Showing posts with label North Korea. Show all posts
Showing posts with label North Korea. Show all posts

Friday, April 5, 2013

North Korea Nuclear Attack: "Extremely Unlikely," But - - -

North Korea's new ruler may have the wisdom which told his father when to stop threatening, and accept the best available appeasement.

Or Kim Jong Un may not fully understand the power which he wields.

I don't know: and am very glad that someone else has to make 'go/no go' decisions for America's military. I'll get back to that.

Living with Uncertainty

Someone on the American president's national security staff said "it's extremely unlikely" that North Korea has a missile which could reach the United States with a nuclear warhead.1 I think he's right, but I also think a key word in the statement is "unlikely."


(from BBC News, used w/o permission)

North Korea wouldn't have to hit Los Angeles or Portland to reach the United States. Parts of Alaska and Hawaii are within range of that country's Taepodong missile.

So is quite a bit of Asia and the western Pacific, if Kim Jong Un decided to attack a "puppet group."

'Might Not,' 'May Not,' Could be,' and Experts

A missile attack needs more than a missile, though. North Korea would need a warhead: preferably, from Kim Jong Un's point of view, a nuclear weapon. His people have developed nuclear bombs: but may not have been able to make them small enough to fit in a missile.

On the other hand, maybe they have.

I'm not concerned for my immediate personal safety. I live near the center of the North American continent, well away from anything that might be a high-value target.

Besides, North Korea's long-range missiles might not be accurate enough to hit a particular target. The country may not have a nuclear bomb compact enough for a missile. Kim Jong Un could be bluffing.

That's a lot of "might not, "may not," and "could be."

What if the 'experts' are wrong?

Warm and Sunny With a Chance of Nuclear Attack

Let's say North Korea's military has a nuclear weapon which will reach Guam. It's a United States territory, not a state: but closer than Anchorage or Honolulu. It might look like a good place to punish 'imperialists.'

About 44,000 folks live in Dededo, Guam. It's got schools, libraries, and a shopping mall: hardly New York City, but ten times larger than the town I call home.


(from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Micronesia_Mall1.JPG, used w/o permission)

Dededo covers quite a wide area, so a bomb as powerful as the one that hit Hiroshima might not kill everyone there. On the other hand, it would be an extremely unpleasant experience for survivors.


(from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hiroshima_Damage_Map.png, used w/o permission)

I suppose it could be argued that folks living in Dededo 'deserve' to be killed, since they are either 'imperialists' or in league with the United States.

I think that makes as much sense saying that God killed Haitians in 2010 for something (allegedly) done two centuries earlier: or that Yankee imperialists caused the quake.2

Decisions, Responsibility

As of Wednesday, April 3, a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile interceptor system is on its way to Guam. It's expensive, and might not stop an incoming missile attack.

But I think deploying THAAD makes sense. Strategic and tactical considerations aside, it would be nice if folks living in Guam had a little protection.

As I've said before, this isn't a 'political' blog, in the sense that I claim one person or group is always right, and everyone who disagrees is icky. I sometimes discuss political issues, since politics is a means by which some decisions are made.

I did not vote for the current American president, but think that some decisions made during this administration were correct: like sending a THAAD system to Guam.

War, in my considered opinion, is something to avoid. But sometimes using armed force is preferable to the alternative. One of the responsibilities of national authorities is defending their nation: even when force is necessary.3

I suppose Kim Jong Un may think that he is 'defending' his territory. I think he is wrong.

"International Authority" and Looking Ahead

Today, "there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power"4 to restrain the likes of Kim Jong Un or Al Qaeda. Eventually I hope that humanity develops something like Tennyson's "Federation of the world." Until that happens, we'll have to make do with nations like the United States - and North Korea - and international organizations like the United Nations and NATO.

I've discussed some of my hopes in other blogs.

Related posts:
1 Excerpts from news and views:
"North Korea lacks means for nuclear strike on U.S., experts say"
Mark Hosenball, Phil Stewart, Reuters (April 5, 2013)

"North Korea's explicit threats this week to strike the United States with nuclear weapons are rhetorical bluster, as the isolated nation does not yet have the means to make good on them, Western officials and security experts say.

"Pyongyang has slowly and steadily improved its missile capabilities in recent years and U.S. officials say its missiles may be capable of hitting outlying U.S. territories and states, including Guam, Alaska and Hawaii.

"Some private experts say even this view is alarmist. There is no evidence, the officials say, that North Korea has tested the complex art of miniaturizing a nuclear weapon to be placed on a long-range missile, a capability the United States, Russia, China and others achieved decades ago.

"In other words, North Korea might be able to hit some part of the United States, but not the mainland and not with a nuclear weapon.

"The threats against the United States by North Korea's young leader Kim Jong-un are 'probably all bluster,' said Gary Samore, until recently the top nuclear proliferation expert on President Barack Obama's national security staff.

" 'It's extremely unlikely they have a nuclear missile which could reach the United States,' said Samore.

"The North Koreans 'are not suicidal. They know that any kind of direct attack (on the United States) would be end of their country,' said Samore, now at Harvard University's Kennedy School.

"On Wednesday, North Korea's state-run KCNA news agency said its military had 'ratified' an attack involving 'cutting-edge smaller, lighter and diversified nuclear strike means,' an apparent reference to miniaturized nuclear weapons...."
"Korea crisis: UN's Ban warns of 'serious implications' "
BBC News (April 4, 2013)

"UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has appealed to North Korea to change course, saying it has "gone too far" in its rhetoric.

"He said he was concerned any 'unwanted crisis' on the Korean peninsula would have 'very serious implications'.

"The warning came hours after South Korea's foreign minister said the North had shifted a missile with 'considerable range' to its east coast.

"Pyongyang earlier renewed threats of a nuclear strike against the US.

"However, its missiles are not believed to be capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

"White House spokesman Jay Carney described the threats as 'regrettable but familiar', adding the US was taking 'all the necessary precautions'...."
"U.S. Military to Deploy Missile Defense Battery Amid Looming Budget Cuts"
Mike Gruss, Space News, via Space.com (April 4, 2013)

"The U.S. Defense Department plans to deploy a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile interceptor system to Guam in the coming weeks to defend the U.S. territory against a possible North Korean missile attack, the Pentagon announced Wednesday (April 3).

"In October, the THAAD system had its first-ever intercept of a medium-range missile. In recent weeks, North Korea has renounced the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War, closed its borders to South Korean workers, severed a diplomatic hotline with Seoul and threatened to launch missiles at U.S. targets.

"Pyongyang has been steadily escalating its war rhetoric since a satellite launch in December and nuclear test in February drew widespread condemnation and tighter sanctions...."
2 Yes, they really said that:
3 There's a none-too-subtle distinction between indiscriminate violence and legitimate defense. As a practicing Catholic, I take Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2263-2267 and 2307-2317 seriously.

4 Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2308.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

About North Korea, Power, Risks, and Leadership

North Korea's leader says that he'll restart a nuclear reactor.1 This is particularly troublesome, since Kim Jung Un seems intent on confronting 'imperialists.'

North Korea has, at most, a handful of nuclear weapons: and a production capacity of perhaps one per year. The current Kim also has missiles which could reach parts of the United States, as well as Japan, eastern Russia, and China.

I hope that, like his ancestors, the young leader has the wisdom to know when to stop threatening: and accept the best offer presented as appeasement.

Nuclear Threats and Diplomacy

As I said yesterday, this is a serious situation: and I do not think that the United States would be North Korea's biggest concern, no matter which nation the latest Kim attacked.

The United Nations Secretary-General says that "Nuclear threats are not a game." (BBC News) In the sense that they are not trivial, I'll agree: although in a sense all diplomacy is a sort of 'game,' which can be very useful in helping nations deal with issues.

The Quality of Leadership

Finally, I think it's a mistake to regard North Korea as an 'ordinary' nation. For one thing, I don't think there is any such thing. Each nation is a unique entity, with its own history, culture, and goals.

Nations can, however, be separated into categories. Some are obvious: like "large" or "small;" "new" or "old." Others, not so much: like "democracies," a term which I think has suffered from generations of over- and mis-application.

The quality of leadership is arguably more important than whether a nation's government is organized as a constitutional republic, a hereditary monarchy, a military junta, or whatever. (December 29, 2008)

Kim Jong Un runs a 'democratic people's republic,' a one-man dictatorship whose leader uses familiar 20th-century rhetoric. Despite the somewhat shopworn trappings, I think North Korea may be more of an old-style Asian kingdom: the real thing, not the Fu Manchu and Shangri-La variety.

As I've said before, I think any form of government can work: provided that there's good leadership. In the case of North Korea, I am particularly concerned, because we've got a young ruler who may not yet understand the profound risks which come with the power he wields.

Related posts:
1 Excerpts from the news:
"North Korea says it plans to restart shuttered nuclear reactor"
Jethro Mullen, CNN April 2, 2013)

"After weeks of hurling threats at the United States and its allies, North Korea announced Tuesday it will restart a nuclear reactor it had shut more than five years ago.

"The declaration demonstrates Kim Jong Un's commitment to the country's nuclear weapons program that the international community has tried without success to persuade it to abandon.

"The North's state-run Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) reported that the reclusive state's atomic energy department intends to 'readjust and restart all the nuclear facilities' at its main nuclear complex, in Yongbyon...."
"North Korea 'crisis gone too far' says UN's Ban Ki-moon"
BBC News (April 2, 2013)

"UN chief Ban Ki-moon has said the North Korea "crisis has gone too far" after Pyongyang announced plans to restart its main Yongbyon nuclear complex.

"Speaking at a news conference during a visit to Andorra, Mr Ban called for urgent talks with the North.

"The move by Pyongyang is the latest in a series of measures in the wake of its third nuclear test in February.

"North Korea has been angered by the resultant UN sanctions and joint US-South Korea annual military drills.

" 'Things must begin to calm down, there is no need for the DPRK [North Korea] to be on a collision course with the international community. Nuclear threats are not a game,' Mr Ban said.

"Earlier, a South Korean foreign ministry spokesman said that if true, the North Korean move - which includes reactivating a reactor mothballed for six years - would be 'highly regrettable'.

"Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei called for restraint from all sides to resolve the 'complex and sensitive' situation.

"Weeks of rhetoric and almost daily threats by the North have raised tensions on the Korean Peninsula to their highest levels for years...."
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Saturday, March 30, 2013

North Korea, 'Imperialists,' and All That

This could be serious, or not:
"...On Thursday, North Korean state media reported leader Kim Jong-un 'judged the time has come to settle accounts with the US imperialists'.

"He was said to have condemned US B-2 bomber sorties over South Korea during military exercises as a 'reckless phase' that represented an 'ultimatum that they will ignite a nuclear war at any cost on the Korean peninsula'. ..."
(BBC News)
On the one hand, North Korea has a limited supply of nuclear weapons, missiles that might reach targets other than South Korea, and a new leader who may not have his father's talent for self-preservation.

On the other hand, speeches about western imperialists were a perennial favorite during the Cold War: and still popular in some circles.

A Choice of Emphasis

BBC News and Reuters coverage of the Korean situation present nearly the same facts, but each seems to have its own distinct point of view.

First, how Reuters starts:
"North Korea says enters 'state of war' against South"
Jack Kim, Reuters (March 30, 2013)

"North Korea said on Saturday it was entering a 'state of war' with South Korea, but Seoul and its ally the United States played down the statement as tough talk.

"Pyongyang also threatened to close a border industrial zone, the last remaining example of inter-Korean cooperation which gives the impoverished North access to $2 billion in trade a year.

"The United States said it took Pyongyang's threats seriously but cautioned that the North had a history of bellicose rhetoric. Russia, another a permanent U.N. Security Council member, urged all sides to show restraint...."
It's fairly even-handed reporting: although I get the impression that we're supposed to see American leaders carelessly ignoring deadly threats to world peace, while Russian leaders wisely implore restraint.

Or, not.

Here are the BBC News lead paragraphs:
"North Korea enters 'state of war' with South"
BBC News (March 30, 2013)

"North Korea has said it is entering a 'state of war' with South Korea in the latest escalation of rhetoric against its neighbour and the US.

"A statement promised 'stern physical actions' against 'any provocative act'.

"North Korea has threatened attacks almost daily since it was sanctioned for a third nuclear test in February.

"However, few think the North would risk full-blown conflict. It has technically been at war with the South since 1953 as no peace treaty has been signed.

"An armistice at the end of the Korean War was never turned into a full treaty...."
There's more: I recommend reading both articles, at least. What struck me about BBC coverage was the the reminder, rather near the top of the article, that North Korea has been 'at war' with South Korea for decades.

Maybe that's not as dramatic as Reuters coverage: but I don't mind a little historical perspective.

Reuters does mention the armistice which ended the Korean War, together with what may or may not be a new development:
"...North Korea has canceled an armistice agreement with the United States that ended the Korean War and cut all hotlines with U.S. forces, the United Nations and South Korea."
(Reuters)
That was in the last paragraph of the Reuters article. Maybe North Korea canceled the armistice agreement today: or they could have done so in 1954. Reuters doesn't say.

Serious? Yes

Tempting as it is to imagine that North Korea's new leader is merely following in his dynasty's tradition of making wild threats against "imperialists," this time we may have a leader who believes his own propaganda.

I think it is very unlikely that North Korea could defeat the United States by lobbing nuclear warheads at Alaska and Hawaii.

On the other hand, if North Korea's new leadership decides to teach "US imperialists" a lesson by killing thousands of American citizens: it's possible that my country's antimissile defense system wouldn't stop the warhead(s).

That would be very bad news for anyone living near the new ground zero: and, most likely, for folks living in or downwind of North Korea.

If Kim Jong-un, or a maverick North Korean general, decides to launch a nuclear strike, I don't think the United States would be that nation's biggest concern.

A few years ago Russia changed their nuclear policy, and are now willing to launch a first nuclear attack. (January 19, 2008) Russia's Pacific seaports, including Vladivostok, are substantially closer to North Korea than Alaska or Hawaii: and Russia has a record of shooting first, as KAL flights 902 and 007 demonstrated. (September 10, 2007)

Related posts:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

South Korea Computers Crash, Causing Coffee Cash Crisis

"South Korean banks and media report computer network crash, causing speculation of North Korea cyberattack"
Associated Press, via FoxNews.com (March 20, 2013)

"Computer networks at major South Korean banks and top TV broadcasters crashed simultaneously Wednesday, paralyzing bank machines across the country and prompting speculation of a cyberattack by North Korea.

"Screens went blank at 2 p.m., the state-run Korea Information Security Agency said, and more than six hours later some systems were still down...."
Since the United States and South Korea do joint military drills, which annoys North Kora's government, it's possible that North Korea is behind the attack. Then again, maybe not.

United Nations imposed sanctions on North Korea after last month's nuclear test, which gives the North another motive for scrambling South Korean computers.

The good news is that South Korea's government agencies, power plants, and transportation systems weren't affected.

The bad news is that this outage was a cyberattack, not the result of glitchy software or a squirrel's fiery annihilation in a power line's transformer.

Coffee Cash Crisis at Starbucks

South Korea's economy is one of the world's top 20. I doubt that being plunged into a cash-only world for a few hours will do much damage. On the other hand, I'm glad that I wasn't on coffee break in Seol when the ATMs died.
"...Some customers were unable to use the debit or credit cards that many rely on more than cash. At one Starbucks in downtown Seoul, customers were asked to pay for their coffee in cash, and lines formed outside disabled bank machines...."
(Associated Press, via FoxNews.com)

Cyberattack: or Really Bad Luck?

Machines break down sometimes. South Korean might have just been unlucky. Very unlucky.

In this case, so many systems going down at the same time seems - - - improbable.

I'm sincerely glad that I don't have the task of figuring out what happened in South Korea. Sorting through technical data may be much easier than separating accurate eyewitness reports from flights of fancy.
"...'It's got to be a hacking attack,' Lim Jong-in, dean of Korea University's Graduate School of Information Security. 'Such simultaneous shutdowns cannot be caused by technical glitches.'

"The Korea Information Security Agency had reported that an image of skulls and a hacking claim had popped up on some of the computers that shut down, but later said those who reported the skulls did not work for the five companies whose computers suffered massive outages. KISA was investigating the skull images as well...."
(Associated Press, via FoxNews.com)

Speculation and Denial

A Korea Communications Commission official said that destructive code might have been spread from servers sending automatic updates and virus patches for security software. The key word is 'might.' Right now, so soon after the event, I'd be very surprised if investigators had traced the problems to their source.

That said, I think it's reasonable to assume that the outage wasn't an accident. North Korea's leadership apparently denies that they're running an Internet warfare unit. Maybe so, but that outfit is still churning out cold-war-style variations on the old 'capitalistic imperialistic warmonger' rhetoric.

The effect their policies have on North Korea's citizens being what it is, I'm not surprised: distracting folks from bread-and-butter issues might seem expedient, and that's another topic.

Back to the dean of Korea University's Graduate School of Information Security:

"Likely," "Probable," and Motive

"...Lim said he believes hackers in China were likely culprits in the outage in Pyongyang, but that North Korea was probably responsible for Wednesday's attack.

" 'Hackers attack media companies usually because of a political desire to cause confusion in society,' he said. 'Political attacks on South Korea come from North Koreans.'..."
(Associated Press, via FoxNews.com)
I'm inclined to agree with dean Lim: someone probably wanted to mess with South Korean media to "cause confusion in society." Or frustration, anyway.

Consequences of today's attack might be a bit more serious than a few frazzled Starbucks customers. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that losing several hours of productivity, directly from out-of-service machines and indirectly from folks being a bit off their game after a disrupted schedule, might have at least a tiny effect on South Korea's economy.

More seriously, South Korea's servers are part of the Internet - so problems there could spread.

Not a Weekend Project

Whoever arranged for today's outage put a lot of effort into it. And, although it doesn't look like investigators know who the attacks planners were: this does seem to be an attack, the first of several.
"...Orchestrating the mass shutdown of the networks of major companies would have taken at least one to six months of planning and coordination, said Kwon Seok-chul, chief executive officer of Seoul-based cyber security firm Cuvepia Inc.

"Kwon, who analyzed personal computers at one of the three broadcasters shut down Wednesday, said he hasn't yet seen signs that the malware was distributed by North Korea.

" 'But hackers left indications in computer files that mean this could be the first of many attacks,' he said.

"Lim said tracking the source of the outage would take months."
(Associated Press, via FoxNews.com)

Coffee Breaks and Power Grids

I like living in the Information Age, but the benefits of fast global communication and continent-spanning power grids come with new problems.

The The Great Northeast Blackout of 1965 only affected 30,000,000 folks. About 100,000,000 people living in Java and Bali lost power in 2005, and back-to-back power failures in India last year set a new record: the July 30 and 31, 2012, events affected 620,000,000 people.

Since coordinating generators and transmission lines on today's scale involves software, 'throwing a monkey wrench' into the system can be done from the other side of the world.

Most of the serious discussion of 'cyberthreats' has focused on hacking into computers that control power grids, or ones holding secure information.

At least as disquieting, I think, is what could happen if someone managed to get into prescription formula databases, or got control of life support systems in a hospital.

Pleasant dreams.

Related posts:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Monday, December 19, 2011

Kim Jong Il is Dead: North Korea's Ruling Dynasty's Third Generation

Sooner or later, this was bound to happen:
"N Korean leader Kim Jong-il dies"
BBC News Asia (December 19, 2011)

"North Korean leader Kim Jong-il has died at the age of 69, state-run television has announced.

"Mr Kim, who has led the communist nation since the death of his father in 1994, died on a train while visiting an area outside the capital, the announcement said.

"He suffered a stroke in 2008 and was absent from public view for months.

"His designated successor is his third son, Kim Jong-un, who is thought to be in his late 20s...."
(BBC)
I wrote about North Korea's ruling dynasty about a year ago. (November 25, 2010) On paper, North Korea is an up-to-date nation, with a Chairman: not a king or emperor. Considering the way that territory is run, and how ownership is passed along in the Kim family: I think it's a bit more accurate to think of the place as an old-fashioned domain, ruled by a family of fairly colorful warlords.

I also think that most folks in North Korea will probably be much better off, after the Kim family and their enforcers get replaced. Provided that whoever gets the job of cleaning up the mess is modestly competent: and more interested in public service, than imported lobster and ideology.

That's about as close to a rant about the Kim dynasty as I'll allow myself today. I explained why I don't 'dance on the grave' of dead autocrats, in another blog:

North Korea: So Far, So Good

"North Korea's state-run news agency, KCNA, urged people to unite behind the younger Kim.

" 'All party members, military men and the public should faithfully follow the leadership of comrade Kim Jong-un and protect and further strengthen the unified front of the party, military and the public,' the news agency said...."
In a way, KCNA's official take on Kim Jong Il's death is quite good news. Whoever's calling the shots at the moment doesn't seem to want the 'unified front' to blame the late Kim's death on Yankee imperialism. It's early days, of course. For all I know, someone will get the idea of blaming Kim Jong Il's death on that plot to set up a Christmas tree near the North Korean border.

Christmas tree? I am not making that up.

2,000,000 Dead in Famine; Human Rights Abuses; and Nukes

"...Mr Kim inherited the leadership of North Korea - which remains technically at war with South Korea - from his father Kim Il-sung.

"Shortly after he came to power, a severe famine caused by ill-judged economic reforms and poor harvests left an estimated two million people dead.

"His regime has been harshly criticised for human rights abuses and is internationally isolated because of its pursuit of nuclear weapons...."
(BBC)
Like I said, I think folks in North Korea - those who aren't close enough to the ruling family - could do a whole lot better, with someone else running the country.

They could do worse, too. Quite a few North Koreans didn't die in that famine, and it looks like the Kim family knows how to put on large-scale public entertainment.

And, not to be too pessimistic, someone who believes North Korea's official line on reality might take over - and decide to launch some of their nuclear warheads. That could be a very unpleasant situation.

Somewhat-related posts:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Friday, December 3, 2010

Today's News: Now What?!

Today's news is more of the same: only more so, in the case of Korea.

This is a somewhat rambling post. A point I'm trying to make is that not all countries are the same. I've said this before. (June 9, 2009)

That may seem obvious, but I've gotten the impression that folks with quite a few sorts of views sometimes think that all countries are pretty much like America - except that America is at fault for their problems; or that all countries should be like America. I don't mind living in a world where everybody isn't exactly like me - and that's another topic.

Korea

"South Korea's defense minister vows airstrikes if North Korea attacks"
CNN (December 3, 2010)

"South Korea's new defense minister said his country would respond with airstrikes if North Korea attacks it again, South Korean state media reported Friday. It is some of the strongest rhetoric since the conflict broke out late last month.

" 'We will definitely air raid North Korea, Kim Kwan-jin said at his confirmation hearing when asked how the South would respond if struck again, according to the official Yonhap News Agency.

"Kim was appointed defense minister last week amid growing tensions on the Korean peninsula following an exchange of gunfire between the two sides.

"His comments reflect a potential shift in South Korea's policy toward provocations from the North. Previously, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak warned of severe consequences if the North launched another attack, but declined to name specifics...."
I can't say that I'm happy about this development.

I'd prefer that North and South Korea get along. Better yet, that the country have one government. One run by sane people, who had some sort of checks and balances to keep them from being too irresponsible.

While I'm wishing, I'd prefer that America's checks and balances worked. And that's yet another topic, sort of.

This isn't a perfect world, so North Korea is run by Dear Leader, who seems to be arranging for his son to take over. South Korea is run by a President, a National Assembly, and a Supreme Court.

North Korea has a billion-dollar economy which produces armaments, textiles, and agricultural products, among other things.

South Korea has a trillion-dollar economy, making electronics, cars, and ships - also music videos and various consumer products. (CIA World Factbook, "Korea, South" (last updated November 17, 2010)"Korea, North" (last updated November 9, 2010))

I think the radical differences between the two halves of Korea are due mostly to the style of leadership on each side - but that's my opinion. Dear Leader's take is that the half of the country he doesn't control is the "South Korean puppet group." (November 23, 2010)
'I Predict' - Something Will Happen
As for 'what next?' That's a good question: but I really don't know.

The most recent attacks could be another case of bad behavior, followed by demands for concessions. If Dear Leader was younger, I'd probably think he probably just wanted more lobster, or maybe a special seat at the United Nations.

What troubles me is Kim Jong Il's age, and what appear to be his efforts at setting up his son to be the next warlord. When Kim Jong Il dies: well, the death of a warlord has sometimes set off quite a scramble among the folks who want the position. This lot has nuclear weapons, and missiles that can reach quite a few countries bordering the Pacific.

One of the wannabes might get the idea that incinerating, say, Tokyo, Vladivostok, or Seoul, was a good way to show determination. Or someone in North Korea might start believing their own propaganda. Again, my opinion.

On the other hand, the government in Seoul might get a telephone call tomorrow, from Pyongyang - collect - saying: 'sorry about that: it was all a big misunderstanding, it's a mess here, and we'd like you to take over now.'

I really don't think that'll happen.

Afghanistan

"Obama in Afghanistan, U.S. to release war review soon"
Caren Bohan, Reuters Edition: U.S. (December 3, 2010)

"President Barack Obama visited Afghanistan on Friday but bad weather kept him on a U.S. military base and forced him to cancel a planned face-to-face meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

"Obama was due to speak with Karzai by phone from Bagram Air Base outside the capital, U.S. officials said. They previously hoped to set up a secure videophone line but weather and technical difficulties prevented that.

"The trip, the second to Afghanistan of Obama's presidency, comes as the White House prepares to release a review of the war strategy the week of December 13.

"It will assess and potentially recommend changes to the strategy Obama rolled out a year ago when he ordered 30,000 additional U.S. troops to that war zone.

"Obama is under pressure to show progress in the increasingly unpopular nine-year-old war and the visit is a chance for a first-hand assessment...."
I've said it before: 'It's different, when you're in charge.'

Let's remember that Afghanistan was run by the Taliban, 1996-2001, and had a series of civil wars before that. The country is not in great shape. (CIA World Factbook, "Afghanistan" (last updated November 22, 2010))

Whatever the president of the United States says, week after next, it's going to be criticized. I'm no great fan of the current president, but I'm waiting until I see what the man has to say, before commenting on it.

And, if there's an unfavorable fluff-to-content ratio, I may not comment at all. Moving on.

Ivory Coast, Africa

"Ivory Coast poll overturned: Gbagbo declared winner"
BBC News Africa (December 3, 2010)

"Ivory Coast's Constitutional Council has overturned earlier poll results and declared President Laurent Gbagbo the winner of Sunday's run-off.

"On Thursday the electoral commission head said opposition candidate Alassane Ouattara had defeated Mr Gbagbo.

"But the Constitutional Council chairman said results in seven regions in the north, where Mr Ouattara draws most of his support, had been annulled.

"The poll was intended to reunify the nation after a civil war in 2002.

"Paul Yao N'Dre, chairman of the Constitutional Council which validates election results, said Mr Gbagbo had won a little more than 51% of the vote.

"The head of the electoral commission had said Mr Gbagbo won 46% of ballots cast....

"...On Thursday evening, the military closed the country's borders and international news sources were suspended...."
Okay. This sounds familiar.
  • 'Elected' leader stages election
  • 'Wrong' candidate wins
  • Ballots for 'wrong' candidate declared invalid
  • 'Elected' leader's enforcers
    • Close borders
    • Shut down news
No bragging about how that could never happen in this country. I live in Minnesota. 'Nuff said. This isn't a 'political' blog.

If "Ivory Coast" doesn't sound familiar, you may know the country as Cote d'Ivoire. (CIA World Factbook) Cote d'Ivoire is in better shape than Somalia: but most countries are.

About the recent election, Laurent Gbagbo's folks may be right - there might be legitimate reasons for throwing out ballots from areas that supported the other fellow. A point in Gbagbo's favor, given my biases, is that the 'official' count is around 51% - not the 99%, give-or-take, that some folks presumably got. Officially.

So, what does this election SNAFU have to do with the war on terror?

Directly, not all that much.

Indirectly, Cote d'Ivoire is a pretty good example of how countries aren't all alike.

For example, part of Cote d'Ivoire's economy involves what's politely termed "trafficking in persons." Illegal immigrants occasionally show up on the domestic staff of American political leaders - and folks breaking into this country are a hot-button issue. But forced servitude isn't - really - a significant part of America's economy. The opinions of a few college professors and terribly earnest folks notwithstanding.

The idea that people are commodities that can be bought and sold is not a good fit with the ideals of personal freedom that quite a few folks in America and Western civilization at least pay lip-service to.

I've made the point before: Islam is at least as diverse as Protestant Christianity. Muslims seem to have an extremely wide range of beliefs, based in part on local and regional cultures. Islam is not some monolithic block of Osama bin Laden clones.

However, the local/regional flavors of Islam often tolerate quaint customs. Like forced servitude. It's not called that - not in polite society, anyway. But the folks whose leaders are sitting on the heart of Islam import "...workers from South and Southeast Asia who are subjected to conditions that constitute involuntary servitude including being subjected to physical and sexual abuse, non-payment of wages, confinement, and withholding of passports as a restriction on their movement...." (CIA World Factbook, "Saudi Arabia" (last updated November 9, 2010))

'The war on terror' isn't a war on Islam. But outfits like the Taliban and Al Qaeda have attitudes and beliefs that aren't all that unlike those of the Saudi upper crust. Those beliefs aren't a good fit - at all - with the way Americans, and folks in Western countries generally, have gotten used to living.

Folks living in Cote d'Ivoire, by the way, are about 1/3 Muslim, 1/3 Christian, and 1/3 something else. And I'm not trying to say that Islam causes slavery. Cultures that Islam appears in these days? That's yet again another topic.

Related posts:
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, November 25, 2010

North Korea: Kim Jong Il and Son; Speculation

Dynasty? Succession?

What is this, some kind of historical novel? Or maybe another Star Wars story?

Nope: It's speculation about what's going on in North Korea.

The death toll for that shelling of a South Korean island is up to four now; Kim Jong Il is still alive, apparently; and odds are that Kim Jong-il ordered the hit himself. To make his son look good.

How that's supposed to work, I don't know. Maybe it's 'competence by association.' The younger Kim was (probably) with North Korea's leader, (most likely) touring the artillery base, shortly before North Korea whacked the South Koreans.

Dynasty, Succession, North Korea and Nukes

There was a time when territories were run somewhat along the lines of the Corleone family (Godfather and sequels). The system had its drawbacks, but it worked.

Quite a bit of how well it worked depended, I think, on who the "godfather" was. Except the monarch had some other title, back in the 'good old days.'

Then, colonists in North America got fed up with loopy tax regulations, among other things, and tipped the apple cart over.

"Democracy" was all the rage not long after that, and now the monarch of the (former) colonists is one of the few remaining on Earth.

Korea, Elections, The Godfather, and Names

North Korea isn't a monarchy. On paper.

Kim Jon Il is the chairman of the National Defense Commission, North Korea's "highest administrative authority." While I'm on the subject of names, "North Korea" is what folks here in North America call Kim Jon Il's domain.

The name folks over there use is "Choson-minjujuui-inmin-konghwaguk," or Choson, for short. I take it that's an effort to express 조선, as pronounced, in the version of the Latin alphabet that the English language uses. In South Korea, "Korea" is 한국, or "Hanguk:" Sort of.

Why don't they call it "Korea?" That's another topic. Bottom line is that folks who live in a particular area generally use the name that works in their language. My ancestral homelands, for example, are Norge and Eire, and I married someone whose ancestors came from Nederland and Deutschland. We both speak American English, so those aren't the words we generally use.

Back to Choson / North Korea

North Korea, The Godfather, and Elections

Kim Jong Il is an elected official. On paper. With nobody else to run against, it's no great surprise.

I've got a bit more respect for rulers in Kim Jong Il's position, when they don't pretend that they're where they are 'by the will of the people.'

Think of the (fictional) Corleone family in The Godfather. "Don" Vito Corleone comes off as a moderately decent autocrat, I gather. Consider what his image would be, if the Don had elections at intervals, with himself as the only candidate. And tried to present the Family as a democratic institution.

Anyway, Kim Jong Il insists that he's an elected official. Odds are that his son will make the same claim.

As for the guessing game on who ordered the shelling of that island, and why? That's yet another topic.

Feuding Warlords With Nukes

Back in the 'good old days,' a strong-willed warlord, or king, or whatever, could often keep warlord wannabes in check within his holdings.

If the warlord had good sense - and gave a rip about his domain - he'd select the biggest, strongest, toughest, smartest wannabe: while he still had a few years to go. The old warlord would make an effort to train the wannabe in the fine art of leadership. And make it clear that this particular wad of meat was his chosen successor. Then, when the old warlord died, there'd be a relatively short period of bloodshed while the new warlord demonstrated that he really wanted to carry out the old warlord's wishes.

It was a messy system, but it worked. European warlords worked out a system of hereditary succession that tended to reduce the amount of internal warfare.

But the kings didn't hold elections. They had other excuses for being where they were. 'Divine right' was a favorite for a while - and that's yet again another topic.

That was then.

I think what we've got in North Korea is a little like those colorful episodes where the old warlord is dying, and trying to get his successor in position to hack and slash his way to the throne.

Except this time, the warlord wannabes have nuclear weapons.

Think Macbeth - the Shakespeare story, not the real one. Except that Macbeth, Macduff, and Duncan all have a few nukes. And the incentive to use them.

Here's what set me off this morning:
Excerpt from:
"North Korean leader and son visited artillery site: reports"
Jeremy Laurence, editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan and Andrew Marshall, Reuters (November 25, 2010)

"North Korean leader Kim Jong-il and his son and successor Jong-un visited the artillery base from where shells were fired at a South Korean island just hours before the attack, South Korean media reported on Thursday.

"North Korea's attack on Yeonpyeong Island that killed two South Korean marines and two civilians on Tuesday was probably ordered by Kim Jong-il himself, the Joongang Daily quoted a well-informed government source as saying.

"Seoul government officials contacted by Reuters could not comment on the reports.

"The United States says it believes North Korea's actions were an isolated act tied to leadership changes in Pyongyang, and many experts say the North carried out the shelling to burnish the image of the inexperienced and little-known younger Kim.

"The ailing leader is desperate to give a lift to his youngest son, named as heir apparent to the family dynasty in September, but who has little clear support in the military...."
Related posst:
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

North Korea: Nukes, Missiles, and Underfed Soldiers

A regime like North Korea's has its strengths. Like being able to force large numbers of its subjects into military service. North Korea doesn't seem able to feed its soldiers all that well, or provide them with much of the sort of training that requires fuel or bullets: but boy, does Kim Jon Il's country have a lot of soldiers.

Which is a real concern for folks living in South Korea, among others.

Whether or not the under-fed, ill-equipped North Korean soldiers really believe the propaganda they're fed - it's likely that they believe that they'll be punished if the don't do what the nearest general tells them. Like fire on a South Korean naval ship, or set fire to civilian buildings.

Paranoia, No: Prudence, Yes

I've mentioned Frank Burns, the idiot patriot and quack doctor in the M*A*S*H television series. One of my favorite episodes included a vignette of Dr. Burns looking for land mines in his toothpaste.

That's crazy. It's also funny, and fiction.

This is the real world.

Sadly, no matter how many factually-challenged paranoiacs infested America of the 1950s, today's North Korea is a serious - and very real - problem for anyone within about 2,000 miles - give or take a few hundred.

North Korea's nuclear weapons probably aren't all that much. Last year, Russia confirmed that North Korea had tested a 20-kiloton nuclear bomb. (GlobalSecurity.org (May 25, 2009)) That's a little more powerful than the bomb that devastated Hiroshima, but not by all that much. (GlobalSecurity.org (November 14, 1996))

If North Korea decided to launch a nuclear warhead against, say, Tokyo, folks living on the other side of Mt. Odake might not be hurt a bit. Not directly, anyway. But it would still be a really bad day for Tokyo. And the rest of Japan - and the world.

That 'no man is an island' stuff isn't just poetry. We live in a very interconnected world, and what happens in one nation gets felt everywhere.

I have no reason to believe that someone in North Korea will think it's a good idea to obliterate part of a Japanese city. Or one in South Korea. I have little reason to think that someone won't, either.

It'd be nice if everybody would be nice: but the last several thousand years of recorded history don't suggest that 'being nice' is as common a practice as it should be.

North Korea, Scrambling for Power, and "Miscommunications"

As for North Korea: It looks like Kim Jong Il is - willingly or not - turning control of the country over to someone else. Given the sort of operation he's been running, there could be quite a scramble soon, as generals and other wannabe warlords make a grab for power.

Then there are rumors, mentioned in the following article, about "miscommunications or worse within the North's command-and-control structure."

It's the sort of thing that makes me glad to live over a thousand miles from the Pacific Ocean, deep in the heart of North America.
Excerpts from:
"North Korea's military aging but sizeable"
Tim Lister, CNN World (November 24, 2010)

"It's a bit like train-spotting but rather more serious. On October 10, Korea-watchers pored over live televised coverage of a massive military parade in Pyongyang, held to mark the 65th anniversary of North Korea's ruling party. Just like the Soviet parades of yore, it was a chance to see what military hardware the North might be showing off.

"The official news agency said the parade showed 'the will and might of Songun Korea to wipe out the enemy.' The hardware was accompanied by slogans such as 'Defeat the U.S. Military. U.S. soldiers are the Korean People's Army's enemy.' And besides the incredible synchronized goose-stepping, there were tanks and new missiles.

"Analysts paid special attention to the first public appearance of a road-mobile ballistic missile with a projected range of between 3,000 and 4,000 kilometers (roughly 1,900 to 2,400 miles), though reports of its existence had circulated for several years.....

"...North Korea's nuclear capability and ballistic missile technology are its trump card, to make up for its aging conventional forces and as a bargaining chip in negotiations. So that's what receives the bulk of funding and expertise. But despite economic stagnation, technological limitations and international sanctions, its conventional forces can't be discounted, if only because of their size.

"According to South Korean analysts, the North scraped together what little foreign exchange it had to buy $65 million of weapons from China, Russia and eastern Europe between 2002 and 2008. One example: It appears to have bought Chinese-made ZM-87 anti-personnel lasers, using one to 'illuminate' two U.S. Army Apache helicopters flying along the southern side of the Demilitarized Zone in 2003. None of the crew members was injured.

"China says it continues to be open to military collaboration with Pyongyang and last month welcomed a senior North Korean official to Beijing to 'enhance coordination of the two militaries.' China is thought to have supplied the North with multiple rocket launchers and spare parts for planes, among other equipment. Pyongyang has also turned to Iran and Egypt for military transfers.

"Much of the North's hardware is locally built using Chinese and Russian templates. It has begun deploying a new tank, called the P'okpoong (Storm), which is modeled on the Russian T-62 tank but hardly a match for modern U.S. battle tanks. It's not clear how many of these are in service, but Jane's Armed Forces Editor Alexander von Rosenbach says it is thought that only a few have been delivered -- and they lack devices like thermal imaging sights.

"Also on show at the October parade: a new surface-to-air missile similar to a Chinese model. Jane's concluded that it represented 'a major expansion in North Korea's air defense potential,' with a radar/guidance system that would be harder to jam. And although little is known about the size and scope of the North's artillery, the barrage fired this week at Yeonpyeong Island suggests that it can't be ignored.

"The North Korean regime has also devoted great resources to developing its navy, not with battleships but fast-attack vessels and an array of submarines. Jane's estimates that it has more than 400 surface vessels. And it is not hesitant to use its maritime forces, as demonstrated by the sinking of the 1,200-ton South Korean corvette Cheonan by a torpedo in March. But in a confrontation, the South Korean navy is likely to come off best, as happened in a firefight in 1999.

"The main weakness of the North's military is a chronic shortage of computers, modern command and control and electronic warfare assets -- in other words, much of what makes up the 21st-century battlefield. At the same time, South Korea has used its economic strength to modernize its armed forces: for example, building three $1 billion Aegis-class destroyers to counter ballistic missiles.

"The same applies in the air. North Korea's air force largely comprises aging Soviet MiG fighters (though it has some MiG 29s) .... In addition, the North's air force has suffered fuel shortages, and Jane's estimated that the North's fighter pilots may get as little as 25 flying hours per year. The North Koreans also have a large fleet of Russian-design biplanes that would be better suited to crop-spraying but could be used to drop special forces behind enemy lines in the event of conflict.

"To compensate for obsolescence, the North deploys boots on the ground in great numbers. Jane's estimates that its standing army numbers just over 1 million personnel, with reserves estimated at more than 7 million. But North Korean soldiers are poorly fed, according to analysts and reports from defectors, and rarely train due to scarcity of fuel and ammunition....

"...'With the ongoing leadership transition in North Korea, there have been rumors of discontent within the military, and the current actions may reflect miscommunications or worse within the North's command-and-control structure,' geopolitical risk analysis firm Stratfor says....

"...Short of a general assault, the North clearly has enough in its arsenal to cause damage and death to its adversary, as the torpedo attack in March and the barrage this week have shown. And it has thousands of artillery pieces close to the Demilitarized Zone, which is just 30 kilometers (18 miles) from Seoul. Recent events show that it is also quite ready to exploit the element of surprise...."
Related posts:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Korea: 'South Korean Puppet Group' and the Real World

Here's one version of what happened recently in Korea:
"...The 'South Korean puppet group' engaged in 'reckless military provocation' by firing 'dozens of shells' inside its territorial waters 'despite the repeated warnings of the DPRK' or Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the North's military said in a statement.

" 'The revolutionary armed forces of the DPRK standing guard over the inviolable territorial waters of the country took such decisive military step as reacting to the military provocation of the puppet group with a prompt powerful physical strike,' the statement said...."
(CNN)
So much depends on one's point of view. And preferred reality. As in the - interesting - news coverage of an incident last year:What happened then involved someone cleaning a machine gun, and discharging three rounds. Accidentally - but you had to read past the article's lead to learn that. Which is another topic.

North Korea: Again; Still

I'm not going to indulge in the usual 'give peace a chance' stuff. I think it'd be nice if an armed conflict - make that an open armed conflict - on the Korean peninsula didn't happen.

I also think it would be nice if North Korea had someone else running the place.

Part of why I think that Kim Jong Il isn't good for either half of Korea is discussed in an excerpt from today's news that I'll put near the end of this post.

I'm not convinced that direct, massive, 'retaliation' on North Korea is a good idea. On the other hand, I think I can see why President Lee Myung-bak is getting fed up.

What isn't all that clear is just what North Korea's leadership hopes to accomplish.

It's possible that Kim Jon Il wants another set of concessions, in exchange for having his enforcers behave themselves for a while. Or maybe someone in North Korea thinks that, now that they've got nuclear weapons, North Korea is invincible.

Nuclear weapons? Yes. Equivalent to what remains in the inventories of other nations? Not at all likely. A problem for everyone within range of North Korea's missiles? Yes. My opinion.

I put links to other posts about the Korean situation after this excerpt from CNN:
"SK leader: Military should 'retaliate' against NK 'provocation' "
Andrew Salmon, Steven Jiang, Yoko Wakatsuki,Joe Sterling, CNN World (November 23, 2010)

"Hours after North Korea's deadly artillery attacks on Tuesday, South Korea's president said 'enormous retaliation' is needed to stop Pyongyang's incitement, but international diplomats urgently appealed for restraint.

" 'The provocation this time can be regarded as an invasion of South Korean territory,' President Lee Myung-bak said at the headquarters of the Joint Chiefs of Staff here, according to South Korea's Yonhap news agency.

"The incident -- in which two South Korean marines died -- is 'the first direct artillery attack on South Korean territory since the Korean War ended in an armistice, not a formal peace treaty' in the 1950s, South Korea's Yonhap news agency reported. The United States has about 28,500 troops deployed in South Korea and are warily watching the situation.

"Calling the act a 'very serious provocation,' Scott Snyder, director of the Center for U.S.-Korea Policy, the Asia Foundation, said the incident was 'unprecedented in recent years [at least since the 1970s if not longer] in terms of artillery beyond the DMZ into civilian areas.'

"Along with the slain marines, 15 South Korean soldiers and three civilians were wounded when the North fired about 100 rounds of artillery at Yeonpyeong Island in the Yellow Sea, South Korea authorities. The attack also set houses and forests on fire on the island.

"South Korea's military responded with more than 80 rounds of artillery and deployed fighter jets to counter the fire, defense officials said.

"Firing between the two sides lasted for about an hour in the Yellow Sea, a longstanding flash point between the two Koreas. In March, a South Korean warship, the Cheonan, was sunk in the area with the loss of 46 lives in a suspected North Korean torpedo attack.

"Lee called 'indiscriminate attacks on civilians are a grave matter.' He said that since 'North Korea maintains an offensive posture, South Korea's military forces -- the army, air force and navy -- 'should unite and retaliate against [the North's] provocation with multiple-fold firepower.'

" 'Reckless attacks on South Korean civilians are not tolerable, especially when South Korea is providing North Korea with humanitarian aid,' Lee said, according to Yonhap...."
Related posts:
A tip of the hat to dragonblogger, on Twitter, for the heads-up on the CNN story.
Posted by at 4 comments:
Labels: ,

Friday, March 26, 2010

South Korean Navy Ship Just Happens to be Sinking

North - and South - Korea are in the news again.

I'd be more worried, if this didn't look like one more shakedown by Dear Leader's enforcers. Of course this time the rulers of that worker's paradise may have gone over the edge, aren't after money or concessions: And think that having a few nuclear bombs gives them an edge over America. And China. And Russia. And Japan, and all the other countries in that part of the world.

So far, CNN's calling it an "accident." Yes, the South Korean Navy ship could just happen to be sinking near an island that just happens to be near the disputed border between Dear Leader's land and a country that's functional.

In the news:
"Several South Korean sailors were killed and one of its naval ships with more than 100 aboard was sinking on Friday after possibly being hit by a North Korean torpedo, South Korean media reported.

"A South Korean vessel fired at an unidentified vessel towards the north and the South's presidential Blue House was holding an emergency security meeting, Yonhap news agency said.

"South Korea's YTN TV network said the government was investigating whether the sinking was due to a torpedo attack by the North.

"The network also quoted a government source saying it was unclear yet whether the incident was related to North Korea.

" 'We are currently focusing on rescuing people,' the source said...."

"...The latest incident comes as destitute North Korea is facing pressure to end its year-long boycott of international nuclear disarmament talks, where it can win aid to prop up its broken economy in exchange for reducing the security threat it poses to the region. (Reporting by Cho Mee-young and Kim Miyoung; Writing by Jon Herskovitz; Editing by Alex Richardson)"
(Reuters AlertNet (March 26, 2010))
A few minutes ago, I read a Reuters report: Apparently a South Korean ship has fired on an unidentified vessel. This occurred after the first South Korean ship started sinking.

It's 'way too early to tell just what is happening. Dear Leader may want more money, or a special seat at the United Nations, or something: in which case, we're in for another round of bad behavior by the boss of North Korea.

Or maybe some North Korean naval commander started believing his outfit's propaganda, and snapped.

Or maybe a South Korean naval vessel just happened to spring a leak, some number of the sailors on board just happened to drop dead, and all this just happened to occur near Dear Leader's territory. It's possible. Unlikely, but possible. Very unlikely.

But it's 'way too early to tell.

Related posts:In the news:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

Saturday, December 19, 2009

American Military Tests Antimissile System: Smart Move, I Think

Well, that's interesting:
"Test of newest U.S. missile defense technology will simulate attack by Iran"
CNN (December 19, 2009)

"The U.S. military's Missile Defense Agency will practice protecting the United States from a simulated Iranian missile attack next month in an exercise using the agency's newest missile-killing technology, Pentagon officials said Friday.

Previous tests have been focused on a missile trajectory that mimics an attack from North Korea, but the January test will have a trajectory and distance resembling an intercontinental ballistic missile launch from Iran...."
One point that makes this newsworthy is that similar tests had been performed, simulating incoming missiles from North Korea. This time, the virtual warheads started in Iran.

The conventional wisdom I encountered, some thirty to forty years back, was that just about everything was America's fault. Like the Soviet Union doing mean things.

The idea was that if the capitalistic, imperialistic warmonger military-industrial complex would just apologize for causing poverty, racism, and bad crops, and abolish the armed forces: everything would be nice. Given the starting assumptions that folks who held similar views had, it practically made sense.

It's Different, When You're in Charge

I've said this before: President Obama is not, in my opinion, a fool; nor is he, again in my opinion, particularly stupid. He also probably wants to have a second term as president of the United States. A prerequisite condition for that is that there to be a United States to be president of.

Whatever sort of 'happy face' rhetoric he (or any other candidate) used during the election campaign: now that he's president Obama has shown a (distressing, from some points of view) tendency to act as though there are people out there who aren't very nice, and who want to kill Americans.

Imagine.

I Don't agree with him on many points: but credit where credit is due.

Iranian missiles reaching American states?

The last I read, Iran's missiles could reach most of the Middle East, the more heavily-populated parts of Russia, and some of Europe and Africa.

I doubt that they've got intercontinental-range missiles yet. On the other hand, it's not that much of a stretch to imagine that Iran could outfit a cargo ship with a launch platform and deliver missiles from not-all-that-far offshore: anywhere.

I live a little east of the geographical center of North America, a thousand miles from the Atlantic Ocean. Central Minnesota is, I would think, a fairly low-value target anyway. I mean to say, would you get quite the same bang for your buck, wiping out a place like Long Prairie, Sauk Centre, or Glenwood: compared with the impact of finishing the job in New York City or Washington?

Still, although I'm pretty sure I live far away - and upwind - of the prime targets, I'd just as soon not have any cities subjected to instant urban renewal.

That's not "American cities" - any cities. Iran's Ayatollahs and Islamic crazies hate America - and Israel - but they don't seem all that fond of most other people and places, either.

Related posts: In the news:
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, October 16, 2009

Iran's Nuclear Weapons Program: Oops, Let's Look at That Again

The headline is dry enough, and the first few paragraphs are hardly what I'd call heated prose. But this article got my attention anyway:
"U.S. Considers a New Assessment of Iran Threat"
The Wall Street Journal (October 16, 2009)

"Amid Pressure After Latest Nuclear Revelations, Spy Agencies Rethink a 2007 Judgment That Weapons Effort Had Been Halted"

"U.S. spy agencies are considering whether to rewrite a controversial 2007 intelligence report that asserted Tehran halted its efforts to build nuclear weapons in 2003, current and former U.S. intelligence officials say.

"The intelligence agencies' rethink comes as pressure is mounting on Capitol Hill, and among U.S. allies, for the Obama administration to redo the 2007 assessment, after a string of recent revelations about Tehran's nuclear program.

"German, French and British intelligence agencies have all disputed the conclusions of the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, or NIE, in recent months, according to European officials briefed on the exchanges...."

So Iran's Ayatollahs Get the Bomb: What's the Worst that Could Happen?

Odds are, I think, pretty good that Iran won't have more than the dozen or so nuclear weapons that North Korea probably has, any time soon: and probably nothing all that much more powerful than the devices that overheated parts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

More effective weapons, like the hydrogen bomb that put a mile-wide crater near Nam island in the Pacific, back in the fifties.1 More powerful bombs have been developed since then, of course.

However, it's quite expensive to build, say, a 100 megaton hydrogen bomb: and you need fairly specialized equipment to make the components. And, of course, people who can run the machines.

So I don't think that Iran will be punching mile-wide holes in the ground any time soon.

But it's remarkable, how much damage can be done with just a dozen or so kilotons-worth of atomic bomb.
Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Two Very Unpleasant Days
A piddly little 13 to 18 kiloton bomb vaporized part of Hiroshima, killed around 140,000 people, and make others really sick. The 21 kiloton bomb that went off over Nagasaki would have done quite a lot more damage, if it weren't for the hills there. Even so, about 39,000 people were killed.

Those were very unpleasant experiences, and I hope that sort of thing doesn't happen again.

On the other hand, I'm not going to indulge in the conventional apology for a decision made by President Truman, which saved thousands - maybe millions - of Japanese lives. And quite a number of American lives, for what that's worth.2

Like it or not, Japan's leaders during WWII had given no indication that they wanted to surrender (and yes, I know about the 'surrender/capitulation' translation - the story's been on campuses for at least thirty years).

On the other hand, experience in the Pacific theater had taught that Japanese forces were quite willing to fight to the death, rather than surrender. And quite capable of employing Japanese civilians for combat and combat support.

Accepting death before defeat can be an admirable trait, and won Spartans lasting fame at Thermopylae. But the resolve of Japanese leaders also indicated that an invasion of the Japanese homeland would most likely involve fighting until the vast majority of Japanese citizens were dead. Along with quite a large number of Americans. Including my father, who served on an LST slated for use in the invasion.

Without the reality-check of those nuclear bombs, a conventional invasion of Japan was, I've read and been told, was the only realistic alternative.

I'm one of the people who most likely wouldn't have been born, if President Truman had been 'nice.'

I'm not sorry I'm alive, and I'm not at all sorry that thousands (millions?) of Japanese citizens around my age and younger are alive, too. (More at "Unintended Consequences? The West May be Getting Over Hiroshima" (January 25, 2008))

Iran's Ayatollahs With A-Bombs

I think many people would agree that cities like Budapest, Vienna, Athens or Warsaw wouldn't be improved by having a nuclear bomb detonated over - or in - them. The same probably goes for Paris, Berlin, Moscow, London and Madrid.

Some of those cities aren't withing range of missiles Iran's known to have, today: but I don't think there's any reason to believe that something like Fat Man couldn't be shipped in via air freight.

As for the idea that London, say, wouldn't be hit because there are mosques there? Muslims who follow the wacky side of Islam have shown little if any reservations about hitting a mosque. Maybe if it isn't the one they go to, it's just another enemy target. The rationale doesn't matter: the fact is, Muslims blowing up other Muslims and mosques is a fairly routine news item, and has been for years.

All things considered, I don't think this period is one of Islam's shining hours.

But that's another topic.

A Hundred Thousand or So Dead Parisians Wouldn't be Nice

I think that people in France wouldn't like it if part of Paris was obliterated. They might even be irrité if bits and pieces of Madrid or Moscow started falling out of a mushroom cloud. Can't say that I'd blame them.

I wouldn't be happy, either: and I wouldn't be happy if an American city was nuked.

The sort of death and destruction that would go along with that sort of an even would be, as I said before, unpleasant.

What happened as a result of a nuclear strike probably wouldn't be pleasant, either.

Remember how many people felt after the 9/11 attack? 'Only' around 3,000 people died then. The death toll from a nuclear attack on a major city, even with a low-yield bomb, could easily be fifty times as large.

America, the likes of Professor Ward Churchill notwithstanding, took time to figure out who actually launched the 9/11 attack - and where they were based. Then, an American-led coalition ended the Taliban's control of Afghanistan: despite the 'nuke Kabul' rhetoric of some of America's more hot-headed citizens.

A nuclear strike in America might, or might not, provoke America to lash out thoughtlessly. But let's say the target wasn't in America.

Quite a few nations have, or most likely have, nuclear weapons:
  • US
  • Russia
  • United Kingdom
  • France
  • China
  • Israel
  • India
  • Pakistan
  • North Korea
    (Source: GlobalSecurity.org)
Several of those countries have missiles that could deliver warheads a significant distance. I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that their leaders might, if they suffered a nuclear attack, respond in kind.

If the Iran's Ayatollahs ordered the attack, and used a missile launched from Iran, the sort of detective work that went into finding out that - despite the number of Saudi citizens among the 9/11 terrorists - the rulers of Afghanistan were responsible, and not Saudi Arabia.

Let's Say Iran Nukes Moscow

I really wouldn't like to read, sometime in the next few years, that part of Moscow had been destroyed, and that people could start moving back into the Tehran area in another few centuries.

On the other hand, that sort of scenario would end the "Iranian nukes" issue.

What to do? Short of Obliterating Iran

I have a great respect for the people of Iran and their history. I think the world would be better with Iran, than without the country.

The Ayatollahs are something else: but the Ayatollahs are not Iran. (See "Journalism in the Information Age, Or Nothing Says 'No' Like a Brightly Burning Motorcycle" (June 24, 2009))

An option that gets discussed in the news quite often is economic sanctions against Iran. It sounds like an attractive idea, and would be even more attractive to me if there were a good chance that it would work.

But so far, economic sanctions haven't done much more to Iran than give the leaders there something to talk about, and hurt the citizenry.

I'm not at all convinced that sanctions work, as a rule. Take North Korea, for example: economic sanctions have probably hurt Koreans who aren't connected with Kim Jon Il's government: but there's little reason to believe that he's suffered. His staff has probably had to scramble to keep up his supplies of lobster - but they're out of the loop when it comes to decision-making.

I'd love to have a practical, humane, popular, and swift solution to the problem of religious fanatics trying to get nuclear weapons.

I don't have one.

I do think that there's a chance that the Ayatollahs will mismanage Iran so badly that significant Iranians end their rule - and, probably, their lives.

Whether that happens before Iran builds and delivers a nuclear bomb depends on knowledge I don't have.

I'm afraid that military force will be necessary to end the threat of Ayatollahs with nukes. It doesn't need to be a 'nuke Tehran' approach. If the:
  • Iranian nuclear program is concentrated in a few places
  • Facilities
    • Can be precisely located
    • Are close enough to the surface so that 'bunker buster' penetrating bombs would be effective
Then maybe an equivalent to Israel's bombing of Iraq's reactor, back in 1981, would end the threat - long enough for fed-up Iranians to solve their problems with a new set of leaders.

That's a lot of "ifs," though.

So, do I think sanctions will work? No.

Would a precise military strike be effective? Maybe - but I think the odds are mighty slim. Even so: I think the odds are that someone is going to solve the 'Iranian nukes' issue with something between a comparatively precise attack, and a full-scale assault that will leave much of Iran in ruins.

Do I have a better idea? Other than wait and hope that Iran's people wipe out the Ayatollahs and their government: no.

Do I think this is a satisfactory state of affairs? Certainly not.

Related posts: In the news: Background:

1Mile-Wide Crater: Roughly

The crater wasn't exactly a mile across. Haskins's paper says that the Castle Bravo hydrogen bomb had a 15 megaton yield, and produced a crater 6.500 feet in diameter and 250 feet deep. I think those numbers are rounded: but you get the idea. Hydrogen bombs have been built with a design yield of 100 megatons. (GlobalSecurity.org) For comparison, the nuclear bomb detonated over Hiroshima was rated at 12 kilotons. (GlobalSecurity.org) Or 13 to 18. Depends on who you read.

2Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and People Like Me

The civil rights movement in America taught us to think of people in terms of their ethnicity and ancestry. Every ancestor of mine that I know of descended from people in northwestern Europe, and I look it: melanin-deficient skin, blue eyes and all. You'd think that people in Japan would be utterly foreign to me.

It's a fact: I'd stick out like a sore thumb in Tokyo, if I wandered away from the usual tourist haunts.

On the other hand, I have a great deal in common with quite a few people in Hiroshima. And even more in Nagasaki. I'm Catholic. There are - and were - quite a few Catholics in those two cities. Quite a few of them died when those nuclear bombs went off.

I'm not happy about that. At all.

But I'm not going to rant about Yankee imperialism, for the reasons I've outlined.

That photo? According to an accompanying article, that's what was left of the Urakami Cathedral in Nagasaki, after the "Fat Man" bomb went off. Like I said, I'm not happy about that.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light Candle  • Find a Retailer
• Spiral Light Candle Store

Blogroll

Note! Although I believe that these websites and blogs are useful resources for understanding the War on Terror, I do not necessarily agree with their opinions. 1 1 Given a recent misunderstanding of the phrase "useful resources," a clarification: I do not limit my reading to resources which support my views, or even to those which appear to be accurate. Reading opinions contrary to what I believed has been very useful at times: sometimes verifying my previous assumptions, sometimes encouraging me to change them.

Even resources which, in my opinion, are simply inaccurate are sometimes useful: these can give valuable insights into why some people or groups believe what they do.

In short, It is my opinion that some of the resources in this blogroll are neither accurate, nor unbiased. I do, however, believe that they are useful in understanding the War on Terror, the many versions of Islam, terrorism, and related topics.