Discussion:
nternational Anti-Imperialist and People's Solidarity Coordinating Committee (IAPSCC) on North Korean Nuclear Test
(too old to reply)
Sukla Sen
2009-05-30 02:46:34 UTC
Permalink
International Anti-Imperialist and People's Solidarity Coordinating
Committee (IAPSCC) on North Korean Nuclear Test


The following statement quite rightly highlights the moral hypocrisy
of condemning others for developing nuclear weapons while retaining
and maybe even augmenting one's own nuclear arsenal.
But to brand nuclear weapon - ?a weapon of deliberate mass murder on a
mind-boggling scale - as a weapon of "defence" is nothing short of
criminal lunacy.
Moreover, the North Korean nuclear explosion comes at a time when
globally there is a renewed expectancy in the air as regards universal
nuclear disarmament.
The North Korean test comes as a rude jolt. It is a different matter
altogether if that jolt eventually helps speed up the process of
disarmament by drawing the attention of the world to the huge
catastrophe looming ahead.
It is plain common sense that more and more states arming themselves
with nuclear weapons is just not the way forward to nuclear
disarmament. That only helps reinforce the legitimacy and its vertical
and horizontal spread.

The proclaimed commitment of the sponsors of this following statement
to a "nuclear weapons free world" is evidently as phony.
This is apart from the ugly and hollow joke of holding up Stalinist
North Korea - calling itself a "Democratic People's Republic" and in
reality a state keeping its people under thoroughly tyrannical rule -
as one looked upon by the "toiling masses of the world .. as their
staunch ally".

Sukla

Nuclear Testing by Democratic People???s Republic of Korea :
Posted by: "DNRath"?dn.rath at gmail.com?? dnr3000
Fri May 29, 2009 6:52 am (PDT)

-----
International Anti-Imperialist

and People???s Solidarity

Coordinating Committee

(IAPSCC)

77/2/1 Lenin Sarani, Kolkata 700 013

Tel: +91-33-22653550 Fax : +91-33-2264 7754
e-mail: aiaif_2006 at yahoo. com

President : Ramsey Clark

Former Attorney General, USA

Founder, International Action Centre

General Secretary : Manik Mukherjee

Vice-President, All India Anti-imperialist Forum

May 27, 2009

Manik Mukherjee, General Secretary of International Anti-imperialist
and people???s Solidarity Coordinating Committee (IAPSCC) has issued
the following statement on the Nuclear Testing by Democratic
People???s Republic of Korea :

The IAPSCC expresses its full support to all genuine efforts to
maintain and promote world peace and confirms that it is committed to
its stand of demanding a totally nuclear weapons free world. However,
it is firmly of the view that there is no moral or ethical
justification of the policy that would allow some states to keep their
stock of nuclear arsenal, but prevent others to develop any nuclear
defense capability. This is the policy of the imperialists powers like
USA, other nuclear weapons states including India who are not only
maintaining their nuclear weapons stock but are augmenting it, and at
the same time are criticising other nations who want to develop
nuclear defense capability. DPRK is a socialist country, which stands
by the struggle of the common people all over the world against
imperialist aggression, oppression and exploitation. The toiling
masses of the world that look upon DPRK as their staunch ally and
firmly assert that DPRK has every right to defend itself from
imperialist aggression and has the right to develop its nuclear
defense capability. It is in the interest of defense of the common
people of the world that DPRK should have this capability. Along with
the people of the world IAPSCC endorses this right.
Michael Smith
2009-05-30 03:16:21 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 May 2009 02:46:34 +0000 (GMT)
Post by Sukla Sen
But to brand nuclear weapon - ?a weapon of deliberate mass murder on a
mind-boggling scale - as a weapon of "defence" is nothing short of
criminal lunacy.
Well, call me a criminal lunatic, then.

There are two things nukes are good for:

1) Terrorizing, or attempting to terrorize,
other states who don't have them. This is the
situation of Israel now, and was the situation
of the US before the USSR got the bomb.

2) Neutralizing the terror threat posed by states
in category 1) above.

Let's say Lilliput gets a nuke, and can threaten
Blefuscu. So then Blefuscu gets a nuke. Blefuscu
can't threaten Lilliput -- because Lilliput can
retaliate. But Lilliput can no longer threaten
Blefuscu either, for the same reason. So Blefuscu
has responded appropriately and defensively to
Lilliput's threat and is better off as a result.

All this stuff was game-theorized to a fare-thee-well
back in the 60s.
--
Michael Smith
mjs at smithbowen.net
http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org
Joaquin Bustelo
2009-05-30 17:25:11 UTC
Permalink
Sukla Sen: "But to brand nuclear weapon - ?a weapon of deliberate mass
murder on a mind-boggling scale - as a weapon of 'defence' is nothing short
of criminal lunacy."

To deny the right of Third World countries, and especially one that has been
the victim of one of the most savagely genocidal imperialist wars ever, to
nuclear weapons is simply to defend the right of imperialism to a monopoly
of nuclear weapons. Especially when North Korea faces tens of thousands of
nuclear-armed US troops to its South.

Lest we forget, it was *precisely* the development of the Soviet nuclear
bomb that was a major factor in limiting Truman's actions during the Korean
War. WITHOUT the Soviet bomb, the US without a doubt would have nuked North
Korea's major cities and possibly beyond them. As it was, using
"conventional" genocidal firebombing with Napalm (which had been developed
at the end of WWII like the atomic bomb and for EXACTLY the same purpose, to
carry out genocidal terror attacks on civilian population centers), the U.S.
had destroyed at least half of each one of 18 or 22 major Korean cities, and
in most cases way more than half. Countless smaller cities, towns and
villages were also obliterated. OFFICIAL U.S. orders were EXPLICIT about the
genocidal, war-criminal intent, calling for population centers to be
eliminated, obliterated, wiped off the map and so on.

Nuclear weapons can be extremely effective defensive weapons. Crying about
nukes being "a weapon of deliberate mass murder on a mind-boggling scale" is
the sort of mushy-minded do-gooder liberal claptrap one would expect from
Medea Benjamin on a Code Pink mailing list, not here.

ALL military weapons are "weapons of deliberate mass murder," and all that
develop them hope their weapon will allow them to kill on such "a mind
boggling scale" as to allow their side to impose its will on its enemies. If
"criminal lunacy" is involved, it is in war itself, not the particular
weapon used. If you are going to take sides, let's not pretend that war can
be pretty or humane or even tolerable and even on the smallest scale. I've
seen it close up, a *tiny* bit. It is not.

But unless the entire human race is going to bend over for the imperialists,
then we are going to have war. Because imperialism specifically, and
capitalist-European colonial domination before it, has shown that war in
inherent to these as social systems. War is of the very nature of
imperialism, the very core essence of war, which is to force another social
formation to adopt or accede to rules, practices, etc. that benefit your
imperialist country to the detriment of the country being forced to comply.

Imperialism as a system, in and of itself, is a perpetual state of war by a
small number of robber countries against the big majority of humanity. AND
MOST OF ALL the post-WWII variant of imperialism, characterized by formal
independence of most former colonies which, however, are still subject to
neo-colonial domination. Look over these last six and a half decades and try
to find when there were no direct imperialist or imperialist proxy wars
being waged somewhere in the Third World.

Given this context, the FIRST question we have to answer is, which side are
you on? On the side of imperialism or the side of its victims? Or are you
going to be "neutral" and say "a plague on both your houses," which is OK
but you should be conscious and not fool yourself that this is anything
other that being "neutral" on the side of the imperialists, for they have
the upper hand.

Given this context, and the realities of who has which armaments, we have to
say that the campaign against "Weapons of Mass Destruction" is an
imperialist plot to disarm the Third World against imperialism. The nuclear
non-proliferation regime is not just an imperialist plot to leave most of
the world's population defenseless against imperialism but also to allow
imperialist firms to dominate non-military uses of atomic energy.

The campaign against land mines is another imperialist phony. Why don't
these imperialist do-gooders start with the military actions that actually
kill the most civilians, like the notoriously inaccurate artillery barrages
and aerial bombardment? If they're so concerned with fragmentation weapons
killing civilians, why don't they ban the use of cluster bombs, or, better
yet, grab a bunch of the American war criminal pilots that used them and
continue to do so in Iraq and Afghanistan, and their commanders, strap them
into electric chairs, and fry them?

When the United States and its imperialist pals get rid of their last atom
bomb, their last cluster bomb and their last canister of poison gas, THEN I
will listen to these liberal campaigns against the victims of imperialism.

Until then I say, Long Live the North Korean nuclear program!

Joaquin
Michael Perelman
2009-05-30 18:28:17 UTC
Permalink
My mother's cousin was very high up in the military medical establishment,
possibly because he was a buddy of Eisenhower's son. He was part of a study
group to decide whether to nuke N. Korea. The idea was rejected ONLY
because the prevailing winds went South & would have done great harm to the
US troops.
Post by Joaquin Bustelo
Lest we forget, it was *precisely* the development of the Soviet nuclear
bomb that was a major factor in limiting Truman's actions during the Korean
War. WITHOUT the Soviet bomb, the US without a doubt would have nuked North
Korea's major cities and possibly beyond them. As it was, using
"conventional" genocidal firebombing with Napalm (which had been developed
at the end of WWII like the atomic bomb and for EXACTLY the same purpose, to
carry out genocidal terror attacks on civilian population centers), the U.S.
had destroyed at least half of each one of 18 or 22 major Korean cities, and
in most cases way more than half. Countless smaller cities, towns and
villages were also obliterated. OFFICIAL U.S. orders were EXPLICIT about the
genocidal, war-criminal intent, calling for population centers to be
eliminated, obliterated, wiped off the map and so on.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
michaelperelman.wordpress.com
nada
2009-05-30 18:05:44 UTC
Permalink
I think this is the very typical totally un-nuanced Joaquin at his worst.

One can put out the "Long Lives!" you want, it has no meaning hardly has
a political impact, except at the most existential level.

I think Joaquin has it quite wrong. It's not a question of a "deny the
right of Third World countries" to nuclear weapons. I think most can
agree here (not all) that that right is one of sovereignty, especially
when no one questions the right of China or Russia (actual neighbors of
N. Korea) or the U.S. on it's Pacific Fleet have nuclear weapons. For me
this is not the issue.

The question is that given the partly self-inflicted economic mess N.
Korea has been in since 1991, including the starvation, maybe, of 100s
of thousands of it's citizens, it's opens up the question just what the
hell the N. Korean gov't is thinking.

The people there are staving. There is virtually no energy production.
Their lives suck. In fact, if you look at the way Cuba handled it's
post-Soviet "Special Period" and the way the DPRK handled theirs' the
latter looks more like the gangsters that run Burma than a progressive
social response to the crisis.

Instead of developing their productive forces, the DPRK has actually
*acted* like they are at war, and has *underdeveloped* it's economy.
Instead of plowing who knows how much into food and industrial
development, they have done *just the opposite*. Joaquin's rant provides
nothing in terms of analysis as to the predicament that he DPRK finds
itself.

So the gov't thinks it a 'wise' move to more toward development of
nuclear weapons even if the US could and would destroy *them as a
people* if they chose to. I think, from very far afield, that what the
DPRK has done is to heighten tensions and possible cause a war,
something that is *not justified* since the threats against them are at
BEST, rhetorical marshmallows. Imperialism has demonstrated it is very
happy to let the north Korean state simply collapse in on itself in it's
own good time.

To use an analogy...I for one defend the idea, historically accurate,
that Kuwait is Iraq's 19th province. But I totally condemn Hussein's
attempt to take it back because it was OBVIOUSLY STUPID and the results
are there for all to see. The same is true with the DPRK's "right to
nuclear weapons". The right, when exercised, is a provocation the world
AND Korea could do with out.

David
Nestor Gorojovsky
2009-05-30 18:41:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by nada
To use an analogy...I for one defend the idea, historically accurate,
that Kuwait is Iraq's 19th province. But I totally condemn Hussein's
attempt to take it back because it was OBVIOUSLY STUPID and the results
are there for all to see. The same is true with the DPRK's "right to
nuclear weapons". The right, when exercised, is a provocation the world
AND Korea could do with out.
To use another analogy...I for one defend the idea, historically
accurate, that when a revolutionary party that represents the working
class has an opportunity to bid for state power, it MUST bid. But I
totally condemn Lenin?s and Trotsky?s attempt to take state power
through the Soviets because it was OBVIOUSLY STUPID and the results are
there for all to see. The right, when exercised, is a provocation the
world AND the Russian working class could do with out.
Baba Aye
2009-05-31 05:13:16 UTC
Permalink
I do think that Nestor's sardonic ingenuity of a comparative analogies, if
you would, amounts to nothing but clapping with one hand.....I doubt if any
right thinking socialist would consider the ripples of *the* DPRK's
exercising its 'right' and now, as anywhere near the same pedestal as that
exercised by Russian working people in October 1917.
Baba

2009/5/30 Nestor Gorojovsky <nmgoro at gmail.com>
Post by Nestor Gorojovsky
Post by nada
To use an analogy...I for one defend the idea, historically accurate,
that Kuwait is Iraq's 19th province. But I totally condemn Hussein's
attempt to take it back because it was OBVIOUSLY STUPID and the results
are there for all to see. The same is true with the DPRK's "right to
nuclear weapons". The right, when exercised, is a provocation the world
AND Korea could do with out.
To use another analogy...I for one defend the idea, historically
accurate, that when a revolutionary party that represents the working
class has an opportunity to bid for state power, it MUST bid. But I
totally condemn Lenin?s and Trotsky?s attempt to take state power
through the Soviets because it was OBVIOUSLY STUPID and the results are
there for all to see. The right, when exercised, is a provocation the
world AND the Russian working class could do with out.
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/baba.aye%40gmail.com
--
Baba Aye

Global Labour University, Unicamp
solidarityandstruggle.blogspot.com
skype name: iron1lion


"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the
point is to change it." - Karl Marx (1845),
Joaquin Bustelo
2009-05-30 19:43:57 UTC
Permalink
David (Nada) says: "I think Joaquin has it quite wrong. It's not a question
of a "deny the right of Third World countries" to nuclear weapons. I think
most can agree here (not all) that that right is one of sovereignty,
especially when no one questions the right of China or Russia (actual
neighbors of N. Korea) or the U.S. on it's Pacific Fleet have nuclear
weapons. For me this is not the issue "

My disrespect for "dear great respected and beloved leader comrade kim il
sung, father of the XX millions socialist people of the north and XX million
patriotic people of the south, who with his great idea of juche and
one-the-spot-guidance-and-advice," etc., has been virtually boundless since
I first strayed across the "People's Korea" newspaper back in the early
1970's. And this goes for his progeny, too.

But the American imperialists above all (with a little help from their
Japanese friends) are the ones who are overwhelmingly responsible not just
for "bombing north korea back to the stone age" (in then strategic air force
commander general Curtis LeMay's winged phrase) and blockading it ever since
but also thereby making possible, and perhaps likely or inevitable, that the
Korean regime would suffer tremendous shortcomings.

But RIGHT NOW what is going on is a big imperialist-inspired media campaign
against North Korea. Stuff American media outlets would normally not
countenance printing or saying now gets routinely published -- with those at
the very top of media organizations specifically approving and even ordering
it.

Thus, every day, we're confronted with reports of a new "provocative" North
Korean missile test.

What is the SOURCE? An obscure South Korean news agency, Yonhap. And what is
THEIR source? They claim usually "an informed intelligence source," a "South
Korean Government official" or some such.

If you read their articles, they are *mostly* quite improbable speculation.

"SEOUL, May 29 (Yon hap) -- North Korea has launched a short-range missile
from its Musudan-ri rocket launch site on the country's east coast, a South
Korean government official said Friday.

"'What the North has launched this time appears to be different from what it
had launched (previously),' the official said. 'It is a new type of a
land-to-air missile,' the official said."

THAT is the item --tne entire item-- that was "breaking news" all over CNN
and Fox yesterday. Two sentences. Without the least bit of credibility.

First, a short range missile test from the site specified would not be seen
from South Korea or nor international waters. It might be detectable by
radar, assuming no jamming or countermeasures were used, which North Korea
is routinely accused of using. It might have been detected by a spy
satellite, assuming it was looking at just the right place at exactly the
right time. But since such a missile almost by definition is launched from a
mobile platform, that would be surprising. A missile testing range is
usually quite a large affair, hundreds or thousands of square kilometers,
and I see no reason to suspect that the North Korean one instead is the size
of a soccer stadium. But unless the entire frame encompassed such an area,
the chance that a spy satellite could detect a launch and provide useful
intelligence on it are very small.

Then there's the part about a "new kind" of missile. Apart from satellite
pictures, which no matter how good would lack the resolution to show this,
the only way this *might* be ascertained is from radar-derived telemetry or
intercepted north korean data. Almost certainly the latter is excluded, for
revealing any information from such a source in anything close to real time
violates the most elementary norms of intelligence source security. But
assuming the information is radar derived and the accusations against north
korea of blocking or jamming radars are true, then also you wouldn't want to
reveal any details about your data.

On the face of it, and considering Yonhap's attitude towards North Korea,
the report is not credible. It is doubly not credible when Yonhap's source
is an anonymous South Korean government mouthpiece who doesn't even give a
hint of how they could possibly know.

But even more than that, on its face, by any normal journalistic criteria,
the report is not newsworthy. It is simply NOT NEWS that a country tests its
military hardware, especially a very routine item like a surface-to-air
missile.

And on top of that, there is the *spin* being put on the supposed test. That
this is a *conscious* provocation by North Korea. That it is meant to
rattle South Korea and "the West." That it shows their defiance and contempt
for the UN Security Council. And so on.

Let's assume all this is true. WHY has the South Korean government NOT
arrested the North Korean government agent using his status as a South
Korean government official to announce North Korean provocations?

Or, alternatively, assuming the "missile tests" are all conscious
provocations, meant to show defiance in the face of international pressure,
why does North Korea not *announce* the tests itself.

If it is meant to send a message, then you hardly want to do it in secret or
rely on the likes of an anticommunist news agency to spread the word for
you.

So, on a week like this week, when every day at work I see a new
imperialist-inspired blast of propaganda against People's Korea, and all of
it based on the flakiest and most incredible of sources, people who have
every motive to lie about North Korea and face absolutely no consequences if
they do, and then putting that story in the news I produce gets crammed down
my throat from upstairs (no wonder I got throat cancer!) and then I come
home and check out the list and see all of a sudden it's been declared
international beat up on North Korea week, all in the name of "nuance" and
the terrible state of the North Korean economy and the tremendous
differences between how Fidel handled things and these guys and so on, my
imperialist capitulationist bullshitometer starts sending out alarms.

Oh happy coincidence! Some Marxmailers are having A two-days-hate against
Kim Jung Il just when the imperialists are having it.

Count me out. Call me the least nuanced and so on, but THIS WEEK, all I have
to say is i am on North Korea's side. That's my position and I'm sticking to
it.

SOME OTHER WEEK I may not have had so little to say about the politics of
the Korean peninsula. But THIS week?

I'm on North Korea's side. That's ALL I have to say THIS week. Well, that
and how everything CNN and the rest are saying is bullshit.

Joaquin
Fred Feldman
2009-05-30 23:28:21 UTC
Permalink
David (Nada) wrote:
"I think Joaquin has it quite wrong. It's not a question
of a "deny the right of Third World countries" to nuclear weapons. I think
most can agree here (not all) that that right is one of sovereignty,
especially when no one questions the right of China or Russia (actual
neighbors of N. Korea) or the U.S. on it's Pacific Fleet have nuclear
weapons. For me this is not the issue."

In fact, the question David says is not the question is precisely the issue
in world politics.

The US and other imperialist countries DENY and still DENY the right of
"third world" countries such as Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea to have
nuclear weapons to deter imperialist or other attacks. And this has been the
main function of nuclear weapons (and not a totally unsuccessful one,
contrary to David) in all these cases. They also denied the right of Russia
and China to have nuclear weapons for many, many years, until they needed to
make deals with these governments that set this aside. After all, the fact
that another side in a war would have nuclear weapons was a threat to the
sacred US homeland, which must be able to do whatever to its chosen enemies
without fear of retaliation. This is actually the "right" at issue, and it
is good that it has taken hits.

Walters thinks that the fact that he agrees in passing that North Korea has
the "right" to sovereignty including around nuclear weapons should rightly
eliminate the debate over this, and therefore limit the discussion on the
list to how awful and stupid and completely doomed the North Korean regime
is.

I admit that, contrary to his opinion, there can be a debate about the
future of the North Korean regime. He says Washington knows that the North
Korean regime must collapse soon, and therefore does not need to try to
control this situation or exercise power over it.

I don't think that is the nature of imperialism, nor do I think that
necessarily fits the historical record of the 64 year old North Korean
regime. And if the DPRK is to collapse USSR-style -- I do not exclude it --
I think it is an important distinction, and that we should support North
Korea's efforts to prevent the perspective of the collapse being
accomplished under direct imperialist (US or Japanese) auspices, including
by defending their sovereign right to develop nuclear weapons.

I think the last 19 years since Korea lost most of its former Soviet and
Chinese aid, but not the alliances in a full sense, have shown that fear and
outside support has not been the only basis of the North Korean regime.
Mostly, David just regurgitates uncritically the current imperialist
propaganda about the regime, some of which is probably partly true and some
still less so.

The depth of the secrecy about North Korean regime indicates that something
is gravely amiss. I doubt they would maintain secrecy to hide the fact that
the people of the DPRK live in paradise. But I also appreciate the response
of South Koreans -- of all classes -- who feel a certain deep identification
with North Korea's actually or supposedly zenophobic assertion of its
national rights.

I note the fact that quite a few South Koreans take pride in the fact that
the North Koreans have nuclear weapons -- even businessmen who are probably
millionaires. And I suspect such feelings of solidarity are not absent among
the workers and farmers. All right-thinking Americans agree that NORTH
KOREAN xenophobia and arrogance are all bad. A lot of Koreans are not so
sure.

David insists that the DPRK nuclear test has increased the danger of war or
nuclear war in the world even though this has proven NOT TO BE TRUE SO FAR
of the development of nuclear weapons in Russia, China, India, and Pakistan.
(In Pakistan, the main danger is that the weapons may fall into the hands of
US occupiers.)

Anyway, David's insists that the DPRK's right to develop nuclear weapons is
agreed to by him, and therefore all should join him in frothing against the
exercise of this right sent me searching for an appropriate response which
I recalled reading in Joseph Hansen's Cuba: The Acid Test, a document in his
book Dynamics of the Cuban Revolution, which is well worth critical and
appreciative study.

A British socialist sect declared in its newspaper, in response to the 1962
US naval blockade of Cuba:

"The establishment of rocket bases in Cuba could not possibly defend the
Cuban revolution. This can only be done in the immediate future by the
struggle to win over the solidarity of the American working class and to
extend the revolution in Latin America.

"Of course the Cuban government had every right to accept those rocket bases
and sign such agreements as it wished with the Soviet Union.

"But it was most inadvisable that it should have exercised this right by
permitting Khrushchev to place undet the control of Soviet technicians
rocket bases which were plain for all to see on the small island.

"Having a right and exercising it and exercising it are two different
things. One does not necessarily follow from the other."

Hansen commented: "Like the hero in the novel by Victor Hugo ["1793" --FF],
Healy [leader of the British sect] Healy deserves to be decorated for that
sentence about winning the solidarity of the American working class and
extending the revolution in Latin America. And then summarily shot for his
advice to the Cubans: 'Having a right and exercising it are two different
things. One does not necessarily follow from the other.' If he objects to
such a harsh penalty, the military court can well reply: 'Having a right and
exercising it are two different things. One does not necessarily follow from
the other>" We can hear Healy's immortal reply as he refuses a blindfold:
'What good is having a right if you can't exercise it.'"
nada
2009-05-31 00:06:53 UTC
Permalink
Well, where I do agree with JB is the very, very latest around these
"Short Range Missiles" (you have to capitalize the words for full
effect). My first thought was "????". So????. Whattttt???? Every country
in the world has "short range" missiles and can include anything from an
RPG to an anti-air craft missile to what are essentially rockets going
20 miles to deliver an explosion. It's essentially the SAME missiles you
see every May Day when they trot out the trucks with the white-walled
wheels. It's like spouting: "North Korean soldiers were Seen Firing
their Assault Rifles...a Threat against the US??? Inquiring minds want
to know".

I can't find it but I believe the Chinese also concur they detonated
something big north the capital in N. Korea. I suppose one can parse all
this out to see the conspiracy if there is one. It shouldn't matter, at
all, except if it is true, they have unnecessarily heightened tensions.

As for the "embargo". Only the US embargoes. Everyone else trades. The
US is not their natural market, China and Russia and Japan are. Those
countries have diplomatic relations, the US doesn't. Who cares? The N.
Koreans certainly don't.

David
nada
2009-05-31 00:26:47 UTC
Permalink
Fred, I think there is much to defend in the very rational belief that
"rights" should be defended regardless but that they should be always
exercised is rather a tactical question. I think formally speaking,
Healy was absolutely right against Hansen. Healy's problem (one of many)
is that to him, uttering "I defend Cuba's right to have bases" is
enough. That's because his whole political tradition is based
exclusively on the "The Right Program" and no actions or anything else
to put that program to a test.

I defended, actively, Argentina's "right" to control it's national
territory called the Malvinas. Many on the left *failed* this test, as
you well know. However, and while there was no internet then, speaking
on the actual 'correctness" of the Colonels to launch an invasion
against a nuclear armed Imperialist power was open to A LOT OF
QUESTIONS. Our little committee in San Diego was composed of a few US
leftists, Argentine immigrants and a whole lot of very staunchly Irish
Republicans. We may of been the only US city with an "Argentine
Solidarity Committee", I don't know. But we used to discuss this openly,
in forums, etc. We have NO obligations to defend the *decisions* of
countries simply because the are odds with imperialism.

The exact same thing can be said, as I noted, but you didn't respond to,
with Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait to take it back for Iraq, to
actually implement (many don't know this) the *standing policy* of every
Iraqi gov't up through Hussein since independence from Britain. But
SHOULD he have done this? NO. Not in my opinion, not trying to give the
world the impression that he wasn't going to be smashed, hundreds of
thousands of Iraqis dead because of it, etc. So, what is a
"provocation"? Yes, absolutely and without doubt. The current state of
Iraq is largely the result of this idiocy on the Baath leaders part in
misreading his former mentor's (the US) reactions.

So, assuming for a second that Joaquin is wrong to doubt the veracity of
the various charges that Korea detonated a nuclear device...that they
still have right to do it, doesn't absolve them of the responsibility of
understanding what the *results* may be in using them. In discussion
with friends, political associates, we have to defend Korea's right of
"defend" itself. But this doesn't mean one can't analyze and explain,
the problems with the exercise of this right. That in fact it could lead
to something far worse.

David
Waistline2
2009-05-31 03:16:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Perelman
My mother's cousin was very high up in the military medical
establishment, possibly because he was a buddy of Eisenhower's son. He was part of a
study group to decide whether to nuke N. Korea. The idea was rejected ONLY
because the prevailing winds went South & would have done great harm to the
US troops. <<

Comment

I believe the above captures in stark reality of how military decisions are
made, especially under conditions where ones national existence is not
part of the political and military equation. The social and political basis
for the board anti-nuclear weapons passion in America resides in America?s
economic/political middle, as it intellectually grasp that nuclear war will
impact them negatively.

There of course will never be a social/political movement in America for
the Russia state to disarm or protest and outrage against Russia or China
developing new and more powerful nuclear and non-nuclear capacity.

Why is that?

Strategic reduction of nuclear arms is like this big joke. If all the
little players give up 1 nuclear weapon for every 500 America and Russia
possess, this will seriously deplete American And Russia stock pile and leave
them with only 5,000 - 8,000 nuclear weapons. China ain?t giving up nothing,
nor am I suggesting such a thing.
From the standpoint of the peoples of the Democratic Republic of North
Korea, there is no distinction between annihilation by nuclear weapons and
annihilation by non-nuclear weapons. From the standpoint of their military
establishment the distinction between facing nuclear retaliation/annihilation
as hot war and non-nuclear retaliation/annihilation as hot war, does not
exist as an equation in their political and military doctrine. Nor does such
a distinction exist as a component of military doctrine or consideration
of any major political state. The nuclear option drive an accelerated
development of more modern means of non-nuclear destruction in warfare.

The only consideration the highly militarize state factor into their
political and military equation is if an opponent has the ability to inflict the
same level of unacceptable damages. Although many were taught to believe
that a nuclear exchange was high probability between the US and the Soviet
over the Cuban missile crisis, this was not so. The end game of that
scenario, without agreement with the Soviet Union, would have been the annihilation
of Cuba, rather than mutual destruction of American and the Soviet Union.

In the nuclear era one does not fight a dude with a nuclear capacity and
means to annihilate you. The new reality has not changed the general laws of
war, but clarified the boundary beyond which one can never cross unless
their national existence hangs in the balance. Proxy fights take place between
great power. The war launched by Georgia in August 2008 is a case in
point. Then the Russia state responded beating the crap out of the Georgian
state. Then Senator McCain, running for President got all puffed up about what
he would do if he was President.

I thought, "Yea, right."

Interestingly, it seems this lesson was lost of the political/military
establish in Poland although the people are scared to death.

North Korea and the entire Korean peninsula are not vital to America?s
national existence. The North Korean regime fully understands this. The regime
also understand it cannot hit the American mainland, although Governor
Palin thought she saw North Korean missiles coming while looking at Russia.

This situation can be diffused with a phone call.

As an abstract thing, only a fool is against the abolition of nuclear
weapons. The world is not abstract and only a fool gives up their ability to
render an opponent defenseless or make them think twice about military
aggression.

Nuclear proliferation is a real danger to the peoples in the most highly
militarized states, especially in the ideological chambers of their mind,
because it has the potential to lead to many bad hair days. It is not like the
states of India or Pakistan care about nuclear proliferation. The question
is not if DPRNK should or should not test nuclear weapons.

The issue is making a phone call.

Somebody tell somebody to tell somebody to tell Obama to get on the phone.
Somebody tell somebody to tell somebody to tell Hillary to get off the
phone.

The reason I do not make the phone call is that the Obama administration
already informed the government of the DPRNK not to listen to me because I
could not guarantee any state agreements and then mentioned no one elected me
to speak on behalf of any section of the American population.

The strategic thinking in the military and political establishment of the
Republic of Korea (South Korea), are scared to death of the American
political and military mind and understand fully their own path to peaceful
development resides in the unification of Korea. Moreover, South of Korea would
love reunification with a nuclear capability. War on the Korean peninsula
means destruction of Korea and virtually nothing to America. The American
political and military mind examines the situation and say, "we can get
televisions and cars from China."

China is mildly against nuclear weapons on the peninsula for another set of
factors, including being the biggest trading partner with the South and
some long-term issues somehow connected to rewriting some history
"clarifying" that a "long time ago" Korea was a province of China.

I was like, "damn you learn something new about history every day."

The Americans really knows how to keep things stirred up on the Korean
peninsula and then blame the North. The most conservative section of the
American political middle says, "Look we know things are bad but we might have
to go to war with you over developing, testing and trying to have nuclear
weapons and violating the non-proliferation treaty. Plus all that nuclear crap
from testing bombs might get blown on us."

The Marxist outpost of the conservative sector of the political middle
says, "Hey you guys cannot feed your own people. Why do you need a new bomb?
Plus nuclear proliferation is bad, kind of like AIDS on steroids only a lot
worse. And it might blow back on us?"

Me . . . I wish somebody want make the damn phone call.


WL.


**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221322950x1201367186/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=
MaystepsfooterNO62)
Loading...