Testy NoKos

the US should defer to/follow the lead of Russia and China when it comes to dealing with NK, rather than attempt to provide "leadership" with regard to North Korea...

Joe: just a guess. I think the Sotomayor nomination was brought up today to temporarily overshadow the NoKos "incident".

[...] UPDATE #4: Joe Klein [...]

[...] Time's Joe Klein breaks down our options for dealing with North Korea after its nuclear explosion and concludes that most, if not all, of them are awful. “So let’s not kid ourselves: the military option is off the table, unless North Korea starts firing those missiles at someone. The sanctions option is also of limited utility because the Chinese are afraid that if North Korea is squeezed too hard, hundreds of thousands of refugees will stream across the border into their country. That leaves diplomacy–and seduction. There is a chance that if we make the North Koreans dependent on our food, fuel and consumer goods, we will have more leverage over them. But that is only a chance and the Kim family has shown a remarkable willing to allow its people to suffer and starve. There are no good options here–some are vaguely plausible and others are disastrous.” obama100 [...]

On the North Koreans want us to take the lead: why? The Chinese are reluctant, the Russians are hesitant, and the South Koreans may just have ratcheted up their response. I see no benefit to having the US take the lead; or why NoKo thinks they can get something out of that. Now Japan may pressure the US. In interviews given this a.m Amb Rice was saying all those terribly bland things diplomats say. But US leadership? I did not think she had that card in play.

"The sanctions option is also of limited utility because the Chinese are afraid that if North Korea is squeezed too hard, hundreds of thousands of refugees will stream across the border into their country."
.
Didn't the Chinese, um, create this problem?

"So let's not kid ourselves: the military option is off the table, unless North Korea starts firing those missiles at someone"
.
Substitute "Iran" for "NoKo" in the sentence above, and you'll have a statement that will pass neither a pundit nor politician's lips.

Just curious why we are so bent on erecting a "missile shield" in Europe when it seems more urgent to have one in place in this area of the world.

--John

"That leaves diplomacy--and seduction. There is a chance that if we make the North Koreans dependent on our food, fuel and consumer goods, we will have more leverage over them.
.
The other card in the hand is AD - Assured Destruction, which is the same card in our hand with Iran.
.
I think that at this point in the development of the world as a whole, the spread of nuclear technology is impossible to stop, really. The world cannot afford preemptive wars of the kind that would be necessary to stop either Iran or NK. For now, this leaves only AD as a deterrent to the use of these small nuclear arsenals that are coming online.
.
The entire world is going to have to tiptoe the tightrope between nuclear calamity on one side and region/world wide wars* on the other as the proliferation issue progresses. I can understand why Obama is so concerned about proliferation, but I think that even his mindset is old school in the sense that no one is prepared to go to war to stop it. And, truth be told, war is not really an option, thus AD.
.
This is a very reasonable approach, as military technology around the world is rapidly becoming more sophisticated, and wars are less likely to be containable than they were even 30 years ago. Even proxy wars in a nation developing these weapons can be risky, as the chaotic conditions would be a wide open opportunity for terrorist groups to indulge themselves in the nuclear spoils, if they are to be had.
.
Hopefully, diplomacy, containment, and AD will help to contain the aspirations of countries that have newly developed military nuclear technologies. At least, it can be said that India and Pakistan are good examples of how, despite saber-rattling, nuclear-armed nations face sobering choices themselves.

The North Koreans have been demanding bilateral talks for many years now, Bitterpill; the 6 party talks were actually considered a concession by the North Koreans to the international community as much as they were, as Joe said, an effort to lure a reluctant Bush administration into at least some form of diplomatic engagement.

Instead of serially hyper-ventilating about Iran and North Korea, it is about time to focus our attentions on the NPT, a flawed, discriminatory, inequitable treaty that looks more unworkable and unenforceable with every passing day.

[...] En el terreno diplomático, la ONU una vez más no pueda hacer nada para obligar al régimen a desarmarse, tan solo condenar sus acciones. Sin  embargo ahora  hay algo nuevo en los acontecimientos recientes y es el caso de China, su aliado natural, que ahora ha condenado las pruebas de misiles. El cambio aparentemente se debe a que si hay sancione... [...]

"There is a chance that if we make the North Koreans dependent on our food, fuel and consumer goods, we will have more leverage over them."

About a 1-in-10,000 chance.

In reality, we'll just further entrench our position as suckers to them as they can keep getting bolder and demanding with each successive weapons milestone they achieve.

If we shouldn't do anything until they start "firing those missiles at someone", then why not call their bluff and give them nothing? No food, oil, or anything? You're so convinced that this is just for show and part of some internal organizational realignment, then why call for dealing with them at all, Joe?

[...] Joe Klein and Steve Walt both have sober and rational takes on how to view the North Korean nuclear test, which has gotten a tad sensationalized in the media. Just a quick note on something Klein says here: 1. First, some perspective: the fact that North Korea has a bomb and missiles isn’t nearly as significant as the fact that it has plutonium it can sell to terrorists, who might actually use it. The plutonium should be the focus of our policy; the tests are just window-dressing. [...]

kbanginmotown,

Apples and oranges. Iran is some distance away from Israel, to the extent that the Israelis can run for bomb shelters (that they do have) and engage substantial measures to defend themselves.

With North Korea, the problem is that Seoul is within artillery range of the border. Given the amount of artillery massed on both sides, any conflict, without even considering nukes, could mean a loss of life in the hundreds of thousands or even millions within a few minutes, with little or no chance for the civilian population to seek shelters. Add in the threat to Japan that teh nukes present, and you can see that multiple nations could be substantially damaged in minutes.

The risks with Iran are somewhat different, though I think it would also be a very big mistake to start a conflict there.