We’re all going to die…again
2009 June 16
Geez, it feels like there’s some kind of nagging ‘fear’ cortex of my brain being aroused by this pronouncement…who else was it that did that so well?
My joint favourite blogger Dennis Perrin cuts through the usual ‘we’re surrounded by enemies in a dangerous world’ bullshit in this hilarious little video;
Wait, Obama says Iran can pursue nuclear energy but N. Korea cannot? What is the difference between the two.
One thing I find humorous is that Obama says Iran should pursue nuclear energy but America should abandoned Nuclear energy and go with solar panels and wind turbines.
I think I need to be shown where Obama says that Iran can pursue nuclear weapons. Energy is not the question with either Iran or N. Korea it is using the technology to produce weapons. Korea is already conducting tests on weapons technology and it is widely believed on all sides of the debate that Korea is doing it as a gambit to further increase foreign aid to a starving and dying populace. Even the likely champion of N. Korea–China– is against it. If all Korea OR Iran were doing is pursuing energy technology there would be no problem, but we all KNOW that this is not the case.
Gryph, you do realise that Iran currently allows IAEA inspectors into the country? People are merely worried they may just kick them out last minute, although it would stil ltake 6-12 months for them to produce a weapon from that point. But yeah, they have no evidence so far that they’re producing a weapon.
That’s what some fella interviewed on BBC Word Service was saying the other day anyways.
The US intelligence agencies released a report about 18 months ago or so saying Iran is nowhere near within touching distance of having what is necessary to create nukes.
The same cannot be said for N Korea though.
Also, I agree with Steph that Pakistan is the biggest worry in terms of nukes. I don’t think it’s too wild a thought to imagine the Taliban taking control of Islamabad during an intensification of the war there. Although I assume in that situation, the Pakistani military would up sticks with any weapons, and the US would send immediate support to a Pervez Musharaf type who would try and hold things together.
I kind of like the sentiment you have about not worrying so much about things but don’t you think its the job of the president to anticipate threats that might come bit further down the road? I mean it would be a bit silly to bring out all the old ‘duck and cover’ material right now, but if we just sit back and let North Korea get the bomb now – what position would that put us in ten or twenty years time? A moment of naivity now could have bad consequences in the future. I don’t want to live in a world where I am only alive at the discretion of someone like Kim Jong Il or the Mullahs of Tehran.
I get what you’re saying ‘Start Panicking’, although I disagree with your sentiment. The whole issue around NK developing nuclear weapons is a difficult and sensitive thing to deal with, as you allude to. I’m not really saying, ‘let’s sit back and do nothing’, but I don’t think we need to start scaremongering (which to be fair, Obama wasn’t really doing, more the media reports on the issue).
Of course, what’s different now is that Obama is commenting on what seems to be a much more credible threat than GW Bush was in regards to Iraq. Although as there are no weapons inspectors in NK, we can’t really know. Most people I knew believed that Iraq definitely had weapons of mass destruction and when I questioned them, they’d roll out lines about underground silos and the like. I was a 17 yr old secondary (high school) student at the time and even I could work out that Iraq had nothing to threaten their neighbours with, let alone the wider world.
Kim Jong Il MAY have a couple of nukes some point in the near future. Of course that’s of concern to neighbouring countries, and their allies. What I will say though is that personally, I’m just as worried about Israel holding nukes (around 200 or so, outside the NPT), mainly for the people living in that region. The same can be said for India and Pakistan, the former recently having signed an agreement to share nuclear material with the US in circumvention with a fair few international laws).
I’ve seen the Israeli military use blood curdling brute force, only a matter of months ago and am quite sure that if the government now in power felt it would not be on the wrong end of a retaliatory attack, they’d be willing to use a nuclear device against a state such as Iran.
The higher echelons of the North Korean military will also be aware that the United States will wipe the country off the face of the planet if they are attacked by NK in any manner.
If you were the North Korean and Iranian govs, surely you’d seek nuclear weapons as a form of defence? Iran are constantly being threatened by Israel and a global super power (which doesn’t like them) have set up camp in the country next door. As a thought experiment, think what would happen if the US were a regional power rather than a global one and that Russia invaded Mexico, had hundreds of thousands of troops there, and had been threatening the US for the past 8 yrs, surely the US would try to develop a nuclear weapon as fast as possible feeling under attack from all sides?
I think we have to think about what motivates these states to develop nuclear weapons. Iran has seen Iraq be invaded and North Korea has historical understanding of being a playground for a war of major powers. Perhaps if the certain states hadn’t resorted to violence so quickly for the past 50 odd years, smaller/mid size states would not be so jumpy and panicky about finding a form of defence. Of course, that doesn’t mean I want these states to have nukes, just that I can understand why they do.
North Korea is a scary authoritarian dictatorship and I don’t want to defend their actions and their drive for nukes and can understand that the US wont. Iran however is a state which is trying to assert itself more so among a balance of powers in the Mid-East, something which is unacceptable to US and Israeli mid/long term interests, whether they are packing nukes or not.
Also, if the US (and Israel most of the time) hadn’t treated the UN with such contempt over the past 50 odd years, perhaps it would be a serious diplomatic arena and have the power to force North Korea to halt its weapons programme. Instead, it’s not taken seriously as it has either been circumvented by the US and some of her closest allies when it suits them, ignored, or used as a tool to pursue the US’ and several other states national interests.
Bush was wrong about Iraq’s achievement along the road to making a viable threat to the world community. Korea’s threat in regards a viable threat is MUCH more demonstrable–missile tests, underground nuclear blasts etc are different. It is an illogical comparison. But it allows us to bang that drum again, no?
Iran’s motive is to be the regional superpower, which is much more likely now that we have decimated her ancient enemy, Iraq. There is a power vacuum that Iran seeks to fill and very likely will. Unfortunately their form of government is illegitimate and cannot stand the test of time without violent confrontation. A fascist government must sustain its legitimacy by asserting its power militarily. It is the supposed superiority of the government to all others and the right therefore to dominate all the others that will either spur it into war or bring about its own implosion.
Thankyou for your very detailed and sophisticated response Kennedy121. Your right about things being complicated and rooted in a long history that goes back to colonialism, and you might have a point about how things might have been different if the West had behaved differently in some ways. However, i’m not really sure if the circumstances allowed for much difference with regard to the U.N. which I think i’m correct in saying was pretty much deadlocked until 1989 by the Cold War superpowers constantly blocking eachothers movements. Your right that Israel having 200+ nuclear weapons is dangerous, especially if you are Syrian, Saudi or Iranian.
The root of this is that nuclear weapons guarantee sovreignty. I think there’s a line in Lawrence of Arabia where one British general says something like “you give a tribe artillary and you damn near have an independent country!” It is like that with nukes nowadays, if your a warlord or dictator theres no better way of keeping the dastardly westerners out than having the bomb. The problem is once they have only a couple of nukes there isn’t anyway of stopping them getting a hundred. Early pre-emptive military action is just about the only way to stop them, like having to get in early to stop cancerous tumor. Whilst you presented a lot of detailed understanding of the issues I didn’t read any real solutions. Diplomacy only works if there is a real threat of force backing it up, and sanctions have no effect on a country that is already bankrupt. The North Korean leadership don’t give a damn if their people starve.
Obviously that entails playing out the Iraq incident again. I think I was about 17 when I saw that first play out too. I don’t think it was really believed by anybody that they had thousands of barrels of nerve agents or whatever else it was. It wasn’t really what was important to me at least. At the time, and still now really, I just thought Saddam was a psychopath and if invading his country was what it took to shut down his torture chambers and acid baths and to stop him from commiting genocide against the Kurds again then so be it. Theres no doubt in my mind that destroying Saddam’s regime was legitimate because I just refuse to believe that people as evil as that have any sovereign rights whatsoever. Its the same with North Korea, its a giant concentration camp but with a dictator who we actually really know has tested nuclear weapons. We have a duty to go in and bring that regime down by any means necessery don’t we?
Daniel
Gryph, if I had to choose between living in Iran or living in North Korea, I’d take Iran anyday. At least I meet people on Facebook from Iran. In North Korea, “the internet” had 4 pages. People STARVE and have no access to any information, so they literally think they’re living as good as it gets.
I also don’t think that Iran should be stopped from pursuing nuclear weapons (Pakistan is the one that worries me, because it just has no security whatsoever). When was the last time Iran invaded a neighbor? When was the last time they took aggressive, belligerent moves towards another state? For as much as we worry, the US is the one who’s actually obtained and dropped the bomb, and we’re the bastion of freedom.
North Korea isn’t going to do anything to anyone. They talk the big talk, and they’re setting up Kim’s 3rd son to be the new leader. They’re already making him out to be a national hero that was humble enough to stay in the shadows but is now taking his rightful place.
Sergei Lankov is the world’s most reliable and sensible intellect when it comes to the Norks. Give him a listen here:
http://world.kbs.co.kr/english/news/news_focus.htm
It’s the second link down.
Wow, I just looked at that and realized how tired I was. Just ignore it except for the link.
No Steph I think what you posted in your first comment makes complete sense and you made some v good points. It’s not often I can say this, but I agree 100%!