RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

No Nuke Kim

By John Batchelor on June 2, 2009 at 11:50 PM in Kim Jong Il, National Defense, National Security, North Korea

From my blog for the John Batchelor Show.

……………………………………………………………..

SecDef Robert Gates spoke unusually at Singapore this news cycle when he declared that the Kim regime was not acceptable as a nuclear power. More that the Kim regime was not permitted to be come a nuke power. Odd, teasing, peculiar, eccentric, contradictory remarks.  ”We will not stand by…”   The Kim regime tested a 10 to 20 kiloton nuke two weeks back on a Monday morning. Does this not make the Kim regime a nuke power? On Sunday, I asked the most discerning Gordon Chang as to how to read the current Obama administration shadows about North Korea. The last best logic is that the White House NSA has been caught withotut a policy in Northeast Asia other than bribery, and it isn’t working.  Now we try illogic.
  • GuestCommentator

    I would like to understand The Teleprompter Reading Holy One’s policy: North Korea cannot have a nuke, however Iran can? How come one is bad, but not the other? Also, I thought that The Teleprompter Reading Holy One (Barry Sotero that is) said that America was not going to tell other countries what to do or get involved in their affairs. So what business does he have to comment on North Korea?

    After all, don’t we all believe that North Korea is working on nuclear energy for the same reason Iran is: to provide cheap electricity to its citizens? That’s the whole thing.

    So dear readers, what is the difference between North Korea and Iran? Can anyone offer a suggestion perhaps?

    • Doc99

      I’d actually like to know why Iran can have peaceful nuclear power but the US can’t. As for No Ko, Kim is managing the heretofore improbable, insuring the rearmament of a resurgent Japan. Bushido, anyone?

  • marktarheel

    both clinton and bush screwed up when dealing with north korea. clinton fed his army and bush took the north off the terror list……plenty of blame to go around

  • http://in Elizabeth

    Sec. Gates understands perfectly well that the US is unable to make a credible threat of regime change and thus comes to the table with little power other than its deterrent power. He also gets the obstacles in the way of denuclearization on the Korean penninula — which is why the substance of the speech outlined a containment policy and focus on strengthening worldwide non-proliferation efforts.

    The remarks, therefore, were aimed more at at reaffirming the US role in defending its allies and upholding regional security, as well as increasing world pressure on the Kim regime, than signaling US preparations for a nuclear-free world.

    • marktarheel

      increasing world pressure?. Dear leader could care less about pressure. Obama is in way over his head. to say the least. the only thing a bully understands is a punch in the mouth….and obama is not capable of throwing a punch

      • http://in Elizabeth

        Well, one area we can put more pressure on is with sanctions, pressuring countries harder on doing trade with the North Koreans, and the financial side to shut down the flow of credit going into North Korea.

        But I agree Secretary Gates should avoid a lot of sweeping statements about how the Obama administration will not ‘tolerate’ a North Korean nuclear capability that only puts the US in an awkward position. Without any good options for dealing with it, we’ve tolorated it for several years now and that’s exactly what we will continue to do. So what happens when If Kim Jong-il refuses to back down and the Dear Leader calls his bluff? A nasty choice between some sort of military action or listening to him crow while losing face with our allies and enemies alike.

  • I’m a Linda too

    Pretty funny, NOT.

    Yep. Remember, Obama thought he could say “I say STOP, or I’ll say STOP again”, and all would be fine, because he was the symbol the world was waiting for. lol

    And, of course he thought bribery would work. It’s worked for him and his colleagues so far. That is until they get caught and someone throws out that “illegal” thing.

  • jwrjr

    Where does Gates get off declaring that North Korea is not permitted to have a nuclear weapon? Thanks to the shrub and now ozero, America’s days as a moral authority (about anything) are long gone.

  • CG

    Andy Borowitz amuses with this:
    U.S. to Respond to North Korea with ‘Strongest Possible Adjectives’
    Obama: We are Prepared to Consult Thesaurus

    One day after North Korea launched a successful test of a nuclear weapon, President Obama said that the United States was prepared to respond to the threat with “the strongest possible adjectives.”

    In remarks to reporters at the White House, Mr. Obama said that North Korea should fear the “full force and might of the United States’ arsenal of adjectives” and called the missile test “reckless, reprehensible, objectionable, senseless, egregious and condemnable.”

    Standing at the President’s side, Vice President Joseph Biden weighed in with some tough adjectives of his own, branding North Korean President Kim Jong-Il “totally wack and illin’.”

    Later in the day, Defense Secretary Robert Gates called the North Korean nuclear test “supercilious and jejune,” leading some in diplomatic circles to worry that the U.S. might be running out of appropriate adjectives with which to craft its response.

    But President Obama attempted to calm those fears, saying that the United States was prepared to “scour the thesaurus” to come up with additional adjectives and was “prepared to use adverbs” if necessary.

    “Let’s be clear: we are not taking adverbs off the table,” Mr. Obama said. “If the need arises, we will use them forcefully, aggressively, swiftly, overwhelmingly and commandingly.”