Kim Jong Ill'in

[kenhoeve]

DPRK detonates what appears to be an atomic weapon.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...id=516&ncid=716

we are so f-d.

Speculation anyone?

[matt1122]

We'll be fine.

[Karlson]

he didnt do it

[kenhoeve]

perhaps it wasn't atomic

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=6211149

all i know is, we have the technology to detect a nuclear explosion anywhere on earth, any time. why hasn't the DOD said shizz?

[swdracr]

We'll be fine.

"Baaaaaaaaaa." :P

Edited September 12, 2004 by swdracr

[Che'_Moderator]

You know how many contries have nukes? A lot. Its delivery that is the problem.

[jross]

Well, even if they do, how is it a problem? I mean, just because a major state sponsor of terrorism has possibly tested a nuclear weapon, it doesn't really affect us. I mean, we're winning the war on terror...

()

[EricF]

North Korea would only use it to threaten us with anyway

Not like they've used their massive military in the last 50 years for anything other than making threats so we give them food and oil and candy and such.

The only real question is will we be ballsy enough to call that bluff if they've got a nuke? Not that they would magically get an ICBM system in the next 200 years or anything... But they could throw it by hand at South Korea.

[jross]

Personally, I'd be more worried about N. Korea and China, and how they interact. The placement of the test was probably no accident...

[EricF]

Personally, I'd be more worried about N. Korea and China, and how they interact. The placement of the test was probably no accident...

←

Giving Kim Jong-Il a test drive? Who knows...

I think China's too focused on their economic standing to risk any sort of military aggression or terribly questionable allegiance (supporting N Korea or aiding them militarily in such a bold way would really just be their way of shooting themselves in the foot economically).

Will be interesting to see what kinda drama comes of this, if any :huh:

[jross]

I'm not thinking that China is going to support them; China, as you said, has enough problems as is. However, a nuclear test near a border is generally a sign of aggression-- witness the geographic location(s) of the Indian and Pakistani bomb tests (which as I recall, were somewhat close to the contested region). Traditionally, any military activity on a border is a sign of aggression; look at both our behavior in Berlin, and that of the Russians, prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall. Other examples include the Sino-Soviet frontier, or in pre-WW II history, the Manchurian conflicts between the Russians and the Japanese garrisons/ invading force. N. Korea may be trying to apply pressure on China, which is in many ways in a teniable position internationally; China is, itself, in an interesting position economically. While China is a new player on the international stage (at least economically) they already have alot of clout; witness the growing imports from China here in the US. While some of the things coming in are still the old crappy stuff, an increasing amount of our food and electronics are coming from Chinese fields and factories; China also has now has what looks to be the most advanced nuclear power industry in the world taking shape (witness the recent construction of a 10 MW pebble bed nuclear reactor, prototype to a series of 200-500 MW modular units). China is in a unique position to apply economic pressure on the US on the behalf of N. Korea (due to the imbalance of trade and the increasing amount of US currency on the world market in Chinese control); should China choose to dump the dollar on the international market, it has the potential to ripple into a domestic economic crisis that will could rival the Great Depression.

Since I know this sounds overtly reactionary, so I'll try and see if I can't spell out why and how this works. Current balance of payments between US and China favor China; we import much more than we export. This means US dollars are accumulating in China's foreign currency reserves; these dollars are then used to buy goods from America and certain other countries. Should China decide to dump their dollar reserves, which would in the short term require them to take a loss, the dollar would rapidly devalue on the international market. An example of this happening recently (to a certain extent) comes in the meltdown of the Southern Cone economies, most dramatically in Argentina and Brazil. Should the value of the dollar drop on the international market, it would translate to higher prices on all imported products, and since most of the means of production have been shifted overseas, this directly translates to higher prices across the board for all products bought and sold in the United States. The importance of this is best underlined by pointing to one of the predominant theories amongst the economics circle as to why the US went to war in Iraq: Saddam had discussed pegging oil prices to the Euro. Oil is currently priced in dollars/barrel, which gives the US a natural advantage in the petrolum business, since the price of oil coming to the US would, as such, remain more or less constant. Currencies not pegged to the dollar (ie, those which did not have a fixed exchange rate) were directly affected by this, as their price for petrol products was tied to their exchange rate with the US dollar. If oil was to be pegged to the Euro, we would then be vulnerable to currency fluxuations-- and given the increasing strength of the Euro, we would be put over a barrel (no pun intended).

In some ways, China already has incentives to dump the dollar; it destabilized the US in the international and economic arenas, and, perhaps more importantly, it gives OPEC good reason to change their oil pricing policies. OPEC has already discussed pegging oil to the Euro instead of the dollar, and if the dollar were to rapidly devalue on the international market, it could concieveably hurt OPEC severly unless they changed over to the Euro (since they are then forced to buy oil with dollars, which will be essentially otherwise worthless). China has a fairly large domestic petrol industry, so the damage to OPEC would probably not affect it. In fact, they may be able to usurp part of OPEC's role in international oil production in this way, since China is increasingly focused on nuclear power (and other so-called "clean" energy sources). However, the US is dependant upon OPEC oil (as well as South American, but with the collapse of the Southern Cone, and due to our political behavior in the region, this may not be oil we can continue to count on), so we would be dead in the water. China would then be able to move into those production roles still occupied by the US (what few are left), and would probably make a handsome profit from continuing to supply the US with our essentials (since things like farms can't suddenly start producing again overnight).

There are other arguements as well, I just can't recall them at 1 AM (or most of the words I intended to use.. I apologize if my rhetoric seemed repetitive). I don't know that N. Korea's possible bomb test will mean much in the long run, nor that China will choose to excercise it's economic position of strength relative to the US in the manner described, but it's worth remembering that these things ARE possible, and that these actions ripple. I know I've undoubtably skipped a few of the ripples which would result from China dumping the dollar, but mebbe I'll look over this drivel in the morning and rework it as neccisary.

[EricF]

I'm not thinking that China is going to support them; China, as you said, has enough problems as is. However, a nuclear test near a border is generally a sign of aggression-- witness the geographic location(s) of the Indian and Pakistani bomb tests (which as I recall, were somewhat close to the contested region). Traditionally, any military activity on a border is a sign of aggression; look at both our behavior in Berlin, and that of the Russians, prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall. Other examples include the Sino-Soviet frontier, or in pre-WW II history, the Manchurian conflicts between the Russians and the Japanese garrisons/ invading force. N. Korea may be trying to apply pressure on China, which is in many ways in a teniable position internationally; China is, itself, in an interesting position economically. While China is a new player on the international stage (at least economically) they already have alot of clout; witness the growing imports from China here in the US. While some of the things coming in are still the old crappy stuff, an increasing amount of our food and electronics are coming from Chinese fields and factories; China also has now has what looks to be the most advanced nuclear power industry in the world taking shape (witness the recent construction of a 10 MW pebble bed nuclear reactor, prototype to a series of 200-500 MW modular units). China is in a unique position to apply economic pressure on the US on the behalf of N. Korea (due to the imbalance of trade and the increasing amount of US currency on the world market in Chinese control); should China choose to dump the dollar on the international market, it has the potential to ripple into a domestic economic crisis that will could rival the Great Depression.

Since I know this sounds overtly reactionary, so I'll try and see if I can't spell out why and how this works. Current balance of payments between US and China favor China; we import much more than we export. This means US dollars are accumulating in China's foreign currency reserves; these dollars are then used to buy goods from America and certain other countries. Should China decide to dump their dollar reserves, which would in the short term require them to take a loss, the dollar would rapidly devalue on the international market. An example of this happening recently (to a certain extent) comes in the meltdown of the Southern Cone economies, most dramatically in Argentina and Brazil. Should the value of the dollar drop on the international market, it would translate to higher prices on all imported products, and since most of the means of production have been shifted overseas, this directly translates to higher prices across the board for all products bought and sold in the United States. The importance of this is best underlined by pointing to one of the predominant theories amongst the economics circle as to why the US went to war in Iraq: Saddam had discussed pegging oil prices to the Euro. Oil is currently priced in dollars/barrel, which gives the US a natural advantage in the petrolum business, since the price of oil coming to the US would, as such, remain more or less constant. Currencies not pegged to the dollar (ie, those which did not have a fixed exchange rate) were directly affected by this, as their price for petrol products was tied to their exchange rate with the US dollar. If oil was to be pegged to the Euro, we would then be vulnerable to currency fluxuations-- and given the increasing strength of the Euro, we would be put over a barrel (no pun intended).

In some ways, China already has incentives to dump the dollar; it destabilized the US in the international and economic arenas, and, perhaps more importantly, it gives OPEC good reason to change their oil pricing policies. OPEC has already discussed pegging oil to the Euro instead of the dollar, and if the dollar were to rapidly devalue on the international market, it could concieveably hurt OPEC severly unless they changed over to the Euro (since they are then forced to buy oil with dollars, which will be essentially otherwise worthless). China has a fairly large domestic petrol industry, so the damage to OPEC would probably not affect it. In fact, they may be able to usurp part of OPEC's role in international oil production in this way, since China is increasingly focused on nuclear power (and other so-called "clean" energy sources). However, the US is dependant upon OPEC oil (as well as South American, but with the collapse of the Southern Cone, and due to our political behavior in the region, this may not be oil we can continue to count on), so we would be dead in the water. China would then be able to move into those production roles still occupied by the US (what few are left), and would probably make a handsome profit from continuing to supply the US with our essentials (since things like farms can't suddenly start producing again overnight).

There are other arguements as well, I just can't recall them at 1 AM (or most of the words I intended to use.. I apologize if my rhetoric seemed repetitive). I don't know that N. Korea's possible bomb test will mean much in the long run, nor that China will choose to excercise it's economic position of strength relative to the US in the manner described, but it's worth remembering that these things ARE possible, and that these actions ripple. I know I've undoubtably skipped a few of the ripples which would result from China dumping the dollar, but mebbe I'll look over this drivel in the morning and rework it as neccisary.

←

Very nice post

Another possible avenue to explore would be Chinese militarized conflict with N Korea as an eventuality, in which case we would be more than willing to support them, along with South Korea... That would be quite the interesting situation.

China sees North Korea trying to flex its muscles at them and gets uncomfortable, and sees that they would have little to no negative ramifications if they were to annex North Korea (aside from the resources it would take to do so, which would inevitably be recovered, factor in the burden-sharing that would inevitably occur, esp. in light of the U.S. designation of N Korea as part of the axis of evil, etc).

China feels more comfortable as the regional hegemon, US-China relations possibly grow even stronger (possibly not though, as a power vacuum in N Korea would leave US-backed S Korea and China kind of grappling [civilly, we would hope] for control over what would then be uncontrolled), and South Korea can sigh a sigh of relief (depending on what happens with the territory after Kim Jong-Il is gone).

Complications to this scenario are largely in what happens after Kim Jong-Il would be removed... And how interested China would be in getting UN-US support. Would they want the burden shared badly enough to give up the rights to N Korea as a new territory (instead likely as an independent democratic republic, or united with S Korea)?

If they would reject offers of Western support to maintain their own determination as to what to do with N Korea after the fact, then they would see their already pretty low soft power take another blow... Whereas if they accepted the support or acted through the UN (again, with the possibility of N Korea as an independent Democratic Republic), their soft power would jump dramatically, and they would be much more "in" as far as the international community crowds are concerned. The benefits of either arrangement are clear, as are the drawbacks...

So, are the Chinese pragmatic and aggressive (and risky?) enough to make something of this? They surely realize that if they did something here that essentially no one in the world would object... Even if they did and rejected our support, we'd secretly be rooting for them.

Just the 4:15 am ponderings of one International Relations student who likes theory and gets into this sort of thing way too easily...

[jross]

Very nice post

Another possible avenue to explore would be Chinese militarized conflict with N Korea as an eventuality, in which case we would be more than willing to support them, along with South Korea...  That would be quite the interesting situation.

China sees North Korea trying to flex its muscles at them and gets uncomfortable, and sees that they would have little to no negative ramifications if they were to annex North Korea (aside from the resources it would take to do so, which would inevitably be recovered, factor in the burden-sharing that would inevitably occur, esp. in light of the U.S. designation of N Korea as part of the axis of evil, etc).

China feels more comfortable as the regional hegemon, US-China relations possibly grow even stronger (possibly not though, as a power vacuum in N Korea would leave US-backed S Korea and China kind of grappling [civilly, we would hope] for control over what would then be uncontrolled), and South Korea can sigh a sigh of relief (depending on what happens with the territory after Kim Jong-Il is gone).

Complications to this scenario are largely in what happens after Kim Jong-Il would be removed...  And how interested China would be in getting UN-US support.  Would they want the burden shared badly enough to give up the rights to N Korea as a new territory (instead likely as an independent democratic republic, or united with S Korea)?

If they would reject offers of Western support to maintain their own determination as to what to do with N Korea after the fact, then they would see their already pretty low soft power take another blow... Whereas if they accepted the support or acted through the UN (again, with the possibility of N Korea as an independent Democratic Republic), their soft power would jump dramatically, and they would be much more "in" as far as the international community crowds are concerned.  The benefits of either arrangement are clear, as are the drawbacks...

So, are the Chinese pragmatic and aggressive (and risky?) enough to make something of this?  They surely realize that if they did something here that essentially no one in the world would object...  Even if they did and rejected our support, we'd secretly be rooting for them. 

Just the 4:15 am ponderings of one International Relations student who likes theory and gets into this sort of thing way too easily...

←

I think culturally, N. Korea and China are diverse enough that China would not want the added complications of attempting to integrate the Koreans. China seemed to have a rough enough time integrating Hong Kong (which was Chinese-populated), so I can't seem them wanting to take on backwater (and ethnically Korean very different) N. Korea. It would be interesting to see if they try and play through the UN to garner international support, however, I honestly don't see them going this route for domestic reasons (they would then be seen by the populace as pandering to the US). I think the Chinese wouldn't feel the need to burden-share, since they have their own nuclear arsenal and large military, but somehow I think they will more or less ignore their small southern neighbor.

[EricF]

I think culturally, N. Korea and China are diverse enough that China would not want the added complications of attempting to integrate the Koreans. China seemed to have a rough enough time integrating Hong Kong (which was Chinese-populated), so I can't seem them wanting to take on backwater (and ethnically Korean very different) N. Korea. It would be interesting to see if they try and play through the UN to garner international support, however, I honestly don't see them going this route for domestic reasons (they would then be seen by the populace as pandering to the US). I think the Chinese wouldn't feel the need to burden-share, since they have their own nuclear arsenal and large military, but somehow I think they will more or less ignore their small southern neighbor.

←

It is not a terribly likely scenario, but there are a few variables that could influence them either way...

Who knows, maybe the neo-cons will think of this and start giving covert incentives to the Chinese. It just seems like a possible step towards further integration into the rest of the developed world, which is what China's been yearning for since before we opened trade relations with them.

Ah well, nothing will probably come of this, but it would be quite the international relations case to study if something did...

[JDELUNA]

Remember that the delivery system that N. Korea has they claim can barely reach the west coast of the USA, and that has not been proven, if they were to try to attack the USA, we have more than enough ICBM that ARE PROVEN to reach N. Korea and make them into S. Korea's parking lot.