In a related situation, what do you think of the news that Bush has said he'll promise no invasion of N Korea if no nukes?

This is clearly a tremendous setback for Bush, and a complete repudiation of his entire foreign policy. We just need to give Dean, Clark, and the rest of the chorus a few days to tell us why.

Chris:

It's one heck of a big "if"

Chris -- I'd be very happy with an agreement that says "no invasion if no nukes, invasion if nukes". But if it's "no invasion if no nukes (like Palestinian Authority if no terrorism)," then I'm not keen on it.

Our official position is nuke them if they have nukes.

Nobody should celebrate just yet. This is the same old trap -- the Euroweenies negotiate a meaningless agreement (note that Iran is "temporarily" suspending) to keep the U.S. from focusing international scrutiny on Iran, and in 6-9 months they resume the program.

The good news is that this Administration is much less likely than the last one to be rendered impotent by the dealings of the Euroweenies and Iranians.

Exactly right.

In this neck of the woods, it is always, always, smoke and mirrors, creative prevarication, and playing off all sides towards the middle.

Count on it.

E.g., Remember Pakistan's supposed interest in "exploring the possibility of" diplomatic ties with Israel (which caused all kinds of hot flashes several months ago)? Seems that what they really meant was something slightly different.....

Bush isn't going to invade NKo without more provocation than NKo having a few nukes.

Perhaps NKo will get caught selling one to a terror group.

Perhaps a NKo nuke will go off in the US. One can analyze the resultant debris to find out where the uranium was processed, so we'll quickly be able to point the finger. As well as other things.

The (relevant, I assume, perhaps wrongly) question remains, though: Why wait for it to happen?

Possible answers:
1. The problem may disappear of its own accord (Kim may die or see the light, etc).
2. Diplomacy is always the better option and the diplomatic option should be exhausted before taking military steps.
2. Seeking a military solution will only make things worse.
3. Seeking a military solution is morally indefensible.
4. Better to wait because, well, because....
5. Other?

It won't work because of the lack of power & conviction behind the words of the EU diplomats! Iran is playing along, but they will call the diplomatic bluff. The Saudis are convinced the Iranians will get a bomb and are negotiating with Pakistan to get one themselves. Thanks for the proliferation France & Germany! To expect countries who don't abide by the rule of law at home to follow the rules of international law is more than stupid -- it's f'ing dangerous! These are nuclear f'ing weapons we are talking about in the hands of people who loathe freedom, hate dogs, live in the 14th century and believe they've got 72 virgins awaiting them in the afterlife!

http://home.earthlink.net/~scofield99/2003_10_01_Archive#106685415069586974

Barry:

1 and 2a, definitely.
2b, it makes things worse for the South Koreans, unless they're already being attacked by NKo.
5, Unless Bush gains a Churchillian oratory ability to coincide with re-election, there is NO WAY that he'll be able to drum up domestic political support for a pre-emptive war against a nuclear nation, no matter how much strategic sense it might make. The US isn't Sparta.

The best bet is near total withdrawal of US troops from South Korea, accompanied by a no-mistake message to NKo that if they invade, they become part of a reunified Korea, under Southern rule. Get China to iterate.