.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Visit Freedom's Zone Donate To Project Valour

Sunday, July 09, 2006

North Korea, The Nuclear Midget

There's been a lot of talk about the threat of North Korean missiles, and I think Kag Report's editorial cartoon sums up the tactical situation.

I'm sure I'm betraying my troglodyte nature by writing this, but where's the threat, and why should we negotiate with nuclear midgets? It only encourages the drive to nuclear midgethood by various unsavory countries. As Howard of Oraculations writes:
When will we all face the fact that everybody can make an atomic bomb? Idiots can, and have, made them. The only question is when and for what purpose will they be used.
The democracies don't suddenly whack their neighbors with nukes. The threat is not nukes but countries hagridden with crazed dictators. With that in mind, I don't think the US should negotiate with North Korea. I think we should just announce that if Iran or North Korea nukes another country or threatens to nuke one as a way to force that country into anything, we will demonstrate the consequences of nuclear midgethood in no uncertain matter. The only reason that anyone could believe that North Korea is a threat to us is the unconscious assumption that we would not retaliate in kind. We should remove that assumption, and we should remove it from ourselves first.

The surrender monkey politicians now trotting around Washington would have lost WWII, and the consequences would not have been good for the world. To hell with regretting Hiroshima; the Japanese government was about to launch bioweapons attacks on the US and China. They tested them in China, btw, and on captured US servicemen, some of whom
they infected and then dissected alive to assess the physical effects. The Japanese regime of that era was an evil, racist entity that knew no moral boundaries whatsoever (understand Japan of that era, and you will never again deride the Judeo-Christian tradition), and it would never have surrendered as long as it believed that we would not annihilate it if we needed to. Shrinkwrapped's post on ending arguments is necessary reading in this context.

It is time that the US recovers the ability to look at evil and recognize it for what it truly is. The Japanese people did not deserve Hiroshima, but no moral law requires a country to kill a million of its own servicemen in order to preserve the lives of 100,000 powerless civilians of a nation engaged in amoral pursuit of raw power. If the US people could once again grasp that concept and summon up the grit to express it, 90% of the international BS would be over.

If Howard is correct about Iran being an oligarchy, and my guess and anything I can find says that he is, then the nutcases will be emasculated if we can only make ourselves clear about the consequences of exercising nuclear midgethood there. The "dangers" we face internationally are mostly self-inflicted. We are facing monsters shored up by our own refusal to make accurate moral judgements. How did this happen? Is Dr. Sanity right:
In case you wonder what kind of a perverse fantasy world such people live in--it is one where they are so aghast at their own rageful and violent nature that they refuse to acknowledge they even possess such feelings. This enables them to wrap themselves in moral virtue and project those unacceptable impulses onto convenient targets so that they can remain morally pure and untainted. They see themselves as the anti-war movement, but they are truly the repositories of an unconscious cesspool of violence and hatred that breaks through quite regularly in their speech and behavior.
In other politically incorrect news, a Kuwaiti newspaper pointed out that shooting rockets from Gaza into Israel after Israel pulled out is an absolute provocation and that Hamas deserved what it got in response. BDS sufferers everywhere expired in shock, the UN scheduled a continuous debate over Israel's evil for the next century, and somewhere, Karl Rove is smiling. Kuwait just held its first election in which women voted. Not surprisingly, nothing revolutionary happened. Women are not natural revolutionaries.

PS: I did not link to anything about Japan's doings, and that is because they were truly revolting and I wanted to avoid inflicting suffering upon the innocent. If anybody dares challenge me about those statements, I will support them, and anyone who dares to read the links will vomit their guts out. The information isn't hard to find.


Comments:
MOM:

"I think we should just announce that if Iran or North Korea nukes another country or threatens to nuke one as a way to force that country into anything, we will demonstrate the consequences of nuclear midgethood in no uncertain matter"

No...don't tell 'em a damned thing. Don't EVER show or hint at your hole card until it's time to claim the jackpot.

Announcing such a thing to the NK's is tantamount to negotiating with them, and you said you didn't think we should do that.

Remember what happenned in Viet Nam, where we unilaterally held the soil of North Viet Nam to be inviolate?

Let the bastids guess...let their own uncertainties hamper their projected courses of action.

That's what KJI is doing to us.

Lord,don't you play poker?

Working in a bank, I figured y'all would "have some fun" with the lucre from the vault...after hours and all.
Just for fun, replace it all after the game.

Regards;
 
Bilgeman, I don't work IN a bank except when I'm on site. But you have me rolling around laughing. No, banks don't play games with the money! Major violation, that. There's a concept called "dual control" that's very important.

Why are we negotiating with NK now? I think it's pointless. I think we should break off discussions totally.

Mind you, I feel sorrow for the people trapped in that hellhole of a country - but there's nothing we can do about their fate.
 
MOM, "I think we should just announce that if Iran or North Korea nukes another country or threatens to nuke one as a way to force that country into anything, we will demonstrate the consequences of nuclear midgethood in no uncertain matter."
Iran has threatened Israel and NK has threatened us. Are you suggesting that we make them glass right now? If not, why not?
 
They tested them in China, btw, and on captured US servicemen, some of whom they infected and then dissected alive to assess the physical effects.

My favorite satirical comment on Imperial Army Unit 731 was how "their choice of experimental subjects would have won them an award from PETA".
 
Such a policy can't be applied retroactively. I would let them know our position and explain that it will be applied in the future. After the outcry over their statements about Israel, they appear to be walking a fine line by making statements that can be interpreted equivocally. I would say that they have stepped over into making actual threats in the last two months , but I am sure others would disagree.

To me it's clear that Iran is working on nukes as a threat, and I think they should be called on it. I am not suggesting turning them into a parking lot, but I am suggesting that every action should draw an equal reaction. At the very minimum, Iran's threats to generate a nuclear disaster should draw a promise from us that we will respond in kind, and a statement that if we believe the threat they pose is genuine and serious, we reserve the right to act preemptively.

I don't think this is unethical. I think allowing countries like this to threaten their neighbors is unethical.

Looking at history, it's clear that the only way to save millions of lives was to have stopped Italy and Germany early on. By allowing the small countries to be isolated and attacked diplomatically and militarily, we allowed the preconditions of the WWII disaster to form.

I don't see why we should repeat that mistake again. Furthermore, the longer we dilly and dally around, the more these threats will work and the more countries will feel the need to obtain WMD of whatever description.

I'll ask you too. Why are we "negotiating" with either of these countries? What possible good can it do anyone? We are not going to attack anyone for having nukes. We may attack countries for being WMD-armed aggressors. Surely the best tactic is to say that explicitly, and demonstrate that we mean it?
 
Anon - The PETA people are still rooting these types on.
 
PS: Mike, I don't feel that Iran's threats can be regarded seriously at this time. It's as if I were to email you saying that I am going to strike you with my laser eyeballs because I don't like something you wrote in your blog. I don't think the FBI should be mobilized to respond to such a threat, and it would be downright unethical for them to surround my workplace and start firing. Consider the other people here, and the extremely minimal probability that my laser eyeballs are capable of doing any real damage....

The aim of our policies should be to preserve lives overall, and to minimize conflict instead of sparking it.

I am arguing that failing to state what is true - that if we have to, we will fight to DESTROY the enemy's destructive capacity using whatever means are necessary, and that attempting to attack other countries does make an aggressive nation our enemy, would introduce a needed note of seriousness into the international discussion.

I wish we could do something for the North Korean people now, but there's nothing we can do now. But we don't need to let the cancer of that regime spread. We have the means, and I think it's time that we be honest about the possibility of their use.
 
MOM, I agree with what you wrote here, however I just have one "nit" with what you said
"We are not going to attack anyone for having nukes."
If we make it clear from this day forward that if you nuke another country or threaten to nuke one, you will be taken out, no negotiations, that might work, BUT do we have any credibility?
 
MOM, you say that Iran's threats don't have credibility! Now you have injected subjectivism into the equation. If we stick with your policy "If we make it clear from this day forward that if you nuke another country or threaten to nuke one, you will be taken out, no negotiations" then we can be objective. It still comes down to our credibility!
 
MOM:

"No, banks don't play games with the money! Major violation, that. There's a concept called "dual control" that's very important."

Well dang!...where's the fun in that?

With all that cash layin' around, you could all play "Big Roller" one night, "Pirate Crew" the next.

Or, on special occasions, pile it on the floor, get naked, and roll around in the pile until the bills stick to your sweaty body.

What's that policy leave....handing out lollipops and free toasters?

Regards;
 
Communist regimes have traditionally had a hard time asking for help. IMO their mindset requires them to extort assistance from others so they can portray the assistance as a "concession" from the "enemy".
 
Purple Avenger,
That is precisely why they get no help, ever. No feeding the beast--that means no communication (legitimizes the regime), no help (used nefariously anyway) and no deals.
Mom,
My only problem, here, is that if we know they possess nukes, they errantly test them and then errantly blow Japan or Hawaii, say, off the map and we don't do something before hand, we're stupid. We know they have nukes. They already intimidate (NKorea through action, Iran through words). All that's left is who acts first and how to minimize the damage.
 
Dr. Melissa - I think you are making my point. One cannot sacrifice the Japanese in order to feel good about ourselves. Long term we won't feel good about ourselves anyway. It's futile. Moral relativism always vanishes in smoke when we contemplate piles of dead bodies.

Aside from the fact that the Japanese have the right to live, a due consideration for our own welfare should tell us that the feel-good strategy is dangerous.
 
Mike - good point about subjectivity. The only thing is that I'm not willing to say that **my** assessment of seriousness has any particular validity. I think this has to be an overall assessment. That is the point about democracy, after all. I think the relative success of trading predictions (like elections) of indeterminate outcomes show that blended judgements can be much more successful than individual ones.

But I agree that there should be objective standards, and that those objective standards should be publicized, and then we should act according to those objective standards. I just want to point out that even police have to deal with nutcases confessing to crimes they did not commit. At some point the matter becomes laughable and does not get taken seriously.
 
PS: I also think Dr. Melissa's "how best to minimize the damage" is the correct criterion.

After all, if I showed up at a police station announcing that I had stockpiled some sort of radioactive material at my house and that I was going to explode a dirty bomb unless someone stopped the neighbor's dogs from taking a dump on my lawn, I hope the police would stop laughing long enough to investigate.

Nutcases are frequently genuinely dangerous.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?