What's your solution to N. Korean nukes?

[Deep13]

I'm talking about the prospect of N. Korea with functioning nuclear weapons.

[FSogol]

1. OTHER: Wait until the Democratic Party is back in power and

start diplomacy. Just know, like how Bill Clinton did.

[Deep13]

2. So who thinks nuclear nonproliferation is a bad idea?

I tend to think that the fewer nations have have these goddamn things the better. N.Korea seems to have no problem selling nuclear technology to terrorists.

[endarkenment]

5. Which terrorists has North Korea sold nuclear tech to?

Please provide the credible links for that assertion.

Were you referring to A.Q. Khan perhaps? Our good buddies the Pakistanis were the most egregious exporters of nuclear weapons technology. None of it went to terrorists though.

[Deep13]

6. I'm demurring on that.

At the office. Don't have time for real research. Internet links are not proof anyway.

[endarkenment]

7. Hmmmm....

Ok fine.

Try this fact out: we are an egregious NPT violator. The Bush administration's actions restarting weapons development programs are in direct violation of NPT requirements that the nuclear nations move towards complete nuclear disarmament.

"Chapter I. Disarmament Obligations and the NPT
As parties to the NPT, all NATO states have agreed to undertake a process toward nuclear disarmament, as set forth in NPT Article VI. Although the provision was traditionally viewed as vague and aspirational, beginning in 1995, Article VI has been interpreted as a clear undertaking to nuclear disarmament -- as the International Court of Justice held -- "in all its aspects." At the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference, and the 2000 NPT Review Conference, states parties agreed to undertake specific and measurable steps to mark progress toward that goal. One key element to achieve disarmament that was emphasized in these declarations was the entry into force of a nuclear test ban."
http://www.ieer.org/reports/nato/ch1.html

What has received no attention is that the United States is also undermining the NPT by ignoring recent political commitments made to implement the treaty’s disarmament obligation. The underlying legal obligation is Article VI, requiring NPT member states to "pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

The legal obligation has been specified by political commitments made in 1995 and 2000, among other things, to achieve a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, to commence negotiations on a fissile materials treaty, to adhere to the ABM Treaty, to engage in verified and irreversible reductions of nuclear arsenals leading to their elimination, to reduce the operational status of nuclear weapons systems, and to diminish the role of nuclear weapons in security policies. Also important are assurances provided by NPT nuclear weapons states of non-use of nuclear arms against non-nuclear weapon state parties to the NPT. The 1995 U.S. declaration provides:

The United States reaffirms that it will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states parties to the except in the case of an invasion or any other attack on the United States, its territories, its armed forces or other troops, its allies, or on a state toward which it has a security commitment carried out or sustained by such a non-nuclear-weapon State in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon State.

While the assurances are not part of the treaty itself, they are viewed by non-nuclear weapon states as part of the NPT bargain, and arguably have become legally binding, especially in connection with the reaffirmation when the treaty was indefinitely extended in 1995.

http://www.lcnp.org/disarmament/npt/NKpanelbriefing.htm

[Deep13]

9. "we are an egregious NPT violator..."

True. That fact weakens our credibility at the negotiating table. We should do better and move away from nut-job my-missle-is-bigger-than-yours policies to nuclear disarmament. Hmmm. What hippie wacko proposed that idea? Oh yeah, Ronald Reagan.

Nevertheless, the fact that we are wrong does not make a nuclear N.Korea any safer.

[wyldwolf]

3. covertly stir up something between them and China and let China..

..take them on...?... or...

Work with neighboring countries in designing a fairer and more effective global nonproliferation system.

The Senate, for example, should insist on boosting spending on the Cooperative Threat Reduction programs aimed at securing Russia's loose nuclear materials. It should also press the Bush administration to push for overdue NPT reforms, including stronger inspections, tighter control of nuclear know-how, and a closer watch on the activities of nuclear-trained scientists and engineers worldwide.

[rucky]

4. shoot down the test missile?

and defend ourselves against any overt aggression (saber-rattling doesn't count).

:shrug:

[Freddie Stubbs]

8. WWWMD?

http://www.thehollywoodliberal.com/

[Lydia Leftcoast]

10. I was talking with Art_from_Ark during my recent visit to Japan,

and we both think that the North Korean "threat" is overblown.

This is a country that can't even feed itself, and all the films I've seen of it look like very old pictures of China.

Bush stirred up that hornets' nest by naming the NK's as part of the "axis of evil" along with Iraq and Iran.

Hmm, he invades Iraq, and now Iran and North Korea are developing nukes. Not a coincidence.

(My personal suggestion for what to do if North Korea invades South Korea: Set up mess tents along the border offering the finest Korean cuisine has to offer--which is mighty fine, in my experience. Let the smell of those luscious roasts and soups spread over the battlefield. Drop leaflets and make loudspeaker announcements to those underfed 18- to 21-year-olds telling them that anyone who surrenders gets fed well. After a few days of fine food, take them on a bus tour of Seoul, including the well-stocked supermarkets and department stores. Have them watch some TV programs in which politicians argue with one another. Then ask them if they still want to fight.)