From DefenseNews

 

Posted 01/02/08 11:04

Analyst: Kim Jong-Il Still Undecided on Giving up Nukes

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, SEOUL

 

North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il has still not decided whether to give up his nuclear weapons despite a disarmament pledge under an international deal, a senior analyst said Jan. 2.

Nam Sung-Wook, a North Korea expert at Korea University who advises South Korean President-elect Lee Myung-Bak, said he expects Pyongyang to stall on the disarmament deal after missing a year-end deadline.

“National Defense Commission Chairman Kim Jong-Il seems not to have made a decision yet to abandon nuclear weapons,” Nam told SBS radio.

Pyongyang will “drag its feet in negotiations with the U.S. over what it can get in return, probably until late February,” he added.

Lee, who has promised a firmer line with North Korea, takes office on Feb. 25.

The next day, in what Nam described as an “unprecedentedly friendly event” between the two countries, the New York Philharmonic is to perform in Pyongyang.

Nam declined to elaborate to AFP on his remarks.

Under a landmark six-nation agreement the North was supposed to have disabled its main atomic plants and declared all its nuclear programs by Dec. 31 in return for 1 million tons of fuel oil or equivalent energy aid and diplomatic benefits.

But the year-end deadline slipped, with the North yet to complete the disabling work and no signs of an upcoming declaration.

The U.S., Japan and South Korea — members of the negotiations along with Russia, China and the North itself — expressed disappointment at the missed deadline.

Lee, of the conservative opposition Grand National Party, says he will link future aid to North Korea more closely to progress in nuclear disarmament.

Nam described the communist state’s New Year policy message as “positive” in that it lacked its usual criticism of Lee’s party.

 

[Think it through, man. Do you really want to be 'persuaded' to give em up? ]

[Think it through, man. Do you really want to be 'persuaded' to give em up? ]

 

 

Okay, I ask this in all honesty, with no mockery or sarcasm whatsoever: Do you really think anyone will be able to summon up the political will to do the 'persuading'?

A valid question. Are we ok with Kim Jong-Il keeping the nukes ? (Have you seen his haircut ? ) We seem to be all freaked out with the prospect of Ahmadinejad having them, but clearly, the DPRK has a greater history of aggression.

I don't think that any reasonable person would be happy about either of those guys having nukes. Unfortunately, reasonable people seem to be in rather short supply on this issue; since we failed to discover massive quantities of WMD in Iraq, it is probably not politically possible to go after anyone else's WMD.

I strongly suspect that there's more common sense than we think.

 

Iran:

 

1. The NIE tells us nothing that we didn't know before

2. After Iraq, the invasian of Iran is currently not an option

3. Iranian Terrain between US Forces and Tehran precludes a swift invasion

4. Should Iran get nukes, then the US would not likely be the first target, Israel would be

5. Should there be an attack against US forces or civilians, all bets are off.

 

North Korea

 

1. The only reason Kim still lives is because he's got the Army

2. The Army is so obsolete then I'd doubt they get very far against an alerted ROK/US force

3. The NK Air Force is worse off than the Army, sticks and stones could sink their navy.

4. Invasion by the US is not an option due to the NK's sponsor, China

5. The US is better off dealing with China on the matter of a new NK government but the price could be too high

6. The NKs are harmless where they are. To do anything else would be suicidal

 

Later

D