» posted on Sunday, October 22nd, 2006 at 9:41 pm by Andy D
Nuclear Accountability
In an effort to expand the discussion on this thread regarding North Korea, I wanted to discuss the theory of “Nuclear Accountability”. I hadn’t heard about this until I came across an article in the Washington Post. In his article, “We Need a New Deterrent”, David Ignatius describes nuclear accountability as the logical replacement of our current non-proliferation position.
Using this policy, if a dirty bomb of some sort goes off on our soil, the United States would test the area to find where the original nuclear material came from. Once the source was determined, the United States would respond against the original country with “…devastating force.” For example, North Korea gives material to Iran, and Iran gives this same material to Hezbollah to use in a strike against America. A dirty bomb explodes in New York. We test the area and find a nuclear signature of some sort pointing at North Korea. The United States would launch a retaliatory strike against North Korea as if North Korea had launched a nuclear missile against the United States.
I believe this is a good policy, if it is used within the frame work of other policies. Our foreign policy towards developing “nuclear nations” must start with and attempt to spread democracy and work towards nuclear non-proliferation. I am not a big fan of bribes from the United Nations, but we should be at the negotiation table, or have parties that we feel can negotiate successfully with that nation. We should structure any foreign aid to the developing nuclear nation so that our aid is dependent on measurable progress towards democracy. Democracies don’t make war with other democracies.
Should this fail, as it appears to have with North Korea, we should continue to push these ideas, but remind the world of our new nuclear accountability program. In order to keep Iran from joining the nuclear group next, both the United States and the United Nations need to have policies that have teeth against any state that thumbs their nose at the US or UN. Perhaps a clear accountability program, that the United States is willing to follow, is what is really needed to make Iran and North Korea rethink their current nuclear ambitions.
filed under China · North Korea | 17 comments
Gerrit said:
Jan 09, 12 at 10:50 amI think the ideas behind this post are not realistic, and more important: not exactly toleratable by the international community (I stumbled upon this and related posts about China dating from Nov 2006 as I do a lot of research on the issues of North Korea and China)
Let me first make clear I do NOT sympathise with North Korean regime, because I refuse to acknowledge it as socialist. It is a cruel totalitarian cult of personality trying to use a more friendly moniker to hide its real face. However, the 24 million citizens cannot help they are stuck with this regime.
There are basically two parts of the post I see problems in:
1) the US should not be at the Korean peninsula in the first place. The Pacific Ocean is in between and that’s a long distance. The US is not in the position to police the world, and should stay out of areas such as Asia and the Middle East, just like China should stay out of America. If the West would not be there, which is considered a provocation (and I cannot blame them when it comes to this single point), their attitude would be less aggressive. Also, keep in mind that they have so far not used any nuclear bombs, unlike the US itself, and that attacking North Korea (one of the largest standing armies in the world, so quite powerful) will also get China and maybe Russia (two other huge standing armies) involved. In other words, this could lead to a World War III and should be avoided at all times.
2) “spreading democracy” is not the task of the US. It is about time the West begins to clean their own pavement first (this includes Europe too) rather than thinking it somehow has the right to tell other nations how to govern themselves. No country should tell another country to just change when that country is not asking for an opinion. And for the record, not everyone in the west supports democracy. Personally, I support involvement of the people for sure, but I do not support the current form of democracy we have in most western nations. And I find it very offensive some countries (here I point not only to the US but also to several EU nations) think they should just enforce their own ways on other countries.
pack04 said:
Jan 12, 12 at 1:08 amI have problem with your point number 1 Gerrit because it is not factual.
Following WWII Korea was divided at the 38th parallel and the North going to the USSR and the South to the Americans. Much like East and West Germany.
The tensions with that grew until 1950 when NORTH KOREA INVADED South Korea. American presence has continued since that point to assist South Korea and its Presidential Republic from being invaded by the worlds 4th largest Army. Since the armistice in 1953 there have been several acts of aggression by NORTH KOREA.
Should the US push South Korea to develop their Army to the point that they can protect themselves? Sure, bring the troops home.
North Korea wants to prove that they are big and bad and that has nothing to do with the Americans being there or not. When we leave how soon will it take for the South Koreans to fall under the “cruel totalitarian cult of personality?”
Additionally, the US is not to police the world. Funny I seem to remember people from around the world begging the US to get involved in Lybia, they beg for us to do something about Sudan.
What do you want?
Gerrit said:
Jan 13, 12 at 12:50 pmThe Korean War ended with a ceasefire in mid-1950s. Since then I indeed think it’s up to North Korea and South Korea to move on without the presence of other nations. Why is North Korea asking for the constant help of China? You can hardly blame China for offering that help when South Korea has the constant backing of foreign forces. Ideally there would be a peace treaty rather than a rather fragile ceasefire. However, it is and remains an issue between both Korea’s. The US should not be there, full stop. Just my opinion.
Also, don’t forget North Korea has developped the 4th largest standing army in the world (plus a very large reserve making them perhaps the largest army overall) because they have been under constant threat. The Cold War is ongoing on the peninsula and not only there is negotiations ongoing with the South in a rather difficult decor, the US is constantly lurking there as well. Knowing before the Korean divide Japan was occupying the peninsula, I can somewhat understand the desire to protect the own borders with an extremely large army. By this I don’t sympathise or approve the Kim dynasty and I do think Juche is amongst the forms of communism that cannot work (unless maybe in a nation very rich of natural resources, which North Korea isn’t) but the presence of US military there is still not justified IMO.
The invasion of Libya IMO was, like Iraq, totally unjustified. Why did the West want Khaddafi out of the way? Shortly before Obama, Sarkozy and Blair all met Khaddafi and seemed to get along very well. The pictures don’t lie. But then Khaddafi kept the oil richness inside the own borders, by nationalising the banks and keeping the money inside Libya for the Libyans only. Which the West, hungry for oil, doesn’t like. Why else is it constantly closing its eyes on the most cruel regime in the world (Saudi Arabia) while invading other nations that have oil? Because Saudi is willing to give their oil away without much hassle, Libya wasn’t, so Khaddafi had to get out of the way. The regime likely to take command over Libya now is likely to be quite harsh in its legal system, but more flexibly with exporting oil. The Western approval of the cruel Saudi regime proves that the West prefers oil over ethics.
If the US is not wanting blood on the hands, it isn’t that hard to say “no” when someone asks for military interaction. I am not a Ron Paul fan, but I do support his idea of keeping all US military staff inside the own borders. Internal conflicts are what they are: internal. If there’s tensions between several areas of a nation but no other nation is threatened by it, no other nation should get involved. Not the US, not the EU nations, nobody. Internal affairs are internal affairs.
Also,
Gerrit said:
Jan 13, 12 at 12:59 pmPS: without backing the North Korean regime (which indeed is a false communism and in reality a cruel cult of personality enforced through indoctrination) , aggressive acts or provocative acts have come from both sides of the 38th parallel. Sure, the North has played its part recently with an attack on a South Korean island, but this was followed by a large number of Southern military trainings extremely close to the DMZ which obviously comes across provocative. There is also the often hidden Korean Wall built by the South, discovered in a documentary and only visable from the North. A well hidden but now discovered secret, and clearly an act from the South. Propaganda slogans in the hills surrounding the DMZ are visable on both sides of the border.
Again, I absolutely dislike the Northern regime, but to say they’re the bad guys and South Korea’s been the poor victim that never did anything wrong, would also be a bit too simplistic. Approaches between both nations have also been ongoing for a while until Bush Jr named North Korea amongst the nonsensical “Axis of Evil” (since then they’ve been removed from that list, but to create this list in the first place has hindered further negotiations between North and South right at a time when some positive tendency was occuring in careful approach between both nations)
In the end a conflict from 50 years ago between two tiny nations has escallated into a conflict which now involves the US (directly) and China (the moment North Korea would be attacked) — two giants interfering in a conflict which doesn’t even directly involve neither China nor the US.
Andy D said:
Jan 15, 12 at 7:37 amI think to some degree this discussion has gotten a little off post. You have argued that the United States shouldn’t be in the Korean peninsula. I and Pack disagree with you. However, I want to go back to my original post and your first comment too that.
In my original post, I was not arguing for boots on the ground invasions of countries to keep them from having nuclear weapons. I was arguing for a policy that would tell the world that if we were attacked by a nuclear weapon, we would respond with overwhelming force against the nation that supplied that nuclear material. I don’t see how you could possibly object to that. This policy can be implemented without sending US troops abroad. That seems to be something that you favor.
Secondly, I was arguing that we should try to spread democracy throughout the world. Once again, this ins’t a call for military action. The US could spread democracy through foreign aid only. If a nation needs foreign aid from us, we would send them money with strings attached. If they don’t like the strings, don’t accept the money.
To me, this seems like the solution that you would most prefer. We aren’t using the military anywhere in the world, would be operating through the intentional community, and would accept other nuclear powers. Forgetting your issues with our history in South Korea, what issues do you have with these two policies?
Gerrit said:
Jan 16, 12 at 5:06 amI may have misinterpretated your post on the matter of reacting with a strong force to the country supplying nuclear weapons to a nation using them. You probably want to say that this is not necessarily by attacking the nation but by enforcing economical sanctions on it etc?
That would indeed already sound a lot better. If I misunderstood your post, then my apologies. (although we can still add a PS: if China provides North Korea with nuclear weapons and the US helps South Korea in arming them — then aren’t both China and the US making the same “mistake” and if we then continue your theory, both should act with sanctions and embargoes against each other? So far China has kept ties with both Koreas and seems to want to avoid a war at all cost, so I would not say China should be considered responsible if an allied nation drops a bomb — because it doesn’t seem like China is encouraging North Korea to do that. In the end China has ties with both Korean nations and thus has most benefit of a status quo of the current situation and ceasefire)
As for the spreading democracy: if it isn’t through military intervention but through spreading aid in return for … Then fine.
I only want to point out that not every nation or person is in favor of democracy and that nations should respect that other countries may prefer a different way of ruling. Even within democratic nations, electoral systems and functioning of government varies: the US, the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, … all have a different implementation of a system that can be considered democratic. So different forms of government exist even within nations that are all considered democratic. Some nations have another form of government that some would not consider democratic. As long as that nation is not hindering or harming any other country, we should respect their choice of governance. I personally am not a fan of the current forms of democracy applied in the Western World neither. Democracy exists in many formats and variants, and the one used in most western nations right now isn’t one I reallly favour. All I’m saying is that nations should respect that there are differences in how other countries wish to govern themselves, rather than trying to enforce their own system on other countries.
pack04 said:
Jan 21, 12 at 12:16 amwell if nothing else Gerrit and I certainly do prove that there is more than one way to skin a cat.
He says that the 4th largest Army in the world is needed for defensive purposes. I say the 4th largest Army in the world for the 98th/51st (area/population) largest country in the world is an aggressive stance.
He says nobody asked for America to help in Libya and that we invaded just for the oil. I say we did get asked, as part of the UN, to enforce a no fly zone. No troops on the ground means no invasion and our oil imports from Libya have increased to provide 0.007% of our daily consumption.
I agree oil could be on reason for intervention into other countries affairs but I do not agree it is the only one.
Also, that whole not getting involved in other countries affairs by telling them what to do really worked out well for Neville Chamberlain.
As for the reason for the post, I am not sure where I fall on the points, I see and understand both Gerrit and Andy’s point. I think a certain amount of deplomacy is always needed. However, when it comes to nuclear weapons, some fear is good. People need to be scared to use them. but not so scared that the feel back into a corner and feel they have to use them.
Threatening the giving country seems wrong considering I am sure the US sells their stuff to others. However, ignoring the potential of a country using one because we don’t want to expand the consequences seems very Sesame Streetish.
Gerrit said:
Jan 23, 12 at 5:48 amYou are right on the last paragraph in general. But we now talk about North Korea and China, two of the 5 largest armies in the world. China has so far kept ties with both North and South Korea and thus is of crucial importance for negotiations between the two, and for keeping stability on the Korean peninsula. We should IMO not risk China to feel forced to choose a side, because we know it will be North Korea if they have to choose. However, right now, China doesn’t need to choose. They can be of crucial importance in negotiations due to the fact that they are amongst the only ones who have strong ties with both Korea’s. Why risk to jeopardize that?
Add to that that, given the size of their armies, North Korea and China combined in a military conflict could escalate into a world war. And even while I’m very far on the left myself, I would not really like to see this happen (I don’t consider China nor North Korea to be proper socialist states, that said and just my opinion). Peace is always better than yet another armed conflict, so for the sake of that we should find a diplomatic way out. North Korea and China are too powerful to toy with, however North Korea is forced into diplomatic talks due to its need for humanitary aid, and so far China has chosen to retain ties with both Korea’s and stay a lot more neutral than many people fear. I think this is no ideal situation but probably the best one available at the moment.
As for punishing the nation providing arms: if we continue thinking that way, the US should be attacked by all enemies of Israel, by all enemies of Japan and South Korea, … Do we want that? Of course not. But then we have to be consequent. China has so far tried to maintain stability on the Korean peninsula instead of encouraging a North Korean attack. Just like the US should not be considered responsible for an Israeli strike, China would not be the ones to be punished should North Korea one day drop a bomb.
Ideally, neither Israel nor North Korea will use their arms. Obviously, the less violence and war, the better. Because war always means innocent victims. However, the US is not in the position to say weapon suppliers are responsible ; the US exports weapons probably more than any other nation. In the end, if you buy a knife in a store, is the shopkeeper responsible for an insane customer who uses the knife for the wrong purposes? The only one responsible for an act of violence is the person or country that executes the attack. And I’m sure China is not waiting for a strike neither, otherwise why would they keep diplomatic ties with both Korea’s? On the contrary, I think China’s position can be vital as a third party knowing the area and trying to seek a diplomatic solution for the Korean conflict.
Andy D said:
Jan 24, 12 at 4:41 amI think holding the nuclear weapons supplier responsible is the perfect reaction to a nuclear attack. While we don’t want a war with North Korea or China, if either nation where to start one, we need to respond. If there was a nuclear attack on the US by Korea, with the aid of China, how else could we respond? We can’t walk away from something like that.
Pack04 said:
Jan 24, 12 at 9:59 amYou bring up an interesting point about not holding a shop keeper responsible if somebody uses a knife he sold in a bad manner. However, here in the US bar owners can be held responsible for over serving a customer. Gun shop owners are required to run a background check and have a wait period for selling certain weapons. Michael Moore blamed Columbine on Wal-Mart because they sell bullets.
Do you think that the US does not also work to keep the peninsula stable? I seem to think they do.
It seems like every now and then, my guess is when Kim Jong Il wanted another party, he would stir up some stuff. We would run over there, have a discussion and walk away giving them millions of more dollars to keep thing stable.
This statement just makes me laugh: North Korea is forced into diplomatic talks due to its need for humanitary aid.
Because they are so awful at providing for their own country they are forced to be nice and talk with people. Haha. You seem to be okay with this but that goes against your hope and dream for the US to stay out of other countries business.
Those armies are big and strong for sure. We don’t want to provoke them so much that they try to take over the world, that is for sure. However, you can’t just run away from them either because then there is nobody there to hold them from trying to take over the world. 70ish years ago England tried to place nice, backed off and let Hitler do his thing. That did not work out so well for the innocent. Nobody stopped Japan from their expansion. That turned out to be one of the worst things for Chinese in the history of the world, much worse than anything the US ever did with slavery being a close second.
Do I really expect the US to attack a country for providing material for others to attack us with. No that thought never crossed my mind. Now that it did, I say maybe they will. That changes the game a little without having to have a larger army or putting boots on the ground. This is why football teams do not have open to the public practice and they use signals or secure radios to call in plays. They don’t want the other team to know what is coming next. However, throughout the season and career coaches do things a little odd just to get an edge. For example ever since Super Bowl 44 and the start of the 3rd quarter onside kick, teams that play the Saints have to be ready for a onside kick at all times.
Gerrit said:
Jan 25, 12 at 4:23 amIf I put aside my opinion that the US shouldn’t be in Korea …
The supplier has nothing to do with a war unless they supply with the instruction to start a war. If we otherwise apply your way of thinking, then the US should have been attacked numerous times as it’s one of the largest weapon exporters in the world. But was it America who asked the nations it sold weapons to to use them? In the end, if I run a store selling forks, spoons, knives, etc and one customer decides to use the knife for a criminal offense rather than for cooking… am I responsible? If someone buys a Toyoto car and causes a deadly accident, is Toyota responsible?
If we consider suppliers of weapons responsible, then the US would be under attack from plenty of nations. Luckily this isn’t the case. We don’t want America to be attacked, obviously not. But it’s not in the position to criticise other nations that sell weapons. The US, being one of the largest weapon exporters globally, is not in the position to tell China to not sell weapons. In the end China is not asking North Korea to use them unless it’s for self defense. Given their diplomatic ties with both North and South Korea, China probably would be outraged with North Korea if they would start a war by themselves. For China, a status quo of the current situation and maintaining ties with both Korean nations is the ideal situation. So blaming China if North Korea would strike would not make sense. I’m sure China would be as upset with it as the rest of the world would be, and that China dislikes the idea as much as the rest of the world.
Andy D said:
Jan 25, 12 at 5:30 amThere is a massive difference between supplying a gun, a rocket, or an airplane as opposed to supplying the material to make a nuclear bomb. I think the difference needs to have a different level of response.
Gerrit, it sounds like you are ok with any nation in the world having nuclear weapons. I don’ t think that is a very realistic attitude. There are some nations that would happily use a nuclear weapon and I feel the United States and other nations need to do whatever they can to prevent those nations from getting nuclear weapons. Those nations aren’t interested in being part of the world community. They are only interested in advancing the interests of the small group of people running the country.
The policy of responding to a supplier nation is probably not one the US is going to adopt. However, if the US is ever attacked with a nuclear weapon, there’s no telling how we might respond. My solution allows for diplomats to attempt to do their work, while also giving nations that have nuclear weapons something to think about when they talk to a North Korea or an Iran.
Andy D said:
Jan 25, 12 at 5:32 amPack,
I think your Super Bowl example is the perfect example of keeping another nation on their tip toes. You just never know what might happen in the 3rd quarter.
Gerrit said:
Jan 25, 12 at 7:52 pmActually, as a pacifist, I am against nuclear weapons alltogether. I think no nation on earth should have them. And for sure no nation on earth should use them. Of course, the nuance is: imagine Israel has a nuclear bomb (I don’t know if they have, just an example) then Iran is allowed the same I’d say because how else are they supposed to defend themselves and who is to say which country is allowed nuclear weapons and which isn’t? By the way, vice versa the same: if it’s Iran building a nuclear bomb, then Israel is in its right to defend itself. That said I hope it won’t come to the situation that any country will use it, thus no other country will need to react in self-defense in a similar way. Ideally, nuclear weapons won’t be used by any country and all nations that build them will dismantle through diplomatic ways. I definitely oppose nuclear weapons, no nation on earth should have or use them IMO. But if one nation has them, then they’re not in the position to tell another nation they can’t. I think UN plays a massive role here. It’s far from perfect, but it’s the closest we have to a global negotiation room. With the right negotiations and compromises, we hopefully will see a world without nuclear weapons soon.
War has become complex. I remember stories of the first world war, when it was just about hiding in the mud and shooting or throwing granades. Now we have chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, people willing to blom themselves up … Every person in a paranoid theoretical way can be a walking bomb. I guess you’re better off not to think about it, but the world today is a dangerous place until people and governments will learn to unite (and accept their differences). In the end, if a war happens, all wars have one very sad fact in common: the victims are innocent people. War should be avoided at all cost.
Andy D said:
Jan 26, 12 at 8:15 pmWar should be avoided at all cost. It is “all Hell” as Sherman is quoted as saying. However, sometimes it can’t be avoided. Sometimes, avoiding war means allowing your neighbors and family, or someone else’s neighbors and family, to be killed or enslaved. In some cases, sitting by and doing nothing is a greater evil than killing someone bent on destroying others.
Pack04 said:
Jan 30, 12 at 11:14 amThe First World War had chemical weapons, mustard gas.
Nuclear weapons cannot just go away. It is knowledge, you cannot unlearn it.
Are most leaders in this world interested in using nuclear weapons? I think most are not. However, there could be some that are. What would stop them from using them? Begging in the UN? It is a place to start. Punishing them with sanctions? Possible. Assuring their demise if the weapons are used? Possible.
Gerrit said:
Feb 03, 12 at 6:40 amWhile possible in theory, the latter option is unacceptable IMO. As a pacifist, I can still understand war is sometimes inevittable as self defense. However, wiping a nation off the map is not just self-defense but revenge and genocide.
That said, I do think no nation should have nuclear weapons, and for sure not use them. The UN plays an important role because it is neutral, every nation willing to join can join. No nation should feel biased against because it is not one country dictating another, it is an assembly of all nations in the world. They are not perfect, but it’s the closest we have to a global referee. And the task of a referee is to try to assure fair play. Which means in this case: abstaining from war and from nuclear weapons, and using diplomatic ways instead.