North Korea and Iraq
Yet again, in my history class, that is History of Vietnam, more information comes out pertinent to current events. In this case, it was discussed directly. I thought I'd pass this info onto my loyal readers.
So, why do we keep on moving towards war with Iraq on the grounds that they probably have weapons of mass destruction and might possibly build more, whereas we seek diplomatic solutions with North Korea who DO have nuclear weapons, plus a delivery system and ARE working on building more?
I won't continue the debate as to why we want Iraq (cough cough oil cough cough imperialcontrolofthearabpenninsula cough), but I'll look into the reason we don't attack North Korea, and it's summed in one word: "detterrence".
Not nuclear deterrence, that's what will prevent North Korea from sending a nuke to San Francisco, and we know they won't do that. But since the cease fire that ended the Korean War, North Korea has kept a large artillery just outside the demilitarized zone, and this artillery is within the range of Seoul, a city with a population of 14,000,000 people. We go to war, Seoul is destroyed. Whereas if we attack Iraq, the only US ally Iraq could possibly attack is Israel, and probably not very well. His weapons program now is probably not nearly as advanced as it was in 1991, and his attempts to attack Israel then were pretty fruitless.
So, right now, we can't conceivably attack North Korea, and Kim Jong Il realizes this, and oppurtunistically announces his nuclear plans now, when America, the only country that really has the power to stop him, is already a bit muddied diplomatically with it's attempt to unilaterally attack Iraq. Let's face it, North Korea having nukes creates an unnecessary difficulty, even if in the short term it does at least delay a war with Iraq. But Bush has never been the most able diplomat, and he and his administration is really to blame for allowing North Korea to jumpstart its weapons program. He announced that North Korea was part of an "axis of evil", hence hurting diplomatic relations with North and South Korea, and in his rampant drive for conquest and power, he has alienated the rest of the world, hence giving North Korea the diplomatic freedom to develop nuclear weapons. And North Korea as a nuclear power means we'll have to start listening to them.
Yet again, in my history class, that is History of Vietnam, more information comes out pertinent to current events. In this case, it was discussed directly. I thought I'd pass this info onto my loyal readers.
So, why do we keep on moving towards war with Iraq on the grounds that they probably have weapons of mass destruction and might possibly build more, whereas we seek diplomatic solutions with North Korea who DO have nuclear weapons, plus a delivery system and ARE working on building more?
I won't continue the debate as to why we want Iraq (cough cough oil cough cough imperialcontrolofthearabpenninsula cough), but I'll look into the reason we don't attack North Korea, and it's summed in one word: "detterrence".
Not nuclear deterrence, that's what will prevent North Korea from sending a nuke to San Francisco, and we know they won't do that. But since the cease fire that ended the Korean War, North Korea has kept a large artillery just outside the demilitarized zone, and this artillery is within the range of Seoul, a city with a population of 14,000,000 people. We go to war, Seoul is destroyed. Whereas if we attack Iraq, the only US ally Iraq could possibly attack is Israel, and probably not very well. His weapons program now is probably not nearly as advanced as it was in 1991, and his attempts to attack Israel then were pretty fruitless.
So, right now, we can't conceivably attack North Korea, and Kim Jong Il realizes this, and oppurtunistically announces his nuclear plans now, when America, the only country that really has the power to stop him, is already a bit muddied diplomatically with it's attempt to unilaterally attack Iraq. Let's face it, North Korea having nukes creates an unnecessary difficulty, even if in the short term it does at least delay a war with Iraq. But Bush has never been the most able diplomat, and he and his administration is really to blame for allowing North Korea to jumpstart its weapons program. He announced that North Korea was part of an "axis of evil", hence hurting diplomatic relations with North and South Korea, and in his rampant drive for conquest and power, he has alienated the rest of the world, hence giving North Korea the diplomatic freedom to develop nuclear weapons. And North Korea as a nuclear power means we'll have to start listening to them.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home