[Baseballl]

Topic: Is North Korea A Threat To The World?
Yes: Regulus
No: Kaezion

Competition Ends: May 16th, 3PM Eastern

[Crescens]

As any nation with nuclear weapons has the power to end the world, the question of whether a nation is truly a threat to the world can be decided only by whether the nation is trustworthy not to use them on another nation. (+1)

The question brought before the debate is whether North Korea is trustworthy enough to not use nuclear weapons - be the use against the US, South Korea, Japan, or wherever else the tyrannical Kim Jong-il may decide to explode them. (+2)

In 1985, North Korea signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Since then, it has not only broken such an agreement; renouncing the treaty and expelling foreign inspectors, but had practically announced illicit development of nuclear weaponry (against the terms of the treaty) publicly prior to renouncing it. Also, since renouncing it, the North Koreans have given nuclear arsenals to other dictatorships, such as that of Libya. If Kim Jong-il cannot be trusted to keep an agreement of nonproliferation, he cannot be trusted to keep an agreement of non-aggression with such weapons. With the amount of raw power in nuclear weaponry, directed by a dictator as untrustworthy as Kim Jong-il, it can be concluded only that North Korea is an enormous threat to the security of democratic nations worldwide. (+6)

SOURCES:
Timeline of North Korea's Nuclear Program (from The New Yorker) (+5)
North Korea's Proliferation of Nuclear Arsenals to Libya (from a Chinese newspaper) (+5)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

** Total: +19 **

This post has been edited by Baseballl: 09 May 2005 - 08:34 PM

[Crescens]

Also -- some believe that Kim Jong-il's system of government supplying the nuclear program will collapse because it survives on the exploitation of Korean citizens. While their nuclear program thrives, their people starve. I solemnly doubt, however, that this can hinder North Korea's efforts in any way. Because nuclear arms are the type of weaponry that require less manpower, exploitation of the people of North Korea will not hinder their effectiveness. Similarly, because his dictatorship is not bound by political rules of conventional morality, he has no problems selling weapons to third parties (as illustrated in the proliferation to Libya, previous source), and can fund the creation of more weapons from his profits. (+5)

SOURCE:
Details of Starvation of North Korean Citizens (+5)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

** Total: +10 **

This post has been edited by Baseballl: 09 May 2005 - 11:01 PM

[Kaezion]

It will be an honor debating with you, Regulus, and may the better debater win. (+1)

As you said, any nation with nuclear weapons does have the power to end the world. These nations include the U.S., Russia, China, France, the U.K., India, Pakistan, and North Korea. North Korea is the only one out of this list that has not yet tested its nuclear capability; we don't know if they really do have functional nuclear weapons, let alone nuclear weapons at all. (+2)

Why would a country announce that it has functional nuclear weapons when, in fact, it doesn't? Consider North Korea's current international situation; while South Korea is trying to maintain peace talks, the U.S. is, one might say, diplomatically hostile toward North Korea - this general U.S. attitude toward North Korea is manifested in Bush labeling the country as a part of the Axis of Evil (to anyone who has kept up even vaguely with events concerning U.S. and North Korea over the past several years, it would be obvious that the U.S. has been adopting this general oppressive attitude). When North Korea had evidenced Bush's unjustified invasion of Iraq, it had probably figured out that North Korea was next on Bush's list, and that issuing a declaration of nuclear capability, regardless of its truth, was to its benefit, as anyone would think twice before invading a nation with nuclear weapons. (+3)

Concerning trustworthiness, North Korea is no less trustworthy than India or Pakistan; both of these nuclear countries are in conflict over territory. They, too, cannot be trusted not to use these weapons. In fact, while they are in dispute over territory, North Korea is not (although it probably would like to take South Korea by force), and has shown flexibility in allowing tourist locations (such as Gumgangsan) to be opened to other countries. Therefore, North Korea, a nation whose nuclear capability has not even been demonstrated, has no more motivation than India or Pakistan, nations that have proven their possession of functional nuclear weapons, to use the weapons on another nation. (+3)

Also, to state the obvious, a country has in its best interest its own survival. The Mutually Assured Destruction theory that had stopped the Cold War from escalating into a full-fledged war also applies here; Kim Jong-Il realizes that, if North Korea were to start a nuclear war, it, along with the rest of the world, will be destroyed, and this is obviously not to North Korea's advantage. This is further reason to conclude that he considers nuclear weapons as a "status symbol" of sorts: an assurance that countries higher up (such as the U.S.) on the international food chain would think twice about politically (and militarily) harassing North Korea. (+1)

(Question to Regulus: What type of weaponry are you comparing nuclear weapons to, when you mention that nuclear weapons require less manpower? Less manpower than what? For my argument's sake, I will assume that you meant "little manpower" instead of "less manpower.")

Who says nuclear weapons require little manpower? To produce nuclear weapons, fresh humans (for lack of better words) are continously needed, because those working with the materials used in the production of these weapons are inevitably going to suffer serious health problems. Even maintaining nuclear weapons require at the least moderate amounts of manpower: general maintenance (such as checking up on the weapons, maintenance of the facilities in which the weapons are stored in), security, etc. (+2)

To make situations worse for North Korea, its nuclear situation has put the food shipments into North Korea in a precarious position, to say the least. For a while, Kim Jong-Il will no longer be able divert these supplies to his army or his workers, and therefore, would be hard pressed to keep them loyal (because of the fear of imminent starvation). The citizens are already starving, and many are fleeing to the neighboring countries - North Korea is essentially bleeding out. Kim Jong-Il will not be able to renew the supply of men required to continue his operations, and it is unlikely that his current supporters would support him for long, now that starvation seems infinitely less remote for them. (+3)

There is also further doubt that North Korea itself would be functional for long, because it is currently under a huge energy crisis, made worse by the cessation of oil shipments into North Korea in 2002. (+1)

Yes, North Korea is "bad" in all aspects of the word. However, the U.S. has been provoking it into taking such ill-received actions such as nuclear proliferation because there is no way for a small nation to thrive while it is continually harassed and overshadowed by a bigger one without having something that the bigger country fears - and that "something" is nuclear capability; North Korea's nuclear program is not an evidence of its dangerousness but rather of its catching up to other nations, and this is what other countries fear. (+2)

Sources:
List of nuclear states (+5)

Details of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) Theory (+5)

Political Details of Food Crisis in North Korea (+5)

Details of the Oil Shipment Cessation (+5)

Details of India-Pakistan Conflict (+5)

General Information on North Korea (+5)

Source Containing Brief Mention of Manpower Requirements in Nuclear Maintenance (+5)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

** Total: +53 **

This post has been edited by Baseballl: 10 May 2005 - 06:59 PM

[Crescens]

Several excellent points. Your argument is commendable. (+1)

The idea of MAD or mutually assured destruction cannot apply here. Why? Because places like South Korea and Japan do not have nuclear arsenals. If North Korea were to launch a nuke at Japan or South Korea, they would be unable to retaliate and the destruction would not be mutually assured. (+3)

Could the US get involved were North Korea to attack South Korea or Japan? Possibly, but not without also triggering the intervention of the Chinese on the behalf of the North Koreans (as happened in the Korean War in terms of involvement by alliance). Though the Korean War has never truly had a winner (ended in a draw officially and resentment clearly still continues) in some sense and has continued to this day in the sense that Korea is still divided, the only way to keep the war from worsening and resulting in a nuclear World War III is to break the stalemate and define a winner. (+3)

(Question to Regulus: What type of weaponry are you comparing nuclear weapons to, when you mention that nuclear weapons require less manpower? Less manpower than what? For my argument's sake, I will assume that you meant "little manpower" instead of "less manpower.")

In terms of civilian power, nuclear weaponry requires just as much manpower; however, they put the lives of less soldiers at risk than conventional warfare. Given that civilian bombings have been discouraged ever since the "total war" of World War III, nuclear weaponry can be developed and utilized with far less risk of soldier casualties than conventional warfare. (+2)

If tyranny and censorship invoked disloyalty, it would most likely have done so in totalitarian states like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union of the past. Instead, the censorship and propaganda characteristic of totalitarian states tends to make people much more loyal despite oppression from government. Similarly, the fear of persecution may lead people to conform to North Korea's standards regardless of what they may believe. Along with the fact that South Korea realizes that the North Korean people are not the threat and that instead only the government is, and the fact that South Korea gives some humanitarian aid to North Korea's population due to this realization, North Korea's civilian populations will survive and remain loyal. (+5)

I agree with you entirely that India and Pakistan are a threat to the world. However, the MAD theory applies much more thoroughly to them than it does to North Korea, as any nuclear attack by either would invoke the destruction of both. In the cases of South Korea and Japan, North Korea can take the initiative on either and not be destroyed itself because alliances that brought in other nuclear powers would bring about a third World War, and would thus probably be avoided, leaving the destroyed country to rot and North Korea to continue about its mayhem. (+3)

Some think that North Korea has no reason to attack anyone other than the US. North Korea has every reason to attack South Korea, as the division between the two that caused the Korean War has never been truly resolved. North Korea may also, like other nations in Asia, bear some level of grudge against the Japanese. As Japan became more dominant in the Sino-Japanese War, Korea (and Taiwan, both formerly dominated by China) fell under Japanese dominance. Japan was also one of the only countries in Asia to resist Mongol domination under the height of the Mongol Empire's power; when China, Korea, Russia, and a vast amount of other countries fell to the Mongols, Japan was able to retain its independence due to freak typhoons that destroyed most of Kublai Khan's naval fleets. This bitterness toward Japan, amplified in Japan's aggression in World War II on much of Asia (particularly in Manchuria and China) and atrocities such as the Rape of Nanjing, could lead ANY Asian nation to want to attack Japan. (+8)

The most important point is whether North Korea can be trusted with nuclear weaponry or in general. Given that they signed a treaty against the proliferation of nuclear weaponry and later withdrew their support for such a treaty, not to mention providing WMDs to Muammar Qaddafi of Libya, another totalitarian leader, North Korea's nuclear aspirations cannot be considered trustworthy. Though other powers (such as Pakistan giving some nuclear technologies to North Korea in the first place) have allowed the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, such countries did so without signing the treaty in the first place. North Korea is a rare case, signing the treaty and then withdrawing its support for it, which serves to demonstrate its untrustworthiness and suspicious intentions. (+4)

In essence, I prefer not to wait for North Korea to nuke someone to decide that they are a threat; such ideas of appeasement caused the Czechoslovakians' (I flat out cannot spell that country's name, most likely spelled wrong there, I apologize) to be left to rot under the Nazis and allowed the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor and destroy our battleships fleet. I hope to avoid allowing the enemy to strike first on this occasion, and believe that recognizing a threat is the first step to stopping it. (+2)

SOURCES:
Nuclear Powers (By Location) - Map (+5)
Information Regarding South Korean Humanitarian Aid to North Korea (+5)
Details Of and Perspectives On Soviet Propaganda (+5)
German Propaganda Archive (+5)
Details of Asian Resentment of Japan as a result of the Sino-Japanese War (+5)
Details of Mongol Conquests; helps to explain why Japan is isolated from the rest of Asia and why other Asian countries feel some level of resentment toward Japan.) (+5)
Documentation of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (for reference) (+5)
Timeline of North Korean Nuclear Program - Details involvement of Pakistanis in development of program (+5)

World War II Timeline - Europe - (various historical references) (+5)
World War II Timeline - Pacific - (various historical references) (+5)

10 Most Oppressive Dictators - Illustrates Kim Jong-il's own corruption and by involvement with others on the list such as Qaddafi (sometimes written Gaddafi) the worsening of his character and further decreased level of trustworthiness.) (+5)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

** Total: 86 **

This post has been edited by Baseballl: 12 May 2005 - 07:23 PM

[Kaezion]

At this point, it is clear to me that it will take a miracle of sorts for me to win this debate.

Let's consider this hypothetical situation. Say North Korea does have functional nuclear weapons, with an intent to use them on another nation. The U.S., or any other country for that matter, decides to gain the pre-emptive strike on North Korea. Wouldn't that just speed up the start of this nuclear Third World War that you are talking about? Any (military) action taken by a country against North Korea would be sure to provoke nuclear retaliation, if North Korea did in fact possess such weapons - and I think it's safe to say that if North Korea started nuking countries, there are going to be a whole lot more nukes flying around. (+3)

In the cases of South Korea and Japan, North Korea can take the initiative on either and not be destroyed itself because alliances that brought in other nuclear powers would bring about a third World War, and would thus probably be avoided, leaving the destroyed country to rot and North Korea to continue about its mayhem.

I'm not sure on your phrasing here, so I'll attempt to interpret this as accurately as I can. What I took this to mean is that when North Korea finally does start a nuclear war, the other superpowers would be too busy fighting amongst themselves to care about North Korea (if my interpretation is wrong, I apologize).
If we were to debate solely on the terms of North Korea, your argument is irrefutable. However, once we start to discuss a hypothetical world war, the problem becomes much larger than that. Yes, if North Korea were to start a third world war, North Korea probably will not be focused on, as there are countries such as the U.S., Russia, and China that will be busy fighting amongst themselves. However, at this point, North Korea is no longer significant, and it doesn't matter if it survives or not - a third World War means we all die; every country becomes a threat to the world, and North Korea is no longer in the spotlight. North Korea is not considered a threat to the world then, because the world's destruction would already be guaranteed and nothing more can threaten it. (+5)

MAD does indeed apply here; although not constituted exclusively of two national entities such as the U.S. and the Soviet Union, the conclusion of MAD will be met by the end of a third world war - all parties will be destroyed. (+1)

The case we must discuss is that which aims for the prevention of a third world war. Again, if we are to hypothetically assume that North Korea has a fully functional arsenal, then yes, Kim Jong-Il is not the most trustworthy man in the world to be in the possession of such weapons. Consider this, though: whichever action is taken, military action against North Korea will result in a nuclear war. Thus, diplomatic action is the only way we have to ensure the world's survival. (+3)

Though the Korean War has never truly had a winner (ended in a draw officially and resentment clearly still continues) in some sense and has continued to this day in the sense that Korea is still divided, the only way to keep the war from worsening and resulting in a nuclear World War III is to break the stalemate and define a winner.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. However, as I had explained before, the only way of breaking this stalemate without triggering a world war is through peaceful means. This is currently being attempted by South Korea. The U.S. only keeps foiling diplomatic attempts, because the U.S. keeps trying to impose its intentions upon North Korea. I will explain how this is so. (+2)

In the past, North Korea has repeatedly tried to establish bilateral relations with the U.S., and the U.S. has repeatedly rejected these attempts, trying to force North Korea into a six-nation peace talk, so that the U.S. could use China to try to persuade North Korea. China has resisted the U.S.'s attempts to use China's connections with North Korea to influence it; recently, Bush had suggested that China cut off oil supplies to North Korea to force it to negotiate. When things have been going on like this for years, where the U.S. tries to use methods such as these to force North Korea to accept the U.S.'s terms, don't you think that this is provocation enough for ANY nation to adopt a hostile, unnegotiative stance? North Korea has repeatedly been harassed by the United States - this is why they have been reclusive as of late, not because of Kim Jong-Il's instability, or his government's "evilness." (+5)

The U.S. has painted a bad picture of North Korea, and this is easy for them to do so, because North Korea conveniently happens to be under a form of totalitarian government. They have depicted North Korea as a threat to the world, under some maniacal leader with constant bad hair day and a lack of fashion sense, his trigger-happy finger on the red button. People forget that the U.S. is the very nation that had driven North Korea to such an angry position in the first place. If only the U.S. would let peace talks continue between North Korea and nations that are not as badly situated as the U.S. to continue such talks, the situation would improve dramatically. (+4)

As it turns out that North Korea is not actually the crazed nutter that the U.S. is making it out to be, what if it *does* possess nuclear weapons? Why should it be denied possession of a weapon that the U.S., Russia, and China has thousands of? I realize that I am venturing into dangerous territory - that I am bordering on arguing for nuclear proliferation. However, one must wonder - why is the U.S. so desperate to stop North Korea's nuclear development? There is one reason: if North Korea achieves nuclear capability, then the count of Communist nuclear states goes up to 3, thus equaling the number of Republic nuclear states (U.S., India, and Pakistan). The U.S. will not be able to strong-arm its way through international politics once North Korea becomes nuclear-ized (I know it's not a word ) - China realizes this, and this is why China has refused to be the U.S.'s pawn. This is only more reason for the U.S. to fear North Korea's nuclear coming-of-age - because it threatens the U.S.'s political superiority. NOT because it threatens the world. In fact, North Korea's nuclearization would only make international politics fairer, in a regard. (+4)

While the fact remainds true that North Korea implements propaganada as a useful tool in maintaining the loyalty of its members, one must consider what the citizens already know: they already know that their government has failed them, and they have no hope of happiness in North Korea. How do I know this? A good acquaintance of mine actually had been to North Korea. He had witnessed the people eating... grass. Yes - grass - I'm not talking about marijuana, I'm talking about the type of grass you find on your lawn. I'm careful not to turn this argument into an emotional one, but he had noticed the obvious unhappiness and discontent on their faces as they chewed on the bitter, dirty roots of the freshly plucked grass. So yes, the people do know about the failure of their government. And surely they harbor resentment against their leader when a family member is suddenly seized in the middle of the night, never to be seen again? (+5)

With the citizens in poor condition, and Kim Jong-Il low on manpower (although I acknowledge your argument - nuclear weapons do consume less soldiers; however, with the halted food shipments, I do believe that Kim Jong-Il's followers will be reduced in number), the only option left to him is conscription/mercenary recruiting. This is bound for failure; we have seen this in a perfect example - the ancient Romans. When they were suffering a shortage of their own voluntary forces, they had forced/paid various local (if such a word can be used for an empire) people into military service. The result? Disloyal men + harsh ruler + times of crisis = downfall of empire. I believe this will be the case with North Korea. Poorly trained men thrown into service, resentful of their ruler, are certainly not the types to handle nuclear weapons. (+5)

If the nuclear nations led by Vladimir Putin, a Soviet Union sympathizer to a large degree, and Hu Jintao, someone who has caused the deaths of several Tibetan activists, are NOT considered threats to the world, why should North Korea, a country of infinitely lesser power even *with* nuclear capability, be considered a threat? (+2)

Sources:
Information on Vladimir Putin
Information on Hu Jintao
CIA World Factbook
Recent News Article Concerning China's Stance on Six-Party Talks
Brief History of Relations Between North Korea and the U.S.
Article Regarding U.S. Policy Towards North Korea
Revisitation of MAD Theory in More Modern Terms
Problems with Conscription
Problems with Mercenaries (+45 - All Sources)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

** Total: 84 **

This post has been edited by Baseballl: 12 May 2005 - 10:15 PM

[Baseballl]

Current score as of this post:

Kaezion: 137
Regulus: 115

[Neraphym]

Wow, you two are amazing. I've really enjoyed reading this debate, and both of you have made some very excellent points and counterpoints. Keep up the great work, and may the best man win.

[Crescens]

I've never had a worthier opponent to debate with. I have thoroughly enjoyed debating with you, and however it may end tomorrow, I am glad it will have occurred.

Vladimir Putin is the successor of a Soviet legacy. Although the Soviet Union itself has collapsed, the "democracy" it holds now is severely limited and does not nearly match what one might require in terms of freedom of speech and private ownership. However, as the successor of such a legacy, Vladimir Putin carries the same levels of rational thought that dictators such as Stalin and Kruschev held when the Soviet Union was intact. This level of rationality is what allowed the Mutually Assured Destruction theory to come into existence in that either party would care for their own survival beyond the destruction of their enemies. In the case of Kim Jong-il, however, who has supplied weapons to Libya in the past, such rational ideas do not necessarily apply, and Kim Jong-il may not care if his people are killed. Similarly, giving weapons to the Middle East / North Africa area may eventually put them in the hands of Al-Qaida operatives, who as we have clearly seen in the past care nothing for their own lives in jihadist suicide bombings. This is the difference between Putin and Jong-il; though Putin is equally evil, he, like his Soviet predecessors, still cares for his own life and the lives of his people; while Kim Jong-il, like jihadist terrorists in the Middle East more than anything else, cares nothing for his own survival or for rational thought. Much of the reason why the Cold War did not escalate worse than it was was that both powers involved were afraid for their own survival. Not always the case with contemporary warfare.

Why is Kim Jong-il an "irrational" ruler? His rule has made regulations in North Korea that make absolutely no sense. One such example of this is Kim Jong-il's paranoid fear of triplets. All triplets in North Korea are forcibly removed from their parents and taken to orphanages, due to an irrational fear of Jong-il's that a triplet could one day topple his regime. This demonstrates that things Kim Jong-il does do not necessarily follow rational order.

The overall reason that the Mutually Assured Destruction theory cannot necessarily apply to North Korea is that North Korea has no other power keeping it immediately in check. Were India and Pakistan to launch nukes at each other, they would likely be destroyed, while other countries would most likely not get involved. Similarly, the Americans, Russians, and Chinese keep each other in nuclear check as they have for years, and none can take any nuclear action against another (or its allies) without their own imminent destruction as well. Thus, if North Korea decides to attack Japan or South Korea, the US and other western countries will most likely not be able to intervene without triggering Chinese intervention, and will thus most likely avoid the conflict. This leaves countries like South Korea and Japan to rot.

Even if North Korea ends up destroyed after attacking another nation, the damage it makes to that nation will be done.

You have stated that North Korea's hostilities toward the US are a new concept. However, ever since its founding in 1948, North Korea has always been in hostile relations with South Korea and Western democracies. Though they have been amplified recently by tensions with the US, the underlying hostility making North Korea a threat to the world has existed since their very origin.

Regarding your analogy to Ancient Rome. Those that were hired as mercenaries or drafted in conscription were primarily those that the Romans considered "barbarians" and were not necessarily part of Roman culture, such as the Goths and Celts. Their philosophy for allowing such "barbarians" to serve in their militaries revolved around the idea that such barbarians were inferior to Romans. Also revolving around such a superiority complex on the behalf of the Romans was their overall treatment of such barbarians to begin with, frequently subjecting them to various types of oppression. When the goths were displaced by the Huns into Rome, Rome was chosen as the lesser of the two evils over the Huns that attempted genocide on every group of people they encountered. These same goths later rose in the ranks of the Roman Empire while simultaneously being viewed as the Roman Empire's "trash," and revolted due to this obvious contradiction between the Empire's use of them and their ideologies of them being inferior.

I conclude my argument by returning it to its premise; as any country with nuclear weapons has the potential for destroying the world, the only factor that determines whether a country is truly a threat to the world is whether they are trustworthy enough not to use them. Countries directly kept in check - i.e. the US, China, Russia, India, Pakistan, etc. - can be trusted to not use them. An insane dictator like Kim Jong-il with no fear for losing his own people cannot be trusted not to attack those that will not attack back. Thus, North Korea is a very imminent threat to the world and its stability.

It has been an honor.

SOURCES:
Kim Jong-il Triplet Paranoia
Severity of North Korean Threat
North Korea Overview
Brief Explanation of Gothic History
North Korea an Imminent Threat (CNN)

[Kaezion]

I'm honored that you think that way. Since I will be at school tomorrow when this ends, this will be my final point. You have stimulated my intellect most thoroughly, and I believe I will be hard pressed to find a worthier opponent. You have my respect.

North Korea today is, in fact, a very threatened (not threatening ) nation. As evidenced by recent and non-recent events, including Bush's repeated refusals of bilateral talks with North Korea and his political infringements upon its (North Korea's) image (i.e. "axis of evil"), Bush clearly shows that he, regardless of his declaration of "no aggressive intent," wants one thing with North Korea - war. If Bush is so eager to invade North Korea now, when it hasn't done anything, how eager would he be when North Korea actually does make a move?

America has no qualms about waging war on the communist states, either. If the U.S. was so ready to war with the Soviet Union in the times of the Cold War, which ended just over a decade ago, won't the U.S. be all the more eager to crush a major communist nation now, especially since the mighty Soviet Union has degenerated and weakened into Russia? This is only more incentive for Bush to take military action against North Korea, which, as you said, would invariably evoke Russian/Chinese action.

And this is precisely the reason that North Korea will not act on aggression. Irrational as Kim Jong-Il may be, he is still a man who has much to lose, and as much, fears for his life. What you said about Kim Jong-Il's phobia of triplets only augments the evidence that points toward his fear of his own downfall. However unfounded his fear of triplets may be, it only goes to show that he does fear for himself, and he does not want to lose what he has - absolute power over an entire nation, and the ability to do whatever pleases him.

In fact, Kim Jong-Il is so afraid of assassination or a coup against his government, that he keeps several forces of highly trained bodyguards that accompany him wherever he goes, along with a nurse and a doctor. These bodyguards are hand picked, and forced through rigorous training - training that enables them to shoot "a moving target at 250m after sprinting in a chemical weapons suit and gas mask." Kim Jong-Il even makes sure that not more than one member of a family is allowed to hold a security position, in the fear that they might conspire against him. What Kim Jong-Il is showing by such extreme measures is that he is, despite whatever irrational fears he may have, deathly afraid of losing what he has: money, power, and pretty nurses.

And if he is so afraid of losing his wealth and his grip on North Korea, would he be so brazen as to start nuclear warfare? For it is already clear that the U.S. is ready pounce on him the moment Kim Jong-Il takes nuclear action against anything - be it rat, man, or country.

His selling weapons to terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda is actually a brilliant strategic move. He knows that America is already at war with terrorists, and he also knows that since terrorists cannot officially be considered part of any one nation, America cannot wage war on a country for harboring terrorists - every Arabic nation to some degree harbors terrorists, voluntarily or involuntarily. America waging war on the basis of a country harboring terrorists is like waging war on that country because it is Muslim. North Korea is therefore not threatening the stability of international relations; Kim Jong-Il knows that his supply of weapons to terrorists groups might well hurt America, but he knows that it won't be enough to start a war.

Also, the only reasion that he is selling these weapons is for revenue; since America has made it virtually impossible for North Korea to make any money internationally (and also that North Korea has a poor economic system), Kim Jong-Il relies on the sales of these weapons to sustain his country. His weapons sales are not done to promote global insecurity - they are done purely in Kim Jong-Il's self-interest, the same self-interest which dictates to him that he must not start a nuclear war.

You have stated that North Korea's hostilities toward the US are a new concept. However, ever since its founding in 1948, North Korea has always been in hostile relations with South Korea and Western democracies. Though they have been amplified recently by tensions with the US, the underlying hostility making North Korea a threat to the world has existed since their very origin.

You could make that argument with any nuclear nation that has a negative opinion of the U.S. The fact is, we don't consider the U.S.'s part in this at all - any nation opposed to the U.S. is a threat to the world. Well, what about the U.S. itself? Is America not playing a game of Global Domination also? The U.S., along with any other country, would like nothing more than to get rid of all competing countries and reign as a supreme nation over the world. Therefore, hostilities are inevitable; any nation with the firepower to destroy the world is thus considered by the U.S. a threat to the world. However, the fact that the world has survived until now bears witness to a single truth: even with the additional tension added by the existence of nuclear weapons, as long as every country is willing to compromise, war can be prevented, and the threat of each country is negligible. But throughout history, it is shown that the U.S. is actually the most uncompromising nation - from the times of the Manifest Destiny, where Native Americans were tricked and murdered for their lands, to recent times, where Bush, regardless of whether Hussein had capitulated to the U.S.'s demands or not (which he did), had sacrificed hundreds of America's own young men's lives to invade Iraq. What I'm saying, is that the U.S. will do whatever it takes to get whatever it wants, and is not considering how its own actions are harming North Korea, but instead is condemning North Korea for acting defensively in response to U.S. actions to which any country would feel threatened by. So clearly, North Korea is not a threat in and of itself; only under the constant provocation by the U.S. has it been forced to take actions resembling hostility. What else can North Korea do when the U.S. doesn't even want to open up bilateral talks with it?

Contrary to your argument, Khrushchev is definitely not considered a rational man. He has foiled many international conferences with his short temper, and even at one point had threatened Eisenhower with the phrase "We will bury you. Our rockets could hit a fly over the United States." He knew the detrimental effects of such a statement; why would he then make such a threat to a rival nation which Russia would do well to make friends with?

I concede that my argument with the ancient Romans is somewhat weak. However, the basic principle remains the same; the Romans hired discontent individuals who did not want to fight for an empire which only regarded them as inferior. Same with Kim Jong-Il's future conscripts; while also being poorly trained, they will not want to fight for a leader who does not care an inkling for them and would abandon them at the first sign of defeat.

I conclude my argument by providing a counterargument; while it is true that North Korea has the ability to end the world, whether indirectly or directly, and that it cannot be trusted to act on its honor, we can trust it to act on its own best interest - and starting a nuclear war is not in its best interest. Kim Jong-Il fears losing his absolute power over an entire nation, as evidenced by his multiple, possibly paranoid, precautions; by starting such a war, he will lose that nation entirely, and this is the last thing he wants. North Korea does not want to be a threat to the world.

It has been an honor.

Likewise, it has been an honor.

Sources:
A Bodyguard's Personal Story
"Kim Seeks Survival, Not Reform" - an Article
Information on Joseph Stalin
Information on Nikita Khrushchev
Article on Bush's North Korea Policy
Overview of the Cold War
General Information on Russia
Article on North Korea's Weapon Sales to Terrorists

This post has been edited by Kaezion: 16 May 2005 - 06:57 AM