« THE BIG RATES DEBATE! | Main | A TOUCHING EULOGY.. »

October 09, 2006

Comments

Peter

So it's all Clinton's fault! LOL!

Remind me, how long has BUSH been in charge? He abandoned Clinton's policy which had at least stopped NK producing a bomb. He replaced that policy with "axis of evil" rhetoric which NK ignored and resumed its bomb programme. Now we have a new nuclear power, perhaps the world's worst regime with its finger on the trigger.

Well done Dubya and Cheney, another foreign policy triumph! But hey, blame it on Billy boy and just hope no-one will notice that you've been in charge for the last six years.

Hugh Green

It is clear that there can be only one response to the North Korean nuclear question: bombing Iran.

David Vance

"Clinton tried several failed policies to appease North Korea.

First, by using Jimmy Carter, he attempted to bribe North Korea into halting its nuclear weapons programs.

Carter, Clinton's personal emissary, met with Kim and came back waving a paper, declaring peace in our time. Despite winning the Nobel Peace Prize, the one-term president held confused and hopeless negotiations with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK, or North Korea) that resulted in a total failure.

At one point Carter declared that North Korea had no nuclear weapons and then, a few months later, he declared that North Korea would give up its nuclear weapons if the U.S. disarmed itself.

When it became apparent that the Carter peanut plan had failed, Clinton resorted to his old forte – lying to the nation. Clinton tried to ignore the North Korean threat, declaring that the tiny nation did not have long-range missiles and could not develop atomic weapons.

Clinton also had others lie to support his false assertions. In 1998, Clinton twisted arms inside the intelligence community. The result was a politically motivated and thoroughly untrue CIA report that the DPRK would not be able to deploy a missile capable of striking the U.S. for over a decade.

The CIA report supplied in 1998 by the Clinton administration estimated that North Korea would require 10-15 years to develop a missile capable of delivering a chemical, biological or nuclear warhead.

The Clinton policy toward North Korea came apart when his Pentagon chief of staff declared in the summer of 1998 that there was no indication of a missile threat from the DPRK. One week later North Korea launched a Tae Po Dong missile over Japan that landed off the Alaska coast.

Of course, Clinton was not just lying to America. He also lied to our Asian allies. The CIA had satellite data showing the Tae Po Dong being prepared for launch but elected not to pass that data onto Japan or South Korea.

By any standard, Clinton policy has been a disaster. But I'm not sure that the Bush administration has been much better. That's why I made the comment about CONDI.

I see North Korea as a regional menace, but what if Al Que'da decided to go shopping there..?

Allan@Aberdeen

I don't see wh the US has to assume responsibility for the NK bomb indeed, if the US had attempted to prevent the NK's getting their bomb, China and Russia would have had to acquiesce, and they won't even assist with Iran. On the other hand, Iran is much more exposed geographically and militarily whereas NK can be effectively blockaded, and will have to be.

Peter

Bush made empty threats to NK. NK responded to the empty threats by going full steam for a bomb. The moral is don't threaten if you can't deliver, or as the Chinese would say "speak softly, but carry a big stick".

I agree with Allan. At least China will take notice this time. They obviously don't mind Iran having the bomb, so long as the mullahs don't turn off the oil tap.

But this is a very dangerous time. The people of South Korea's worst nightmare.

David Vance

Peter,

Agreed.

Ross

"He abandoned Clinton's policy which had at least stopped NK producing a bomb"

I don't intend to defend Bush's policy on North Korea which has been ineffective, but the idea that Clinton's policy achieved anything is absurd. Clinton signed various deals with NK which involved the USA giving them lots of money and a nuclear reactor and in return North Korea would.... well do exactly as it had done before only more surreptitiously. I cannot see any evidence that Clinton's policies even slowed down North Korea's development of nuclear weapons let alone stopped it.

daytripper

Well done Dubya and Cheney, another foreign policy triumph! But hey, blame it on Billy boy and just hope no-one will notice that you've been in charge for the last six years.

they have completly run out of ideas, and that is why they are now resorting to blame clinton for everything. including 911.

It is clear that there can be only one response to the North Korean nuclear question: bombing Iran.

lol

I don't intend to defend Bush's policy on North Korea which has been ineffective

good, because there is little or nothing to defend other than pious finger wagging. which i think the bush team have finally realised that nation states ignore.

---------------------------------

bottom line, not much use blaming anyone bar N Korea.

Peter

NK stoppoed producing plutonium in 1995. It resumed in 2003.

Clinton bribed it to stop. Bush ended the bribes in 2001 and NK went ahead with plutonium production again in 2003, with the result that it now has a bomb. Well done Bush!

The Phantom

http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/life/quotes.htm

Speak softly but carry a big stick

Made famous by Theodore Roosevelt, and which he attributed to West Africa

Not bad advice for all kinds of situations

Ross

It's a very small nuke the North Koreans have tested. The equivalent of 550 tonnes of TNT is the figure being bandied about which makes me wonder how anyone can be sure it was actually a nuclear weapon that was detonated.

The two planes that hit the World Trade Center had enough aircraft fuel on board to produce an explosion equivalent to 600 tonnes of TNT, so why not just blow the equivalent amount of aircraft fuel to produce a similar seismic effect?

Cunningham


>>So why not just blow the equivalent amount of aircraft fuel..<<

Ross, because the intention was symbolic and salutary, not to destroy something. With a nuke you are now in the game where the big guys play

(would it not be great if this turns out to be a huge flop and their nuke fizzled out like a damp squib in some hole somewhere)

Interesting comment of yours. Where did you get the info re. the fuel on the 9-11 planes?

Ross

Cunningham, I found the information here- http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/Physics10/old%20physics%2010/chapters%20(old)/chapters2003/Appendix-Sept.11.htm

The comments to this entry are closed.