Re: Dangerous Times Ahead

[Clifford Poirot <cpoirot@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Actually, in some ways the situation is both more (and also less dangerous)
IMO than Henry argues. It is more dangerous in that MAD does not apply. NK
has no credible threat of mass nuclear assault on the U.S. and neither does
China. A weapon could be theoretically devlivered via a terrorist assault or
it could be deployed on the battlefield. Both present practical difficulties
in their deployment. Thus neither NK nor China have a nuclear deterrent. It
was the actual existence of MAD that kept the far right in line during the
Cold War. That threat is now gone.

The other danger comes from an overexuberant Donald Rumsfeld, who apparently
believes all third world militaries will crumble as did the Iraqi military.
Of course, Rumsfeld could be half right-an NK army that has seen the NK
gov't. willing to allow at least several hundred thousand North Koreans to
starve, could in actual battle face low morale and poorer than anticipated
organization. On the other hand, NK (AFAIK) is not starved for spare parts
as is the Syrian and Iraqi and also to some degree the Iranian militaries.
These militaries are impressive on paper, but even some cursory reading on
their military capacities shows why Israel has always been able to defeat
Arab armies. It is this disparity in power and the ability of the U.S. to go
to war with minimal military casualties that makes war a viable option in
the minds of some as a means of accomplishing geo-political goals.

So the threat of war is very real. The threat of an all out nuclear war is
minimal-though the threat of a limited use of one or two devices is a
possibility.



-----Original Message-----
From: Henry C.K. Liu [mailto:hliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 11:01 PM
To: gang8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
TheNewForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Dangerous Times Ahead


Some 57% of Americans polled said they think the economy is the issue in
2004.  This trend if it continues will push Bush into another war, sicne
there is no visible cure for the slow economy under current neocon
ideology, except that more pain will be good the the long run.

Iran and N. Korea have become real dangers.  The news from the first
trilateral meeting in Beijing is decidedly ominous.  The Russian foreign
ministry called it by predicting "ctastraphic" deevelopment.  NK now
says openly its has nuclear weapons, and taunts the US if the US is
prepared to push for a demonstration.  This is a direct chaleenge to
Bush's premptive doctrine.  A premetive strik on NK will start a nuclear
war.  On the other hand, not launching a pre-emtive attack will render
the premptive doctrine bankrupt.

China is deparately trying to prevent a nuclear war in Asia but its
relationship with NK went back to the Korea war, and many of the
generals in both countries were junior officiers in that war. They
formed a bond in the trenches that the civilain politicians of the two
countries could not match.  There is a soldarity between the two
miliataries that contraints maneuvouring room of the civilian
leaderships in both countries.  Disarming the NK military is an option
that the civilian politician cannot deliver.  Also, there is no way
China will tolerate a regime change in NK along US lines. The US
strategy of regime change in both NK and Iran requires a posture of
total war to accomplish. Unlike the case with IRan, there is no credible
basis to link NK will the War on Terrorism.  As for nuclear terror, the
doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction has been worked out by Herman
Khan 4 decades ago.  It would still work for NK.  But premptive strike
is the doctine that renders MAD impotent.

The issue for the 2004 presidential election is whether the US wants a
president who will lead it into World War III.  The Dems have not caught
on, but the game is still in its early stages. By the time of the Dem
convention, the war issue will be unavoideable, if not earlier.

Dangerous times ahead.

Henry C.K. Liu