completely bizarre and messed up so it's not just US government spin. The creepiest revelation to me is that government propoganda radio is piped into every house in the country and, while you can turn it down, you can never turn it off. That's straight out of 1984.
Julian Sanchez wrote a blog post about the movie a while back. It's been on PBS a few times and I'd highly recommend keeping an eye out for it -- very good.
Ogged, come on, the guy's nuts. That's what makes him so awesome-- I mean, he kidnaps his own directors.
Seriously, how much would you love to see him on Cribs?
Seriously, how much would you love to see him on Queer Eye?
Kim Jong-il's official biography also holds that his birth at Mount Paektu was foretold by a swallow, and that his birth was heralded by the appearance of a double rainbow over the mountain and a new star in the heavens.
I think anyone who would put that (or allow it to be put) in their official biography is a lunatic.
Good point, Becks. He totally needs a makeover and a gym pass.
9: I've been thinking of putting something like that on my resume.
I agree that Ahmedinejad's sanity is being baselessly calumniated--he's vicious and unprincipled, but very sane (whereas we get stuck with leaders who have column A and B, no column C).
But NoKo really is in a whole different category of dysfunction from Iran. As far as press access, as far as the daily lives of its citizens, as far as the depth of individual mono-mania, etc.
Yeah, Iran creeped me out with that fountain of red food-coloring in the cemetary. But NoKo is just a giant hall of mirrors. Kidnapping foreigners in order to train agents. Millions of people eating grass or less. It's a nightmare far beyond anything in Iran.
And part of the job of resisting the PR job against Iran is pointing out that difference.
How long til Clinton gets blamed for this? Actually, it's probably already happened.
13: In comments at ObWi, it's already happened.
11. I would absolutely hire anybody who put that on their resume. Which is why I'm not allowed to hire anybody.
Kim seems to me to have that special kind of craziness which was patented by Stalin and refined by Ceausescu and Karimov. It doesn't seem to interfere with their grasp of reality when the need is for practical cunning, so I'm not despairing yet.
Ahmedinejad isn't remotely mad. He's a very astute politician. I read a piece by some obscure Iranian Marxist which argued that far from being the clerical candidate, he's actually point man for the army trying to recover political ground in Iran. It seemed fairly well argued, but I don't know enough to judge.
What country did you have in mind in the title to this post?
Are we sure that hagiographical stuff really reflects on his personal sanity? What would we think if a similar story were put out by a king hundreds of years ago? It might just reflect the shameless messianism that the propaganda machine of an uncriticizable, isolative state can tend to.
no, minivet. he's straight-up nuts. his former chef wrote a tell-all book a few years back. he's got a giant harem, divided in two parts, and half of them are sort of dancer/gymnast/singer types, and then there's another cadre that just specializes in sex. hm. well, maybe that's not totally crazy, but he does other crazy stuff too.
I'm amazed this thread has gotten to 20 comments without a 'Team America: ...' reference.
Josh Marshall has a nice write-up of how the Bush Administration's inept North Korea policy helped bring this about.
I think that my concept of "nuts" is different than Alameida's. Does she object to the segregation of the harem or something?
Well, I don't really doubt he's loopy -- it would be hard not to be in his position as socialist dynast -- I'm just musing how much that particular fact actually tells us.
it's already been factored
But did they do the prime factorization? I don't think so.
I don't know how he could avoid a sort of passion for reclassifying--like the record collection in that John Cusack movie.
I read an excerpt of that chef's tell-all in... Harper's, maybe? It was great. I should seek out the whole book.
But does he do crazy stuff in government foreign policy meetings? If he keeps it for his spare time it's tough on the people around him, but less immediately worrying.
I heard that the explosion in NK was the equivolent to 1/2 kiloton of TNT. Is it possible that it was 1/2 kilotons of TNT? Just wondering.
I'm not defending Kim. I, for one, do not segregate my harem, nor would I ever. I just think that harem-segregating should not be adduced as evidence for insanity.
Perhaps there are practical reasons why he segregates his harem, -- for example, because the singers and gymnasts need special practice facilities. Or perhaps it's an old Korean custom which Kim is required to honor, even though he realizes how wrong it is.
But does Kim have sole control of the military and its arsenal? And, assuming there are people in between him and various military options that must be involved in any such decisions, are those people also crazy?
Color me unworried about anything but proliferation.
But does he do crazy stuff in government foreign policy meetings?
Like give unwanted shoulder rubs to other heads of state?
28: I think it's a fair question, and one I don't know the answer to.
"Is it possible that it was 1/2 kilotons of TNT?"
Could be. I'm not sure it's actually possible to get a nuke dialed down that low. There won't be airborne particles to analyze if the explosion was underground and well-contained.
28 -- The Russians seem to think it was between 5-15 kT (according to BBC World News this morning)
Like give unwanted shoulder rubs to other heads of state?
Oh come on. I've seen the video, and that tease Angela Merkel was totally asking for it.
Well according to the BBC Albright said he was "anything but delusional", but then he apparently drinks 10 glasses of wine in important meetings, and as much cognac as he can neck, so that could easily have changed by now, as could the colour of his liver.
It's my impression the small bombs are harder to make and require a lot more experience and secret data. Most of the proliferation first tests of recent years have been in the 10-15 KT range, which must be simpler to make.
Weird convergence of mood between this thread and the other. Same kind of thinking.
Ahmedinejad isn't remotely mad. He's a very astute politician.
In fairness, those letters of his definately qualify as "weird." Not mad, but weird enough to know the drum beat he's playin to is quite a bit different.
Re: Kim. If you trust Clinton a bit more, Bill thought this guy was nuts. Also, it's rumored that he's a huge fan of Rambo.
Actual conversational snippet from yesterday:
Mr. B. North Korea's exploded the bomb.
PK What's North Korea?
Me It's that country I told you about,* with a really bad government that doesn't give the people enough to eat.
*In an ad hoc civics lesson about the differences between republican and totalitarian forms of government.
hmm, speculation of premature escalation
No one is taking John's bait, so I will.
I do hope the gymnists, singers, etc. have appropriate facilities. I imagine that with a really large harem, the workers have a lot of down time. I mean, how many people can he have sex with in a day? It would be nice if they could use that time to really develop their skills.
42:
Well, he is claimed to have authored more than a thousand books during college... maybe his prowess allows him feats not given to normal men?
Kim Jong-Il's career of accomplishments seems more impressive than L. Ron Hubbard's, but we have to remember that Hubbard was a self-made man.
I had a professor once who met KJ-I on several occasions, and maintained that he was personally eccentric and very clever, but completely sane. But that professor had his own axe to grind re: American foreign policy, so who knows.
And in their spare time, the harem practice, practice, practice, for the mass games
One is reminded of the best Economist cover ever (sorry, best link I could find).
Bonus fun fact: My daughters share a birthday with li'l Kim, and I share a birthday with Stalin.
42: It wouldn't just be nice, it would be an imperfect duty.
What's relevant here regarding Kim's sanity isn't his loopy personal habits or grandiose hagiography (forget a king hundreds of years ago; the official Japanese line was that Hirohito was a god), but assertions that he is irrational within the context of nuclear deterrence. I've read nothing whatsoever to indicate that the man is suicidal. Quite the contrary: the North Korean pursuit of nuclear weapons has been motivated by a perfectly rational fear of military aggression by the United States.
Over the course of the Bush era, the right has acquired a habit of calling just about any evil dictator a "madman," a facile bit of rhetoric that relies on conflating weird personal habits or beliefs (Ahmadinejad's so crazy he believes in the Hidden Imam!) with apocalyptic tendencies toward national suicide (Ahmadinejad's so crazy he wants to nuke a country with 200 nuclear missiles!) We fell for this once with Saddam; I really don't think we should be that stupid again.
49: Would you be pleased with Hirohito regime that had nuclear arms? I know they probably wouldn't do anyting a nuclear armed Truman regime didn't do, but still, not fun.
50: No, but questions of his supposedly-divine origins would have nothing to do with it.
49: This is a guy who, during a famine that killed up to 10% of the nation's population, poured tens of millions of dollars into symbolic gestures like nationalist statuary and the mass games. That's evidence enough that he's crazy where it counts.
52: Vicious, tyrannical cruelty and disregard for human life are not indications of suicidal irrationality. Again, what's important within the context of North Korea's nuclear weapons is what they intend to do with those weapons. That Kim Jong Il is a very bad man is well-established; that he's willing to nuke Seoul or Tokyo, thus guaranteeing his own destruction, is not.
Stalin and Mao had nuclear weapons. Both were horrible, evil dictators responsible for the deaths of millions; both were deterred by the threat of nuclear war.
53: You're making too much sense, stras. I suspect you've only been pretending to drink your daily ration of Kool-Aid.
9:his birth at Mount Paektu was foretold by a swallow
I was told you couldn't get pregnant that way.
53: I'm not arguing that Kim is a "very bad man," as you put it -- I'm sure that's true and I agree that it's not determinative. But his actions indicate recklessness and radical irresponsibility that should make us very worried. Maybe he's not a total mental case, but I don't think straightforward lunacy is a necessary precondition to nuclear holocaust.
But his actions indicate recklessness and radical irresponsibility that should make us very worried.
Again, look at Stalin and Mao. Both wasted a fortune on propaganda and self-aggrandizement at times of famine and national catastrophe. Are you suggesting that behavior commonly exhibited by totalitarian dictators indicates a suicidal degree of irrationality? If you're going to make a case for why Kim Jong Il is undeterrable, you should make it; don't just make dark insinuations about "nuclear holocaust" while throwing around words like "lunacy."
I agree with Stras. Vicious does not imply kamikaze.
The "madman" argument is pumped out by anyone who wants to justify their own adventurism. There's a long history of warmongering portrayals of the enemy as insane and visious, and Bush has contributed his own chapter to the history.
I don't think straightforward lunacy is a necessary precondition to nuclear holocaust.
For what value of "holocaust"? He's got, what, eight of them, and no delivery system that will get them to the US.
I actually don't know if Kim Jong Il is undeterrable, and it wasn't my intention to make such a case. I worry that threats, real or perceived, from the West will put North Korea over the edge, and I don't think we can count on Kim Jong Il to be sane or rational enough to be intimidated. And as for making 'dark insinuations' or "throwing around words' I don't know what you're talking about. I'm not aware that I've stepped over any boundaries.
59: They're certainly far enough to reach S. Korea.
stras is making sense.
60:So let' not piss off or scare the little debbil. I recommend surrender. Give Kim Utah. Good fit.
Seriously, like how many billions to buy Kim off? Once Japan starts building up their military, their neighbours will ensure that Japan builds up a lot of military. Cold War II is the neo-con plan. Very expensive.
The guy is crazy like a fox. Seriously, what would we do if he nuked a major S.Korean city, like Pohung, but not Seoul? Would we nuke him? I have my doubts. So far nukes (well, atomics) have only been used to end a war, not start one.
The guy is crazy like a fox. Seriously, what would we do if he nuked a major S.Korean city, like Pohung, but not Seoul?
Yeah, that'd be a real smooth maneuver. That way he gets blown to hell in return for... what, exactly?
Are you so sure we would nuke him? I'm not.. I think we would chicken out. On the other hand "pour encourager les autres" we probably would.
I read a kind of interesting speculative analysis deep in a comments thread at, well, I'm too embarrassed to admit exactly where, but it was a right-wing site. It goes like this: China could have dealt more seriously with NK, but since NK really bothered the Americans, China sees it to their advantage to hold out for geostrategic advantage in return. According to this r-w commenter, China would only be willing to step on NK (and perhaps to absorb a whole bunch of refugees) if America withdrew its military support from Taiwan. Anyone think that's a plausible analysis of China's game? Not that I understand exactly what China could do about NK anyway, but I am willing to bet that they've got more sticks and carrots available right now than we do.
TLL, were you asleep during the Cold War? We almost ended the human race over Cuba. What would possibly restrain us from nuking someone who had actually gone ahead with a first strike on an ally?
But, given the scenario China could effectively veto our nuking of NK- if they said that a retaliation would result in further escalation. Maybe the Chinese wouldn't nuke LA, but threaten Tokyo- so our actions would be endangering a third (or fourth country).
69- just alive during Cuba. My dad was actually put on admin hold during the time (US Navy). But the Cuban missles were directed at US, not a third party. Our credibility as an ally would certainly be threatened, but given the current world situation, I can't say for sure how we would respond.
70.--I would really hope that our nuking NK is not the only response on the table.
69:I am with TLL on this. Deterrence and limited nuclear war has not really been tested. Deterrence will not be tested until a nuclear power attacks another with a limited strike. In fact I find the general assumption ridiculous. If Bush gets a hair up his ass, and drops 1 megaton on Kiev, Putin says:"Ok World over." Bullshit.
And the important thing to remember is that destroying North Korea likely destroys South Korea as well thru fallout, and likely damages Japan.
68: The right winger you were reading makes sense to me. China could topple the N. Korean regime just by withdrawing support for it, but there is no real reason for them to do this. (I just heard a commentator on NPR make exactly that claim this afternoon.) But of course, the Chinese government and Chinese nationalists are totally fixated on Taiwan. The US could buy a lot of actions from the Chinese in exchange for reducing support for Taiwan. Heck, “North Korea in exchange for Taiwan” would strike them as a bargain.
We need to be clear what the risk is here. The real danger is a pan-Asian war that escalates into a world war, much as pan European wars became world wars in the last century. Even if N. Korean nukes aren’t used in such a war, they could be the provocation for one. More importantly, we can’t understand the risk of such wars if we keep thinking in terms of “rogue madman against superpower.” There are hostilities in play that simply don’t involve us. The enmity between China and Japan has been on the rise for a decade, as leaders in both countries have found it useful to manipulate the feelings of nationalists. When I was in China a few years ago, I saw a book for sale that was described to me as an “apocalyptic science fiction story.” The cover showed a map of Asia with block arrows going from all the major countries to Taiwan.
I don’t see any risk of the US picking a fight with N. Korea. If you are worried about demonizing the N. Koreans as a prelude to war, don’t. N. Korea has nukes, *and they don’t have oil.* This last point is key. American leftists, (and I am guilty of this too) have underemphasized the role of oil in the present Mid-East conflict, preferring to focus on our perpetual friend, identity politics. But look, Bush doesn’t go picking a fight with countries unless there is some material economic gain to be had. Iraq and Iran have oil supplies that ill outlast every country save Saudi Arabia. That is why we fight.
The real risk is that Bush will allow a pan Asian conflict to rise up, because he can only see the world in “rogue madman against superpower” terms. If Bush causes harm here, it will be by negligence (a la Katrina) not by imperialism.
68: The right winger you were reading makes sense to me. China could topple the N. Korean regime just by withdrawing support for it, but there is no real reason for them to do this. (I just heard a commentator on NPR make exactly that claim this afternoon.) Of course, the Chinese government and Chinese nationalists are totally fixated on Taiwan. The US could buy a lot of actions from the Chinese in exchange for reducing support for Taiwan. Heck, “North Korea in exchange for Taiwan” would strike them as a bargain.
We need to be clear what the risk is here. The real danger is a pan-Asian war that escalates into a world war, much as pan European wars became world wars in the last century. Even if N. Korean nukes aren’t used in such a war, they could be the provocation for one. More importantly, we can’t understand the risk of such wars if we keep thinking in terms of “rogue madman against superpower.” There are hostilities in play that simply don’t involve us. The enmity between China and Japan has been on the rise for a decade, as leaders in both countries have found it useful to manipulate the feelings of nationalists. When I was in China a few years ago, I saw a book for sale that was described to me as an “apocalyptic science fiction story.” The cover showed a map of Asia with block arrows going from all the major countries to Taiwan.
I don’t see any risk of the US picking a fight with N. Korea. If you are worried about demonizing the N. Koreans as a prelude to war, don’t. N. Korea has nukes, *and they don’t have oil.* This last point is key. American leftists, (and I am guilty of this too) have underemphasized the role of oil in the present Mid-East conflict, preferring to focus on our perpetual friend, identity politics. But look, Bush doesn’t go picking a fight with countries unless there is some material economic gain to be had. Iraq and Iran have oil supplies that ill outlast every country save Saudi Arabia. That is why we fight.
The real risk is that Bush will allow a pan Asian conflict to rise up, because he can only see the world in “rogue madman against superpower” terms. If Bush causes harm here, it will be by negligence (a la Katrina) not by imperialism.
Thanks for responding, Rob. I'm not sure whether I feel better or worse for hearing that this strategic ploy has some validity. Better because your claim that China could topple North Korea's regime if it wanted to gives me a foothold for hope; worse because the right-wing response to this analysis was, on that comment thread, "give up democratic Taiwan to the Commies? Hell, no!" And I'm not exactly happy thinking of Taiwan as a bargaining chip myself, even though I don't quite know how we got into the business of guaranteeing Taiwan's independance.
Once upon a time there was a guy named Chiang Kai-Shek...
...and that's why we guarantee Taiwan's independence but can't say we're guaranteeing Taiwan's independence. Any questions?
It's this new fashion among the young people where you only tie one of your shoes.
From Jonathan Mirsky, "Taiwan on the Edge", NYRB, 27 May 2004 (subscriber link):
This raises a disturbing point. American officials normally speak about the two Chinas with what they call "deliberate ambiguity," so that neither Taipei nor Beijing can be certain what the US would do in case of a mainland attack on the island. Recently some US officials, including several in Taiwan for the election, have warned that if there were such an onslaught and Taiwan appeared about to lose, the United States would "take the war to the mainland, including hitting their cities." The situation, they insist, is grave, and they recall the threats in December by the mainland Chinese Major General Peng Guangqian and Senior Colonel Luo Yuan that if driven to reunify with Taiwan by force, China would be willing to sacrifice the 2008 Olympics, huge casualties, economic recession, and international condemnation. The Chinese Communist Party, the Americans explain, as do Chinese-American academics with good contacts in China, could not risk its legitimacy as the guardian of China's sacred territory if Chen were allowed, for example, to claim independence under international law. While I was in Taipei, a senior American official, there for the election, told me:
The US is ready. The tracks are laid and the engine is getting up steam; if things go on like this I see us going to war across the Strait by 2006. What I hope is that the fog of ambiguity remains over the Strait for another ten years; then Chen and company will be gone. There has to be an accommodation with Beijing.
Such officials are frank about their irritation with Chen for using phrases and taking positions that provoke Beijing. Chen, they claim, believes that China would not attack and that the Communist leaders must accept the realities of Taiwan's independent status. Indeed, on February 3 Chen said,
History will concur that Mainland China virtually never supports what the people of Taiwan want, though rarely does their protest entail open opposition. Therefore, as long as we are able to voice the collective will of the people of Taiwan, demonstrate consensus and make our demands clear, Mainland China will have no choice but to give us credence and serious consideration.
After the election Mr. Chen exhibited the same confidence that China could accept the status quo: "The fundamental reason I won this presidential election...is because there is a rising Taiwan identity and it has been solidified. I think the Beijing authorities should take heed of this fact and accept the reality."
Taiwan officials like Dr. Tsai Ing-wen, chairman of the Taiwan Government Mainland Affairs Council, note that China has employed a new weapon: "They use third parties, like the United States and France," she said while I was in Taipei, "to put pressure on Taipei to moderate its position." Such high officials point to President Bush's statement last December in the presence of China's Premier Wen Jiabao, during his visit to Washington, warning Taiwan not to change the status quo. This American pressure, together with Beijing's direct threats, probably explains why Chen, while barely winning the election, could not get enough Taiwanese to vote on the referendums he put before the electorate. They posed two questions: First, did the voters want Taiwan to have the latest anti-missile system to counter the almost five hundred missiles China has aimed at Taiwan? Second, did they want peace talks with the mainland?
Beijing charged that the questions posed were simply another example of "creeping independence." Taiwan voters may have seen the questions as both unnecessary—they certainly want Taiwan to be able to defend itself— and unnecessarily provocative, even though Mr. Chen had stated he would regard a "no" vote as a serious rebuff. After the election he said that just having held the referendum was in itself a success for democracy. Those who voted on these propositions were mostly favorable to them, but not enough people voted to make the results binding.
Plainly the uncertainties and dangers of the present situation are real. As of this writing, an election recount is scheduled to begin on May 10, which will probably confirm Chen's narrow victory. If, following a recount, there is a new election—which seems un-likely—most Western experts forecast another close victory for Chen. If he wins again, I doubt the Chinese will attack, because they fear an American counterattack (of which they doubtless have been warned). But Chen Shui-bian is perhaps too hopeful when he says, "I think democracy is our best TMD [theater missile defense] in the face of China's military threat." Tsai Ing-wen said much the same to me in Taipei. If they are mistaken, a war would leave much of Taiwan a smoking ruin, even if the mainland didn't win.
On April 22, in its first detailed response to the elections, the Bush administration said that unilateral moves toward Taiwanese independence—such as promulgating a constitution by 2006, as Chen promised—could provoke a military response "that would destroy much of what Taiwan has built and crush its hopes for the future." Assistant Secretary of State James A. Kelly said that "while we strongly disagree with China's approach...it would be irresponsible to treat [its] statements as empty threats." It may well be that behind the scenes Washington is using much stronger language to Beijing, warning it not to attack Taiwan.
In the end it is hard not to sympathize with Peng Ming-min, a special adviser to President Chen, who, now eighty-one, has taken part in the long struggle of the Taiwanese for independence. Imprisoned by the KMT in 1962 after calling for a democratic constitution and Taiwanese independence, Peng was placed under lifelong house arrest. In 1970 he dramatically escaped abroad, not to return until 1992.[4] "How do we threaten China?" he asked me a few days before the election. "We need a modern constitution, a government that represents the one-hundred-years hope of our people for our own government. Does the status quo mean living under the perpetual threat of war? We are a real state. Twenty-three million people puts us in the top quarter of the world's countries, only a few million less than Iraq. The US is trying to bring democracy to Iraq. We have already created our own."
That whole thing was supposed to be blockquoted after the link, but I was too lazy to tag every damn paragraph.
TLL:
You have got to be kidding me. The only reason we wouldn't nuke N. Korea would be because China would want the honors. Lots of dead North Koreans solve lots of potential problems.
There are plenty of non-Taiwan reasons for China to not want North North Korea to have nukes, and yet to also not want the regime to collapse. I'm sure China's still thinking about Taiwan, but right now they've got to be pretty preoccupied with (1) the possibility that Japan will now feel compelled to acquire nuclear arms of its own, triggering a regionwide arms race, and (2) the ensuing flood of refugees and economic disaster that the fall of the Pyongyang regime would probably bring.
(2) the ensuing flood of refugees and economic disaster that the fall of the Pyongyang regime would probably bring.
I've seen this argument around the web. And since I consider the fall of the Pyongyang regime a probable good, I've been wondering whether it could be possible to, well, bribe China into accepting that burden. Just giving them a couple tens of billion dollars would be much cheaper than actually waging war on NK, after all. If, however, their price is Taiwan, that might be another matter.
On the other hand, if we continue along the trajectory of the status quo, yes, we're probably looking at a serious remilitarization of Japan. The new Japanese PM, Abe, is coming in without anyone's really knowing exactly what sort of policies he represents. He has a lot of rightwing friends, but very little of the Japanese electorate knows much about his policy positions. This-all could mean a very different direction for Japanese policy.
And, hell, maybe Taiwan has always been a bargaining chip, in the amoral geostrategic view of the region. I don't even want to be saying such things. However, every time I've thought about this particular standoff, I've wondered whether the US would really be willling to go to war with China over Taiwan, and, well, I've doubted.
Attention Taiwan: You are all puppets, dancing for Jackmormon.
And how does the fact that the new Sec. Gen. of the UN is South Korean factor into all this?
Ban Ki-Moon matters not. John Bolton's 'stache is the new order in supranational politics.
89: I believe there have been some rumors on the internets to the effect that that was the impetus for the test. No idea if it's true.
89: I believe there have been some rumors on the internets to the effect that that was the impetus for the test. No idea if it's true.
"89" s/b "90"
If Kevin Drum says you're reasonable, you're reasonable, dammit!
Far from being the hare-brained response of a bunch of "madmen," their feeling of betrayal was actually a pretty unsurprising reaction. Kim Jong-Il may be a weird guy, and the whole DPRK leadership is paranoid as hell, but within the constraints of how police states usually act, they actually seem to behave fairly predictably.
87: Taiwan was always a bargaining chip, it's only its worth that has changed over time since the late '40s. I doubt we would go to war over it now but we sure would have in the '50s.
It looks like we're in for a repeat of the cold war with an Asian flavor this time. It's going to be China vs. Japan with North Korea and its Fearless Leader becoming marginalized. I don't see the Chinese being at all happy with the idea of his finger being on their big red button.
(As for the F.L. being nuts, I don't see that it makes any difference. History shows us plenty of "sane" leaders bringing disaster on themselves and their people. I'd rather have a nutty leader with a good grasp how to play geopoliticalmilitary chicken than a sane one who doesn't)
sj gets it right. Kim Jong-Il may be insane personally and a cruel tyrant, but that's doesn't necessarily equate to suicidal maniac.
I'm curious, too: why do we have such horrible relations with North Korea? I can think of reasons, but they're all reasons that haven't prevented us from having tolerable diplomatic ties with other countries. I'll admit to being completely ignorant of the history here, but I can't see a terribly obvious reason: what, we don't like being friends with cruel dictatorships that stomp all over human rights? Since when?
we don't like being friends with cruel dictatorships that stomp all over human rights and have fought us to a draw on the field of battle.
we don't like being friends with cruel dictatorships that stomp all over human rights and have fought us to a draw on the field of battle unless they're now providing us with lots of consumer goods.
97. And have some long standing grievances against our friends who supply us with consumer electronics.
