March 27, 2003

PRE-EMPT NOW:

Kim Jong-il Scarce, Conjectures Plentiful (Kim In-gu, 3/28/03, Chosun Ilbo)
The North Korean leader Kim Jong Il has not appeared in public for 43 days, observers said, triggering speculation that he putting his country in a war posture. Mr. Kim was absent from the Supreme People's Assembly meeting on Wednesday; his last public appearance was Feb. 12 at the Russian Embassy in Pyongyang. Experts on North Korea say Kim's withdrawal is deliberate and that North Korea has gone into a semibelligerent state since the outbreak of the Iraqi war. Sixty-one other top-level officials were absent from the assembly meeting.

One expert, Cho Myung-chul at the Korea Institute for International Economic Policy, who was a professor at Kim Il Sung University before defecting to the South, said that the 61 absentees would be commanding officers and that it seemed North Korea was in a state of war. Another North Korea expert said that North Koreans would take Kim's absence from the assembly meeting to mean that they are under an emergency situation.

Experts pointed to other signs that Pyongyang is getting unsteady: that excluded from the meeting were the cabinet minister's report and mention of this year's budget, and that the government is selling loans to the public for the first time in its existence. Also, Pyongyang hiked its military spending as a ratio of the budget by 0.5 percentage points this year, to 15.4 percent, and has told the public to increase its preparedness.


We are apparently prepared to destroy the N. Korean nuclear facitilities and missile installations, and should do so immediately, before it's too late. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 27, 2003 12:14 PM
Comments

Commentary in the Times of London today says the only clear winners, except Iraq, are regimes like N. Korea because there is no way the US has the money, resources and will to undertake another war.



That might be right, about the will anyway, but they had better be very sure they're right, because if they're not, the penalty will be extreme.



Hard to guess, though, how dictators calculate these things.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 27, 2003 2:21 PM

No money? Are they drunk.

Posted by: oj at March 27, 2003 3:03 PM

Well, I think the Times estimates the cost of the war at $2 trillion.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 27, 2003 4:57 PM

What do they think is the cost of non-war?

Posted by: Paul Jaminet at March 27, 2003 7:12 PM

$2 Trillion is one fifth of GDP and rather cheap for a war. WWII, if I recall correctly, cost about 150% of 1945's GDP.

Posted by: oj at March 27, 2003 7:49 PM

I should have put in the sarcasm alert.



I don't know how many $2T wars we could

afford, but the current one won't cost anywhere

near that.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 27, 2003 11:36 PM

If we use the WWII example we could afford 7.5 of them. And if the current war is really closer to $200 billion, well.... That's higher math to me.

Posted by: oj at March 28, 2003 12:12 PM
« MORE COMPLAINTS FROM EXTRA-NATIONAL AUTHORITIES (via Rantburg): | Main | STAR SEARCH (via John Resnick) »