Kim Shoots Wad

by Charles

Of missiles, that is.  Earlier today, the pint-sized, pot-bellied dictator initiated the successful launching of six medium-range Nodong* missiles and a failed launch of a seventh long-range missile, the Washington Post reported.  Our own response was predictable.  The response that really matters, which is from the communist Chinese, was muted.  Let's face it.  China is the only nation that can truly influence Kim Jong Il. 

No word from the Post on the cost of the missiles and their firing, funds which he could have used to feed his own people.  Seems to me like our best policy toward North Korea is regime change.  By all means, let's have six-way talks, but there's no assurance Kim will even show up, let alone get to a trust-but-verify agreement if he does appear.

* An apt description of his own personal apparatus, perhaps?

Update:  Strategy Page remarks on the North Korean economy and explains why China has halted shipments of food and fuel.  The reason?  The North Koreans refuse to return Chinese trains:

For example, food and fuel supplies sent to North Korea have been halted, not to force North Korea to stop missile tests or participate in peace talks, but to return the Chinese trains the aid was carried in on. In the last few weeks, the North Koreans have just kept the trains, sending the Chinese crews back across the border. North Korea just ignores Chinese demands that the trains be returned, and insists that the trains are part of the aid program. It's no secret that North Korean railroad stock is falling apart, after decades of poor maintenance and not much new equipment. Stealing Chinese trains is a typical loony-tune North Korean solution to the problem. If the North Koreans appear to make no sense, that's because they don't. Put simply, when their unworkable economic policies don't work, the North Koreans just conjure up new, and equally unworkable, plans. The Chinese have tried to talk the North Koreans out of these pointless fantasies, and for their trouble they have their trains stolen.

Bizarre.

Another update:  There's plenty of speculation as to Kim's motivations, and here's one more.  We know North Korea needs cash, and as it happens, a cash-laden democratically-elected dictator is coming to Pyongyang next month:

The missile launch came ahead of a visit to Pyongyang by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, possibly late this month.

Chavez has announced that he will travel to North Korea, which is at odds with Washington over its nuclear program, at a time when Chavez is seeking to distance Venezuela from the United States.

The Venezuelan leader is most likely to fly to Pyongyang at the end of July on the occasion of his planned trip to Russia on July 25. Chavez told reporters that he will be going to the North to discuss science and technology cooperation.

But Chavez and Kim Jong Il are expected to seek an oil-for-arms deal. During the summit, Venezuela, the world`s fifth-largest oil-rich country, is expected to offer energy resources to North Korea, which is suffering from energy shortages after the United States halted its supply of heavy oil.

In return, North Korea can offer conventional weapons and missiles to Venezuela, which is looking to fortify its military power.

Recently, a senior North Korean official made clear that it would continue missile exports, dismissing international concerns about proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

But with a dictator as insular as Kim, who knows really.

Comments

[Catsy]

Most of the reaction I've seen has been about what I estimate NK's Dear Leader and his toy rockets deserve: derision, fodder for late-night comedy. Jon Stewart's going to have a field day with the Nodong.

Seriously. Our own missile defense boondoggles might have trouble shooting down most of our test rockets, but pit them up against NK's missile tests and it's a toss-up which comes out looking like a bigger waste of money. I'm glad we didn't try to make a point by shooting one of them down; far better to let them make themselves look like clowns than to try and succeed in making ourselves look worse by missing.

You got at least one thing spot on, here: China is the only voice in this that matters. There is nothing that we, the Japanese, the South Koreans, the French, or anyone else can say that KJI will listen to. We have no ability to project force into that region that he or anyone else takes seriously, not without incurring unacceptable collateral cost. Our threats are empty. Our best bet is continuing to leverage China against NK as much as we can--and that's not much, but it's better than the hand we're holding otherwise.

[spartikus]

Seems to me like our best policy toward North Korea is regime change.

Great! Um....are there any sort of details to this regime-change policy and why would the South Koreans agree to it?

[Catsy]

Ditto that, spartikus. It's all well and good to say that we want regime change for NK, and make it our official policy. I want a house, and the official policy between Jess and I is that we don't intend to be in an apartment forever. But absent a dramatic increase in our reliable monthly income, or the willingness to flirt with disaster by taking out an interest-only or VR loan, we're not going to have one anytime soon.

People who want to be taken seriously on NK policy need to first acknowledge what options are not realistically on the table. Military intervention is not one of them: we really do not have any non-empty threats to wave at NK, not as long as we're bogged down in Iraq, and probably not even then.

[Ugh]

In the Bizarro world version, nothing less than threatening all-out nuclear annihilation will suffice.

[SomeOtherDude]

Jeez, I have a strange feeling that these boys (at Redstate) confuse talking with the actual act.

They act just like the shallow stereotypes I have of them.

[Ugh]

For some reason I keep deluding myself into thinking that Redstate is the place for "reasonable" blogo-conservatism, and yet the editors (with certain exceptions) and the commentators consistently prove me wrong.

[cleek]

i love the train story, but wish there was a source for it.

[spartikus]

I think the best policy for my retirement is to have a lot of money.

I see CB has posted an update. Using the comments as a starting point, perhaps he has time to expand upon his ideas?

[Gary Farber]

"the pint-sized, pot-bellied dictator"

Gotta wonder: what on earth is the relevance or point of these modifiers?

Can you explain, Charles?

[Kent]

Second Gary's question. I read that second sentence and I thought, how bizarre to include those phrases.

[bob mcmanus]

"Gotta wonder: what on earth is the relevance or point of these modifiers?"

Snark and ad hominems need no justification, simply an acceptable venue. This is not one,and those who would purposelessly question CB's sense of humour and writing style are like the greater offenders.

But in criticizing those who would criticize Charles for such trivial flaws I am probably the greater offender. No I'm not. Yes I am.

This comment is turning into a solipsistic flamewar.

[Gary Farber]

"I read that second sentence and I thought, how bizarre to include those phrases."

(This will be rude to Charles, I'm afraid; however, I await his clarification before reaching any actual conclusion.)

My initial speculation is that Charles is cross-posting, as usual, at Redstate, where macho throwasides that make the writer sound 11 years old win points.

Whereas my reaction is: what, is the writer 11 years old?

But presumably Charles can explain his point.

[CharleyCarp]

I've got problem with having policies of 'regime change' for other countries so long as the only means to be employed is prayer.

[Gary Farber]

"This comment is turning into a solipsistic flamewar."

Per permission granted over the weekend at Unfogged, I'd like to note that Bob agrees with me about this.

[CharleyCarp]

NO problem!

[Gary Farber]

"I've got problem with having policies of 'regime change' for other countries so long as the only means to be employed is prayer."

Nonsense. We have harsh language at our disposal.

Also, making faces.

Plus John Bolton.

[CharleyCarp]

Yeah, Gary, but I do have a problem with those methods. You want other people to change their government, you gotta get the Almighty to get them to do it.

[Phil]

Guys, come on. You really tell me you take people's political analysis seriously if they don't pepper it with height, weight and dick jokes?

[spartikus]

Is everyone forgetting the other unsourced story at Strategy Page about the crack division of magical elves the United States has been secretly keeping in reserve?

[Jesurgislac]

This comment is turning into a solipsistic flamewar.

Best kind.

I'm irresistibly reminded of Sam Vimes' adage: give a man some fire and you keep him warm for day - set him alight and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

[Steven Donegal]

I was thinking about this regime change thing. I have a solution that is completely a win-win. We have a President and Vice President who are very big on the unlimited executive authority thing. They are going to be out of a job in a couple years. So we go in quick, take out Kim, and put George and Dick in charge. They can even take Rumsfeld along to help modernize the NK military. This could prove to be the ultimate opportunity to demonstrate the superiority of conservative governance . Imagine what John Yoo could do with their judicial system. I know it sounds a little off the wall, but just think about it..give it a chance.

[Charles Bird]

"Pint-sized" and "pot-bellied" are accurate physical descriptions of the dictator, Gary. No point in being nice about him or what he's done to his own people.

[Nell]

I love it, Steven, as long as we don't end up with Kim Jong Il.

Or Dennis Hastert.

Or any other Republican.

[Ugh]

My initial speculation is that Charles is cross-posting, as usual, at Redstate

Bizarro world wasn't enough of a tip-off?

[spartikus]

"Pint-sized" and "pot-bellied" are accurate physical descriptions of the dictator, Gary. No point in being nice about him or what he's done to his own people.

Glad to see CB chose the substantive issue to respond to.

It seems the engine of Charles' regime change policy will consist solely of name-calling. Unfortunately, I fear the North Korean translators - who feverishly toil to translate every post and comment on Obsidian Wings in real time for Dear Leader - will probably change "pint-sized" and "pot-bellied" to "imposing" and "athletic".

[Ugh]

Speaking of Bizarro world, the prodigal (plagiarizing) son returns.

[Gary Farber]

""Pint-sized" and "pot-bellied" are accurate physical descriptions of the dictator, Gary. No point in being nice about him or what he's done to his own people."

I'll try again, Charles. Relevance? Point?

Being "nice" isn't relevant to what I asked you.

You're saying that generally when writing about people we disapprove of, it improves our writing and reasoning if we add physical ad hominem?

Or what?

Do you recommend that this methodology be adopted by people who disapprove of you when they write of you? If not, why not?

[liberal japonicus]

Again, I'm sure that this will affirm Chas' belief that he gets beaten up over atmospherics rather than the heart of his post. Still 'shoot one's wad'? Really.

I hope to post something a bit more substantive, but I have to work my way thru the papers on this.

[Jackmormon]

I'm kinda on CB's side here. Kim Jong Il is small, has a pot-belly, and is horrible schmuck of a dictator. The latter was pretty clearly CB's point, perhaps too obliquely expressed.

Myself, I wouldn't generally comment on the physical attributes of a world leader--unless he or she were really hot, in which case I'd expect nobody to take me seriously. Have I told the world about my crush on...oh, never mind.

The trains business would be hilarious, if the insanity didn't translate into famine. I don't know what to make of the second update about possible ties between N. Korea and Venezuela. I'll wait until either 1) it gets sourced more conclusively, or 2) Chavez actually visits Pyongyang.

In principle, the six party talks sound like the right way forward. But what do the N. Koreans hope to gain with their perpetual manoeuvring for bilateral talks? Security guarantees? Aren't the economic sanctions pretty well international?

[Gary Farber]

"Again, I'm sure that this will affirm Chas' belief that he gets beaten up over atmospherics rather than the heart of his post."

I don't think there will be a lot of substantive assertions as to the wonderfulness of the North Korean regime, or of their inherent right to shoot missiles, or what have you.

But I don't ever address "hearts" or "atmospherics"; I address writing. Either people say something I have a question or criticism of, or something to praise, or they don't. I don't feel the least bit defensive about that, either.

Writing weird little ad hominems is worth commenting on and questioning. I also suspect that if such were added to a piece on someone Charles did admire, that he'd be apt to question it himself.

[Gary Farber]

"But what do the N. Koreans hope to gain with their perpetual manoeuvring for bilateral talks? Security guarantees?"

And prestige, and also the elimination of pressure from China, Russia, South Korea, and Japan.

"I'm kinda on CB's side here. Kim Jong Il is small, has a pot-belly, and is horrible schmuck of a dictator. The latter was pretty clearly CB's point, perhaps too obliquely expressed."

So if whenever I referred to you, I included two unflattering physical adjectives/descriptions, you'd be fine with that?

Or is it just that if we disapprove of someone, then it's fine?

Or is there a special rule for dictators? Help me understand the general principle we should follow here, if you would.

[Jackmormon]

Naw, it's sloppy writing, to be sure. But I've seen worse, and it's too bad to see this one ad hom become the reason to launch a thread on why CB sucks and is ruining the site. How's about: yeah, it was stupid, and let's move on.

So. Would it not be possible to undertake bilateral talks while continuing with the six-party talks? Simply talking with the US, if we didn't concede anything, shouldn't necessarily confer any particular prestige---or at least not unless American diplomacy has really gotten to the point where we rarely ever talk with anyone. Talk is cheap. Compared to our other options, talk without promises or compromises is very cheap indeed.

[spartikus]

Perhaps CB could expand on how regime-change is to be achieved? Besides as an excuse to use pint-sized, pot-bellied, and Nodong as a euphemism for masculine shortcomings, it seemed to be the centrepiece of the post.

[Gary Farber]

"How's about: yeah, it was stupid, and let's move on."

If Charles agrees, fine.

"Would it not be possible to undertake bilateral talks while continuing with the six-party talks?"

The problem with that is that it then relieves the other parties of any responsibily. They can all then say "well, it's in the hands of the Americans and North Koreans to resolve."

And take whatever steps that are easy for them to take, including irresponsible ones, if they like. Why not? They're not the the ones with the responsibility for sorting out the problem any more.

To put it on personal terms, there are times I'm a lot more comfortable trying to work out a debate in public in front of witnesses I trust, when I'm dealing with someone I absolutely trust, rather than having to go behind closed doors, one on one, where I can reasonably expect the other party to come out and announce to everyone that we couldn't agree because Gary is the one being all unreasonable, and see them lie about what we said, and have the neutral parties have no way of judging the truth, other than taking the word of one of us, or assuming the truth lies between our two stories.

I'd rather have actual witnesses.

[Gary Farber]

"when I'm dealing with someone I absolutely trust"

That's "when I'm dealing with someone I absolutely don't trust"

[J. Michael Neal]

It's the return of MAD. Mutually assured Defects.

[CaseyL]

Well, I don't think anyone wouldn't like to see regime change in N Korea. The question is, as it's always been, whether that's doable; and the answer is no, not without triggering a war that could go nuclear. (Granted, the prospect of a nuclear war with someone actually thrills quite a few wingers, including some on RS, but CB hasn't quite gone quite that crazy.)

Since CB has actually agreed that Bush screwed the pooch in Iraq by, among other things, not sending enough troops, it's possible that he doesn't actually expect the US to effect regime change in N Korea. Not militarily, anyway.

Maybe the angle isn't so much that he expects the US to effect regime change in N Korea, as he wants to frame any discussion about N Korea that doesn't have regime change as its ultimate (or only) goal as useless, dangerous, etc.

And, if the Democrats wind up taking control of the House, the Senate, and (in 2008) the White House, maybe the idea is to frame regime change now as the only legitimate basis for dealing with N Korea, so he and his fellow travelers can blame the Democrats for not pursuing that objective the instant the Dems can have any meaningful input on foreign policy.

So I think it's mostly about positioning.

[John Thullen]

I agree that the train thing, minus the famine angle, has a certain imaginative and well-endowed chutzpah about it.

I once forgot to return a baking dish which had held a casserole the neighbors brought over. They moved before I could return it.

The Buddha was kinda short and pot-bellied, wasn't he? Not to mention most Asian, middle-aged men. Reminds me of the time I talked to a kid in a barrio in the southern Philippines and he asked me if I knew Bob from Chicago. Bob who? Bob from Chicago. No, don't know him.

It would be a shame if we had nuclear war over penis envy. I'm not sure what Condeleeza Rice would think to add to the diplomatic talks before bombing commenced, besides some eye-rolling.

A quick read of the Redstate thread had me thinking commenter "Haystacks" suggested nuking Iran and North Korea and THEN pulling out our diplomats and other people. Odd, that.

So, the short, chubby, woefully endowed description Charles threw in is funny if you compare it to those Monty Python skits where John Cleese the Frenchmen hurls insults from the castle walls to whomever below. I can't remember much at the moment.

So, I wonder, does Charles think Kim Long Dong Jong is reading this? Otherwise, what's the rumpus here? Who's being called out? I mean, no one as yet has tried to argue that Kim is actually tall, dark and hung like a gay porn star. Or, does he think that merely calling Kim what he is --a brutal, inhuman dictator -- will elicit nothing but yawns?

But "brutal, inhuman dictator hung like a hamster" will have us calling for nuclear strikes and, of course, regime change so the Koreans can have a leader who is a little slimmer, a little taller, and a little bigger in the mini-me department. Hopefully the new guy won't be so moody, either.

Ah, well, what's a little trash talk?

[Anarch]

Jon Stewart's going to have a field day with the Nodong.

The Daily Show already spent a five minute segment (from a few weeks ago, being rebroadcast as I type) on the "Taepodong" -- "I believe that's North Korean for 'kind of penis'" -- which you might want to check out.

[Gary Farber]

"...those Monty Python skits where John Cleese the Frenchmen hurls insults from the castle walls to whomever below."

Monty Python And The Holy Grail, anyway.

Memorable Quotes from
Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)
Knights of Camelot: [singing] We're knights of the Round Table, we dance whene'er we're able. We do routines and chorus scenes with footwork impec-cable, We dine well here in Camelot, we eat ham and jam and Spam a lot. / We're knights of the Round Table, our shows are for-mi-dable. But many times we're given rhymes that are quite un-sing-able, We're opera mad in Camelot, we sing from the diaphragm a lot. / In war we're tough and able, Quite in-de-fa-ti-gable. Between our quests we sequin vests and impersonate Clark Gable / It's a busy life in Camelot
[solo]
Knights of Camelot: I have to push the pram a lot.
King of Swamp Castle: Listen, Alice...
Prince Herbert: Herbert.
King of Swamp Castle: Herbert...
Minstrel: [singing] Bravely bold Sir Robin rode forth from Camelot. He was not afraid to die, oh brave Sir Robin. He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways, brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin. He was not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a pulp, or to have his eyes gouged out, and his elbows broken. To have his kneecaps split, and his body burned away, and his limbs all hacked and mangled, brave Sir Robin. His head smashed in and heart cut out, and his liver removed, and his bowels unplugged, and his nostrils ripped and his bottom burned off and his penis...
Sir Robin: That's, uh, that's enough singing for now, lads... looks like there's dirty work afoot.
Minstrel: [singing] Brave Sir Robin ran away...
Sir Robin: *No!*
Minstrel: [singing] bravely ran away away...
Sir Robin: *I didn't!*
Minstrel: [singing] When danger reared its ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled. Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about, and valiantly, he chickened out. Bravely taking to his feet, he beat a very brave retreat. A brave retreat by brave Sir Robin.
God: What are you doing now?
King Arthur: Averting our eyes, oh Lord.
God: Well, don't. It's just like those miserable psalms, always so depressing. Now knock it off!
King of Swamp Castle: Please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker and argue over who killed who.
God: Every time I try to talk to someone it's "sorry this" and "forgive me that" and "I'm not worthy"...
French Soldier: I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.
Sir Galahad: Is there someone else up there we can talk to?
French Soldier: No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.

[...]

French Soldier: You don't frighten us, English pig dogs. Go and boil your bottoms, you sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you, so-called "Arthur King," you and all your silly English K-nig-hts.
French Soldier: Go and boil your bottoms, you sons of silly persons!

[John Thullen]

I hate it when you guys move on before I get my shots in. Sheesh!

[Gary Farber]

Oh, crap, a bunch of extra stuff got stuck in there; darn me for not previewing. sorry.

[liberal japonicus]

Not to mention most Asian, middle-aged men.

watch it there, Thullen, it's solid muscle, I'll have you know. At any rate, I'm glad you didn't write licks for shots in your 11:13...

[liberal japonicus]

Sorry, that last one may have been a bit too off color, especially when I complain about the title.

[John Thullen]

Thanks, Gary. "your father smelt of elderberries" always bears repeating.

And my son is the son of a silly person.

[John Thullen]

LJ: What, you didn't mind "middle-aged"?

See, Charles, look what you've started. North Korean missles are raining down on the West Coast and we're busy scribbling puns on the bathroom wall.

[JP]

Here's KJI's motivation: to deter us from attacking him. It isn't really very hard to figure out.

[Gary Farber]

"Here's KJI's motivation: to deter us from attacking him. It isn't really very hard to figure out."

Can you explain how firing missiles that don't work into the Sea of Japan deters us from attacking him? I'm a bit slow on the specifics of this.

[am]

What is starkly revealing about this discussion is the utter unseriousness of the Left when confronted with a serious issue in which even they cannot, with any conscience, find a Bush-bashing angle.

So, having nothing at all to say, they instead resort to bashing the person who brought this awkward topic to the table.

[Jackmormon]

[Gary]:The problem with that is that it then relieves the other parties of any responsibily. They can all then say "well, it's in the hands of the Americans and North Koreans to resolve."

But what I truly don't understand is that the other regional countries wouldn't see that they have some interest in negotiating with N.Korea.

Yes, we're the hyper-power, sure. But clearly we've been ignoring N. Korea for six years. Surely we could do a round of diplomacy with N. Korea without altering fundamentally the regional diplomatic positions. Even China basically agrees that N. Korea is a paranoid failed state; they just don't agree with the US on how best to deal with the situation.

If "other countries won't feel as responsible" is the only reason not to undertake bilateral talks on a contingent, limited basis, for starters, I really can't see why we haven't stepped up with more diplomatic mojo.

[Gary Farber]

Oh, gee, did The Left post here?

I thought he was busy tonight ballroom dancing with The Right.

[The Left]

Oh, gee, did The Left post here?

I thought he was busy tonight ballroom dancing with The Right.

Hi, just got back! What'd I miss?

[spartikus]

North Korean missles are raining down on the West Coast

Listen, mate....Nodong has hit me.

[liberal japonicus]

So, having nothing at all to say, they instead resort to bashing the person who brought this awkward topic to the table.

I didn't bash Thullen, I merely warned him. Oh, not that.

[Gary Farber]

"What'd I miss?"

You've been bad again. You didn't fix the North Korean situation in the past six years. Given that, you know, you've been in charge.

A shame President Bush was pushed out of power by you, or he'd have taken care of Kim Jong Il right quick!

Or if he weren't -- if he were in power -- then we could bash him. Cause we don't actually care about South Korea, or Japan, or getting nuked ourselves. Why, us Democrats under President Truman never cared about Korea! That's why we fought what Bob Dole and many Republicans have historically called a "Democrat war" to keep South Korea free! Because we wanted to see Americans slaughtered in a war, and then stop caring!

And we love North Korean communism! Man, there's nothing we like better than his style of communism, is there, The Left?

Why, I myself have only made hundreds of posts over the years about North Korea! That's because I don't care! Under your tutelage, The Left!

But meanwhile, being unserious, I'm sure looking forward to hearing about how President Bush might have dealt with North Korea -- were he in power, rather than you, The Left -- and how and why that makes him serious, unlike you and me.

Did you enjoy your dancing?

[ral]

Is the Left related to the Cheat? They have the same first name afer all.

"When you have nothing to say, say nothing." If only I could follow this advice.

[Gary Farber]

Actually, The Left frequently posts here. See, for instance, this post for some of The Left's latest wacky escapades.

[The Left]

What is starkly revealing about this discussion is the utter unseriousness of the Left when confronted with a serious issue in which even they cannot, with any conscience, find a Bush-bashing angle.

Oh, but we did - didn't you notice? The same old obvious angle: the fact that Bush's invasion/occupation of Iraq, tying down the whole available US army including the National Guard, has made the US impotent in dealing with North Korea. (It doesn't matter how big your nodong is: it's how you use it.)

[Jesurgislac]

Ugh: For some reason I keep deluding myself into thinking that Redstate is the place for "reasonable" blogo-conservatism, and yet the editors (with certain exceptions) and the commentators consistently prove me wrong.

The problem at RedState is (I think, more seriously) that for quite some time now they've had a policy of banning anyone who expresses views that don't accord with the One Right Way. Newcomers who don't hold One Right Way views find themselves being banned as soon as this is made clear. Which means that they can have long, lively discussion threads about how the New York Times is guilty of treason without even a single dissenting voice piping up to say that it's just a puff piece in the Travel section. I think it did start out as a serious right-wing site, and probably stayed that way for a long time - but when dissent is not permitted, serious/intelligent discussion is not possible.

[Debbie(aussie)]

A rather enjoyable read. The physical description is appropriate. mabe the purpose was to lighten things up a bit.
Always glad to meet disc world fans

[cleek]

So, having nothing at all to say, they instead resort to bashing the person who brought this awkward topic to the table.

...so says the guy who stopped by only to leave a sentence or three bashing his political opponents.

[CharleyCarp]

Jack, the problem with talking is that it might result in a deal -- outside chance, but more than a 1% possibility -- and this would seriously interfere with a policy of regime change. The same problem prevents talking with Iran, and so any invitation to do so must include such conditions as to make the invitation unacceptable.

Iran has, it seems to me, a similar problem: talks might result in a deal with the Great Satan, one that would leave Iran in a lower geopolitical status than Israel. That pill is too bitter, and so actual talks must be sabotaged. Talking about having talks, though, works domestically in both places.

I'm not sure NK has much in the way of domestic politics. There must be factions at the higher levels of the army and other institutions, and the nuclear scientists need to eat too, but I've got no sense at all about how whatever fissures there might be work out. (I'm sure that Mike Green does, but not as confident in his successor at the NSC).

I don't bash the President over NK. Ably assisted by the afore-mentioned (but now absent) Dr. Green, the President has gone 5.5 years without doing anything irretrievably stupid wrt that country. And believe you me, some of the folks working in the Admin have advocated going down a different path.

[Dantheman]

""the pint-sized, pot-bellied dictator"

Gotta wonder: what on earth is the relevance or point of these modifiers?"

Because similar tactics have been so effective in convincing people about whether Michael Moore's films are documentaries or polemics?

[cleek]

The problem at RedState is (I think, more seriously) that for quite some time now they've had a policy of banning anyone who expresses views that don't accord with the One Right Way

the posting rules used to be pretty explicit about this; they used to say, in effect, that RS is a forum for conservative politics, and that if you don't post in that spirit, you'll be banned. now they say RS is a forum for conservative politics and you'll be banned if you're disruptive.

good move, but too late. the tone's already been set.

[Paul]

Obviously, Crazy Curt Weldon (R-Penn) is the only man who can take out this pint-sized, pot-bellied dictator (C-NK). I say Jello wrestling, two out of three falls.

[marblex]

Chavez is the multiple-time democractically elected President of Venezuela, not a dictator.

George W. Bush is a dictator, who was not democratically elected and who has destroyed the constitutional system of government here.

The fact that you have referred to Chavez a dictator is a sad indicia that you have bought the Bushivick propaganda.

Der shrubenhufuherer hates it when democratically elected leaders take steps to improve the lives of people.

Our own government doesn't give a god damn about human beings. IT worships business and regards humans as expendible commodoties.

Chavez on the other hand has lifted MILLIONS out of poverty, illiteracy, has provided health care, homes and futures to his people, while der shrubenfuhrer has been busy destroying lives here at home and abroad.

Shame on you. Didn't realize how gullible you are.

Oh...And I have been to Venezuela and seen for myself. THe people there LOVE Chavez while George W. Bush is the single most HATED person on earth since HITLER.

[Paul]

Marblex, can I interest you in a wrestling match with Mr. Bird? Two out of three falls? I'm thinking lime, but strawberry is nice, too.

[cleek]

yipes. marblex done lost his marbles.

[Charles Bird]

You're saying that generally when writing about people we disapprove of, it improves our writing and reasoning if we add physical ad hominem?

Nope.

I'll try again, Charles. Relevance? Point?

What, there is no room for expressing contempt and derision in a blog, Gary? I choose to reserve that right for an authoritarian who has starved a million of his people to death, and malnourished millions of others. Noted that you disapprove. Moving on.

Several queried about regime change. Remember that Clinton did so as well back in '98, not that any direct action was taken. As with Iran, if there's a chance of helping the people of these beleaguered countries remove their rulers, then we should assist any way we can. But our options are severely limited. Why regime change? We already have a deranged dictator who most likely has six or so atomic bombs. The worst outcome of regime change is that another deranged dictator to takes Kim's place, but at least there is a chance for a better outcome.

Invasion is certainly off the table. With North Korea, military strikes are most likely off the table given their arsenal and the proximity of Seoul to the DMZ. China has plenty more options, but it's not in their interest to muzzle or leash the dictator.

Since CB has actually agreed that Bush screwed the pooch in Iraq by, among other things, not sending enough troops, it's possible that he doesn't actually expect the US to effect regime change in N Korea.

Just to clarify, Casey, the pooch was screwed in mid-2003 when we needed 100,000 or more troops to secure the country. Had we done that, it's likely that there'd fewer in-country today. I think our troop levels are OK right now.

Chavez is the multiple-time democractically elected President of Venezuela, not a dictator.

Dictator is as does, marblex.

George W. Bush is a dictator, who was not democratically elected and who has destroyed the constitutional system of government here.

You must have a very rich fantasy life.

[Jesurgislac]

while George W. Bush is the single most HATED person on earth since HITLER.

It's amazing how one sentence of hyperbole can ruin an otherwise quite reasonable comment... ;-)

[John Thullen]

I think I agree that the physical description lightened things up a bit.

If the Pentagon would describe nuclear missles as dildos and make silly remarks about foreign leaders' naughty bits, it would take some of the sting out of nuclear annihilation.

Sure beats those drills in school where we dived under desks to avoid the brunt of the blasts and those nightmares I used to have of Krushschev chasing me down back alleys brandishing scissors in one hand and balancing a bowl of borscht and an enema kit in the other.

Plus, I might vote for increasing funding for the S.D.I if I could imagine it as a sort of a huge orbiting system of birth control devices protecting us against incoming advances by the underwhelming.

But I suspect folks in the Republican base would look askance because, after all, everyone has to look somewhere.

It did occur to me to mention codpieces as a Bush-bashing angle but, you know, this Korea situation IS serious and it's O.K. with me if he's the one who defuses and solves it.

I mean, as long as he doesn't then use the accumulated capital from such an event to roger Medicare.

I'm sorry, but if you're going to give me the choice of facing a nuclear menace or making lame naughty jokes, I'll choose the latter every time.

P.S. I mentioned earlier that no one had shown up to argue that Kim was actually tall, dark, and hung like a gay porn star.

Then, here comes Marblex.

[John Thullen]

If I yell 'here come the "missles"!' instead of 'here come the "missiles"! would that blunt my effectiveness as an early warning system?

[SomeOtherDude]

C'mon, you have to admit, "Kim Shoots Wad" and the Team America dictator photo is funny/cute.

[Dantheman]

"We already have a deranged dictator who most likely has six or so atomic bombs. The worst outcome of regime change is that another deranged dictator to takes Kim's place, but at least there is a chance for a better outcome."

This assumes that an unsuccessful attempt at regime change makes no change in the likelihood such atomic bombs will be launched. Once again, Charles sees international relations as solitaire.

[tzs]

C'mon, it's OBVIOUS that missiles are subsitutions for a certain part of the male anatomy....

....otherwise why would they call them "re-entry vehicles"?

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

The reason to avoid bilateral talks is pretty easy to understand. No matter who is doing the talking the talks are likely to fail because Mr. Kim is a crazy person. When they fail, the US will take multiple diplomatic hits from the other interested parties (which apparently does not include UN non-proliferation regimes) for not trying hard enough.

With other interested parties present, especially China and South Korea, the craziness of the North Korean regime can be witnessed and attested to by all other parties.

Furthermore, pretty much nothing can be done without China on board. Bilateral talks have to check in with China to have almost any non-zero chance of success--which obviously defeats the purpose of bilateral talks (so long as you believe that the purpose of the talks is to solve any of the nuclear proliferation problems). I don't in fact believe that the demand for bilateral talks is intended to deal with nuclear proliferation problems. I suspect that the demand is a play for more time. I also suspect that it is calculated to ensure that the country most able to hurt North Korea--China--is not at the table.

[Gary Farber]

"What, there is no room for expressing contempt and derision in a blog, Gary?"

Of course there is. But if it has no relevance or point, then it has no relevance or point, does it?

"I choose to reserve that right for an authoritarian who has starved a million of his people to death, and malnourished millions of others. Noted that you disapprove."

I don't disapprove at all of expressing contempt or derision in a blog, Charles, and I don't disapprove in the least of expressing contempt or derision for Kim Jong Il.

I disapprove of doing so with no point in mind while sounding like a nine-year-old.

You're free to say "Kim Jong Il is a doody-head!"

But you're not conveying either any interesting information, nor are you expressing yourself in an amusing manner; you're just sounding childish.

Now, if I added "but why go out of character?," then I'd be engaging in derision, though in a slightly more sophisticated way than if I referred to "pint-brain-sized Charles Bird...."

Of course, I'm just giving rhetorical examples, you understand.

Amusing story about the rail cars, by the way.

Incidentally, have you seen these photos of the Magic Kingdom?

[Gary Farber]

"This assumes that an unsuccessful attempt at regime change makes no change in the likelihood such atomic bombs will be launched."

Launched? Are they going to slide down a long rail to South Korea after a bottle of champagne is cracked over one?

(And, not incidentally, although it's clear that the regime has fuel for atomic bombs, whether they've actually the sophistication to successfully manufacture a bomb that will work, and whether they've done so, is entirely unclear; it's kinda complicated, after all; but even assuming they can and have, what is it you think they will "launch" them with? One doesn't generally "launch" things from an airplane. I suppose a ski-lift might work, if it were very very very long.)

[hilzoy]

Until Marblex's little bon mot, it was true that the only people who had ever used terms like 'bushitler' were right-wingers. I am really sorry that this is no longer true. I take some solace from the fact that it has only happened once.

[Catsy]

Charles, I notice that you managed to say a whole lot about regime change without addressing the one big question regarding it that most of us here have put to you: what's the point of a policy of regime change if we lack any ability to carry it out that isn't based on fantasy?

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see that you acknowledge that invasion and military strikes are off the table, as they should be for any number of pretty obvious reasons. I just don't see you making the next logical hop from there: that absent any options for making it happen, talking about regime change is really nothing more than a way of sounding tough on the matter without having to commit to a real position. At that point you're reduced to hoping that KJI kicks the bucket or gets deposed by his own people, and that the bastard who steps into his shoes is less crazy than he is. That's not a plan, that's wishful thinking as foreign policy.

At some point, a sane NK policy must acknowledge that the sabers we're rattling don't have anything more backing them than the sabers he's rattling. We have effectively zero ability to invade and occupy North Korea. We have the ability to do a great deal of damage to his country and probably take him out in an airstrike, but (thank goodness) lack the will to accept the terrible collateral damage that would occur.

[Catsy]

Hilzoy, I am reasonably confident that Marblex is a Moby. It might do to check his IP.

I've hung out with some pretty radical-left people, and used to be considerably more leftist than I am now, and I have /never/ seen or heard anyone use that term other than wingnuts who need a lefty straw man to bat around.

[cleek]

I am reasonably confident that Marblex is a Moby

only if "Moby" is slang for lunatic conspiracy monger

[cleek]

oh, and let me apologize for that link. the SmirkingChimp comment boards are ghastly - think dozens of marblexes howling in harmony.

[Slartibartfast]

"Bushitler" is a strawman? No, it's a lampooning of various comparisons of Bush to Hitler that some folks have indulged in.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Moby" in this context describes an activist on one side (in the original example on the left) who pretends to be on the other side and says stupid or offensive things to make that side look bad. I vaguely remember the recording artist "Moby" advocating this as a useful political technique.

[Dantheman]

Gary,

""This assumes that an unsuccessful attempt at regime change makes no change in the likelihood such atomic bombs will be launched."

Launched? Are they going to slide down a long rail to South Korea after a bottle of champagne is cracked over one?"

Please re-read the original post all the way through the second sentence. North Korea has launched missiles successfully, as well as a longer range missile unsuccessfully.

Whether they can be modified to carry atomic bombs and whether they can be improved to the point that they can accurately hit a target in the near future are issues upon which I am not willing to gamble. Even if they don't have sufficient range to hit the US when laden, I would consider hitting Tokyo or Seoul with an atomic bomb to be a Bad Thing.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Launched? Are they going to slide down a long rail to South Korea after a bottle of champagne is cracked over one?"

I have to agree with Dantheman. North Korea has successfully launched shorter ranged (easily within the range of Tokyo or Seoul) missiles. Nuking either of those cities would be a sufficently bad thing to warrant caution in my view.

[Ugh]

Bush said the nations’ message to Kim Jong Il was, “We expect you to adhere to international norms. We expect you to keep your word.”

Does anyone else find that a bit hard to take, given the speaker?

[KCinDC]

About "Moby", Wikipedia has this:

(On convincing people not to vote for George W. Bush in 2004) "For example, you can go on all the pro-life chat rooms and say you're an outraged right-wing voter and that you know that George Bush drove an ex-girlfriend to an abortion clinic and paid for her to get an abortion. Then you go to an anti-immigration website chat room and ask, 'What's all this about George Bush proposing amnesty for illegal aliens?'

which seems different from what Sebastian is describing or what a hypothetically secretly right-wing Marblex was doing.

[Tully]

People who want to be taken seriously on NK policy need to first acknowledge what options are not realistically on the table. Military intervention is not one of them: we really do not have any non-empty threats to wave at NK, not as long as we're bogged down in Iraq, and probably not even then....(later comment)...At some point, a sane NK policy must acknowledge that the sabers we're rattling don't have anything more backing them than the sabers he's rattling. We have effectively zero ability to invade and occupy North Korea.

We have more than sufficient military capability to invade and occupy NK. Only about 1/4 of the deployable active-duty Army is in Iraq and Afghanistan. There's also these folks called the US Marines, whom I hear have some substantial expeditionary capabilities of their own. Not to mention that South Korea, with over twice the population of North Korea and roughly 40 or 50 times NK's material resources, would positively insist on joining the party. Indeed, their presence would likely be required. It just wouldn't be a party without them.

Now, the political capability and will to invade NK is a different subject. That we ain't got, and I reach the same "invasion" conclusion you offer on those grounds. Among other things, we'd make the Chinese really really nervous, and their supply lines are much much shorter, and they have many many troops.

But Navy and AF actions against NK missiles and missile facilities are not off the table at this point. They're just extremely unlikely barring a more overt act than test-firings. Sabre-rattling and test launches won't bring them into play, unless we decide to field-test our missile intercept capabilities.

[spartikus]

Not to mention that South Korea, with over twice the population of North Korea and roughly 40 or 50 times NK's material resources, would positively insist on joining the party.

Oh they would, would they?

There are something like 100,000 NK artillery pieces in hardened positions within range of Seoul. The South Koreans are just chomping at the bit.

[Catsy]

We have more than sufficient military capability to invade and occupy NK.

I disagree. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a safe bet that if we brought the full force of our military to bear against NK, our forces would defeat theirs on the battlefield. Likewise, we could theoretically muster the numbers necessary to occupy the country, especially when you include SK forces in the matrix.

The devil, as they say, is in the details. We only have a single brigade from the 2ID deployed in South Korea. Redeploying the forces necessary to roll into NK properly would not only be a massive undertaking, but an incredibly obvious one: that level of mobilization would, safe to say, not go unnoticed by the NKs, who would be very likely to mobilize in return--and only slightly less likely to strike preemptively before we had all our assets in place.

It would also substantially exacerbate an already case of combat fatigue, and weaken us elsewhere. Of the 24 combat brigades not currently deployed in Iraq, nearly half of them have only recently returned from that theater.

North Korea may be inferior to its southern neighbor in terms of material resources, but its military is formidable. Even if you assume that the assistance of the SK army means we would need no more forces to take out NK than we did to take out Iraq, that still means deploying nearly all of our forces in reserve, leaving fourteen combat brigades to rotate out the 20 in combat theaters.

Invading NK would, in short, be a recipe for destroying our armed forces even under an optimistic assumption of how many troops we'd need to do the job. As I said elsewhere in another thread, "can" is a slippery word--we "can" do lots of things for which the cost is so high as to amount to an act of lunacy. But most people rightfully designate these things as non-options.

[Gary Farber]

"Whether they can be modified to carry atomic bombs and whether they can be improved to the point that they can accurately hit a target in the near future are issues upon which I am not willing to gamble."

It's not a gamble. There's no way it's possible.

As I said, it's not even remotely clear they can construct a bomb. But while it's well within the realm of plausibility that they can build a slightly improved Fat Man or Little Boy model, the notion that they have the sophistication to miniaturize down to missile size is ludicrous. Passing familiarity with bomb design and the history of it is all that's needed to know this. You won't find a single solitary expert who even suggests that any other possibility exists.

I'm not worried about fantasies of people who aren't familiar with the basic relevant information. Sorry.

[Tully]

Yes, they would, spartikus. Because if anyone invades NK those guns will be going off whether or not SK was assisting the invaders.

BTW, your "100,000" count is off by a full order of magnitude in total numbers of ALL artillery for the entire NK military, and off much more than that in terms of numbers-in-range to Seoul. Seoul is out of reach of the vast bulk of the NK artillery at the DMZ, and most of that is positioned to repel (or support...) attacks at the DMZ. The "big guns" are indeed in hardened shelters, but can't fire from that shelter. They have to be brought out to be used, at which point they're vulnerable.

Catsy, the South could do it on their own without us--if they wanted to spend the blood and tease the Chinese. NK has a big military, but it's mostly locked down in the DMZ and has no logistics "depth." They could mount one hell of a fierce fight in the region of the DMZ for a month or so. After that they'd starve. They'd also be very vulnerable everywhere BUT the DMZ as soon as combat began, including the entire length of the Chinese border and most of the eastern coastline. Most of their capability is fixed. You don't spend your efforts on the strong points--you contain those and hit them where they're weak. Which is pretty much everywhere but the Pyongyang/DMZ corridor.

Hey, I think it's a non-option as well, for many reasons. But we most certainly have the capability. Of course, what would take us weeks the Chinese could do in a few days, if they ever decided to. If Kim has any brain cells left he'll quit teasing the dragon.

[Gary Farber]

Okay, I'm going to eat humble pie. It's not impossible they might be able to make a warhead that could fit onto a SCUD B or C. It's not likely, and there's no evidence of it, and I'm not greatly worried about it for now, but it's not impossible.

My apologies for over-stating.

Getting a nuke onto the Taepodong seems quite impossible for now.

[spartikus]

Yes, I see you're right, Tully.

It’s believed the North has more than 13,000 cannons, rocket launchers and other artillery systems. More than 4,000 are ranged along the DMZ, many nestled inside hardened underground shelters like reinforced bunkers and tunnel networks, making it “nearly impossible” for U.S.-South Korean forces to hit them, according to unclassified USFK documents.

Another choice quote from the article:

U.S. Forces Korea and others estimate massive casualties in and around Seoul — up to 1 million in the first 24 hours alone — even calling South Korea’s capital “the kill box.”....

...Within the first hours of an attack, an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 artillery rounds could rain down on Seoul, Stephen Oertwig, a USFK spokesman, told Stripes.

The point remains that SK is not keen on military action, though. The Sunshine Policy exists for a reason.

[Slartibartfast]

If North Korea's artillery pieces are in anywhere near the same shape as the rest of the country, there's no way in hell they can shoot the minimum of fifteen nautical miles (~17 statute miles) from the border to Seoul.

OTOH, Globalsecurity.org says:

According to one report, a South Korean security analyst suggested that DPRK artillery pieces of calibers 170mm and 240mm "could fire 10,000 rounds per minute to Seoul and its environs." The number of Koksan guns is not publicly reported, but it is reliably reported that North Korea has about 500 long-range artillery tubes within range of Seoul, double the levels of a the mid-1990s. Large caliber self propelled artillery pieces typically have a sustained rate of fire of between four and eight rounds per minute. This suggests a total rate of fire of artillery alone of between 2,000 and 4,000 rounds per minute. The DPRK's two hundred 240mm MRLs fire either 12 or 22 rounds, providing a maximum single salvo of no more than 4,400 rounds.

As for the rest, I generally think what Gary is saying is correct; having an occasionally effective booster test plus some fissionable material does not equate to being equipped with nuclear missiles.

If that's what he's saying, I agree. What's needed is a workable (reliable, and with form factor and weight suitable for carriage on the missile in question) warhead design, with a workable and reliable fuze, sitting on a missile capable of accurately and reliably putting the warhead where it's intended to go. Plus some bulletproof arming mechanism that's both resistant to blowing the whole thing up on the pad, and reliable in the act of arming the warhead so that you don't wind up putting ten or fifteen kilograms (working from memory, here) of fissionable material harmlessly into a hole in the ground.

[Catsy]

Tully is right about at least one part of his equations: if we invade NK, it brings SK into the conflict by default. Short of invading China, there is no other place from which to mount a land invasion, and trying to land any significant number of forces by sea or air would be suicide. And above all, the SKs know that Seoul will become a graveyard within minutes of our troops crossing the DMZ.

[cleek]

the SKs know that Seoul will become a graveyard within minutes of our troops crossing the DMZ

is this official NK policy, or just something that everyone assumes will happen because the guns are pointed that way today ?

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"is this official NK policy, or just something that everyone assumes will happen because the guns are pointed that way today ?"

You seem to be implying something here (especially with the italics) but I honestly can't figure out what it might be.