On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 12:30:05 +0530 "Ulhas Joglekar" <uvj at vsnl.com>
writes:
> Jim Farmelant wrote:
>
> > If North Korea has the bomb, that ultimately has to
> > impact the US strategic policy in regards to Korea,
> > (the US having many thousands of troops stationed
> > in South Korea) as well as Japan, since this means
> > that North Korea may well be on the way to fashioning
> > an effective deterrent to attacks by US forces.
>
> US believes in the First Strike doctrine. Effective deterrence to
> the US
> requires credible Second Strike capability. Does North Korea possess
> credible Second Strike capability?
I don't think that anyone is claiming that North Korea has such a capacity, and most likely such a capacity would be forever beyond its reach. But the possession of nukes by North Korea would most certainly raise the stakes if a conventional war were to break out in the Korean peninsula, and the US might well be forced to backdown in situations, where it would otherwise have felt free to launch military strikes.
>
> North Korea has suspended nuclear weapons and missile programme in
> return
> for the US supplying two nuclear reactors to North Korea for
> electricity
> generation at a cost $ 4.5 bn.
And since the Bush Administration has said that it will seek a diplomatic solution to this problem, one suspects that the North Koreans may well seek to extract increased aid in return for suspending the program again.
>
> > That in turn, should over the long run give encouragement
> > to other small countries for acquiring their own nuclear
> > weapons as well, as a deterrent against attack by the
> > number one "rogue state" - namely the United States
>
> Which small countries can acquire nuclear weapons? Almost all
> countries are
> signatories to Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (exceptions are
> North Korea,
> India, Pakistan and Israel).
As it turns out those are rather big exceptions. Today's New York Times has an article, in which says that the Bushies are blaming Pakistan for having aided the North Koreans. Presumably, other countries may well be surreptitiously seeking assistance in building their own nukes from the fore mentioned exceptions.
>NPT allows only P-5 states to have
> nuclear
> weapons. How any small country can acquire nuclear weapons, if it's
> a
> signatory to NPT without inviting the use of force/sanctions by P-5
> countries? India and Pakistan were subjected to sanctions when they
> were not
> even signatories to the NPT. One can imagine the consequences of NPT
> signatories trying acquiring nuclear weapons.
I am wondering how long the NPT will last. I wouldn't at all be surpised if in the future it becomes increasingly viewed in much of the world as a relic of the Cold War era (when the two superpowers had a shared interest in limiting proliferation). If the North Koreans are seen as being able to get away with having resumed their nuclear weapons programs, others will be encouraged to follow in their footsteps. Remeber too, the sanctions against Pakistan were lifted right after 9-11(and Pakistan is being blamed right now for having aided the North Koreans). The repercussions for other countries breaking the NPT may turn not to be so bad. And if North Korea is seen as gaining leverage in its relations with the US and the other major powers, that too is going to encourage other small countries to follow suit.
Jim F.
>
> Ulhas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.