> 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.
It seems to me that the US is already effectively deterred from starting anything in the area of the Korean Peninsula because of the very large conventional North Korean military force (whether or not they presently have nuclear weapons) very close to Seoul. Military experts who have commented in the last day or so seem agreed that, if war broke out, the US side would eventually win, but the devastation of Seoul and other parts of South Korea would be unacceptable anyway. And there is no doubt that both Japan and China, which have very large conventional forces (and in China's case, some nuclear, of course, also), would jump in, and Taiwan would probably be involved as well. A hell of a mess for sure.
What this shows, I think, is that despite the Bush administration's constant crowing that the US is now King of the Global Hill, and everyone must bow down to the Lord High Emperor George II, it is just impossible for the US to rule the whole world. Both the supporters and the critics of the administration talk as though it were really possible for the Pentagon to suppress rebellions all over the world simultaneously, but this is obviously far beyond even its bloated powers. Some help from its friends such as Britain would help, but even in that case, the world is still an awfully big place to patrol.
> 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.
In fact, the whole idea of a 1000-year global Pax Americana, which the more rabid Bushies are wet-dreaming about, is absurd. Is Pakistan on the "good-guy" list or the "bad-guy" list? What about Saudi Arabia? Or China? (Or even Germany, for that matter. Have we made up with that renegade country yet?) International relations are still, in the era of "US hegemony," as complex and confusing as they always were.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ "Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others." -- Groucho