"[W]hy is war a more unattractive option then either rewarding Korean intransigence or allowing it to build weapons with impunity?" Because another Korean war would certainly kill hundreds of thousands of South Koreans, whereas "rewarding [N.] Korean intransigence" through diplomacy probably won't.

If the prospect of war is sufficient to deter deterrence then what country won't build nukes?

Indeed.



I support war against Saddam, but if he could destroy Tel Aviv as thoroughly as the North Koreans could destroy Seoul, I might not be so supportive. For the kind of destruction visited upon Seoul would be almost as intense as what a terrorist could do with a nuclear bomb. Having one free city destroyed for sure just to prevent the mere possibility of a terrorist getting a nuclear bomb strikes me as a bad trade.

Peter - Your second post addresses the main point. The trouble is that while war with a nuclear Saddam would risk Tel Aviv, refraining from war would not save it. He would keep building nukes, and sooner or later he'd have one to spare for terrorists, who would smuggle it into Israel. After Iraq, Iran, Lybia, Pakistan, etc. all have nukes, it would be impossible to trace the source of the bomb. Israel would have to retaliate against the whole Muslim world, and would be destroyed.



The situation is similar re N. Korea, only here it is Seoul that's threatened by war, but refraining from war leads to millions of Americans dying after N. Kor. sells nukes to Middle East terror-sponsoring nations. The death toll is likely to be far higher if we wait. The right course is for us to use the threat of war to get South Korea and China to help disarm North Korea or cutoff the regime and try to topple it; if that doesn't work, we have to bomb their nuke facilities and anyplace Kim Jong Il is.



Orrin's point, that if we are to deter countries from getting nukes, possession of nukes has to be more
likely to trigger war, not less likely, is an important one as well.

PJ - I agree with you about the nature of the threat to Israel should many Arab nations acquire the Bomb - if a terrorist set off a nuke in Israel, Iraq or whoever might think that Israel would pin the blame on another country. (In fact it's my main reason for supporting war against Iraq.) But you make it sound as if the doomsday scenario is an inevitability, rather than an unlikely but frightening possibility. Arab governments certainly know that Israel might retaliate against all of them anyway, and would therefore be unlikely to give terrorists a bomb. So the probability is low.



But the threat from North Korea is the totally speculative theory that the North Koreans will set up shop as "Nukes 'R Us," even though they're trying to improve relations with S. Korea and America, even though they don't sponsor terrorism in the Middle East, even though no country has ever put nuclear bombs on the auction block. The threat is not great enough to warrant the certain destruction of Seoul.

I mispoke when I claimed that North Korea doesn't sponsor terrorism in the Middle East - the North Koreans may have sold a small number of weapons to Middle Eastern terrorist groups. But this is a far cry from massive sponsorship of terrorism.

Peter:



And they've helped Pakistan with its program--the weapons most likely to be used.

or is it vice versa?

Vice-versa is right. If I recall correctly, Pakistan gave North Korea assistance in technology for detonating an atomic bomb in exchange for some missile technology.

The last war in Korea cost 2 million lives,

give or take.



It is, in my view, not correct to think that

N. Korea can lay waste to Seoul, at least

not unless it has and can deliver an

atomic bomb.



The hysterical talk about the thousands

of artillery pieces is more "the bomber

will always get through" talk.



The number of shells that would actually be

delivered before the guns were silenced

would create an unpleasant but not a

devastating situation.

Peter - I think you are radically underestimating the probabilities. North Korea's only income is through arms sales (plus aid from appeasers). If we renounce war, the biggest threat to the regime is a coup prompted by widespread starvation and civil disobedience. To allay that threat, they will sell nukes. There is no indication from past behavior that they care about their own citizens dying; why would they care about Americans dying? If they think they have nukes to spare and can sell nukes without them being traced -- and as soon as Iran, Iraq, et al have nukes they will think that -- they will sell them.



Likewise with the Middle East. The odds of a nuke reaching Israel, particularly as distant Muslim nations like Pakistan that Israel cannot effectively retaliate against obtain nukes, is high.



Finally, I think you are missing another source of danger. As technology advances and nuclear materials spread, the capacity to make nuclear weapons will gradually come into the reach of wealthy individuals like Osama bin Laden ($300 mn and a base in Afghanistan). These individuals cannot be deterred. Moreover, the only way to rid the world of these terrorists is to create free, democratic societies that change the culture; and these societies must be built before the dictatorships are heavily armed with nukes. Regime change now is our best chance to avoid becoming vulnerable to private nukes in 50 years.

Lastly, one more doomsday scenario. If we let these regimes obtain nukes, over time they will be able to build thousands. They will then be able to smuggle thousands of nukes into the United States, and in the vicinity of our foreign military bases. It is not inconceivable that if we let the problem fester, the United States and the West could eventually be defeated in one night.



This may be another low probability scenario. But I don't see why we need to wait and see if it happens. These dictators have already killed millions (2 mn Kim Jong Il, 1 mn Saddam), and thereby given us just cause for war. If the death of hundreds of millions is a low probability, the death of a few more millions is a near certainty -- a mere continuation of the last ten years. Why shouldn't we save those lives and secure ourselves against the doomsday in the process?

I agree with your posts 100%, pj.