don't believe the hype:
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1...uclear-
facility
Easy for you blame it on the Bush administration and not on the North Koreans.
Is that how the next 20 years are going to work? Blame everything on the Bush administration?
I'm no fan of Bush. But, I would never trust the North Koreans. Never. You learn that when your woken up at 5 oclock in the morning because somebody in North Korea decided to give people a wake up call and test launch 7 missles. They didn't come close. But, where I live in Japan, North Korea is an hour boat ride away. It changes your perspective a litle.
Nobody in Japan trusts North Korea. Well, except North Koreans living in Japan.
Dave and Will,
It may be hype, but there's enough smoke here to suspect some sort of smoldering ember somewhere--in particular China's abrupt cancellation of the 6 party talks and North Korea's vocal opposition to something they otherwise have no reason to care about.
Second, I don't have any great trust in the North Koreans, indeed, I see them playing their hand quite well (maximizing their own interests which come at a cost to those in Japan, ROK, and the US), given the cards they've been dealt. Rather, I think it was the Bush Administration that played its hand poorly and had a legitimate choice between viable policy options to make and made a poor choice.
Being one who studies USFP, I will admit to making other countries into somewhat of a 'black box' (just a bit of essentialism there...) while focusing more on the divisions, options, and decisions of the US government. But, I do that for analytic purposes to make a point about the repercussions of US actions in international affairs.
"North Korea's vocal opposition to something they otherwise have no reason to care about."
Actually, Peter, North Korea arguably has a very great interest in helping to build and preserve strong norms of non-intervention and state sovereignty.
t may be hype, but there's enough smoke here to suspect some sort of smoldering ember somewhere--in particular China's abrupt cancellation of the 6 party talks and North Korea's vocal opposition to something they otherwise have no reason to care about.
Why do either of these things indicate North Korean nuclear cooperation with Syria?
Initial reports of the Israeli strike pointed to a Syrian arms shipment to Hezbollah as the likely target. Hezbollah has an affinity for missiles, which North Korea is known to sell. Isn't that a more plausible explanation for the North Korean protest (especially in light of the ACW link in Will's post above, which makes nuclear cooperation seem pretty implausible)?
And China is probably just seeking to prevent a repeat of the 2002 breakdown in talks after the US accused the North Koreans of having a secret uranium enrichment program in violation of the 1994 Agreed Framework. That later turned out to be based on questionable evidence (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2007/02/28/AR2007022801977.html), but by then the damage was done. So China's cancellation of the talks implies nothing about the validity of the reports; the Chinese probably fear that even a false accusation could cause a breakdown, and want to prevent another such confrontation.
Why do either of these things indicate North Korean nuclear cooperation with Syria?
Because after somebody tells you there's an escaped tiger in the area, every shadow looks like stripes.
A friend and I have been speculating that Izzy hit a production facility for solid fuel rocket tech (supplied/developed by Iranian expertise), tech that would increase the range of Syrian ballistic missiles that can deliver Syrian C (as in ABC).
I haven't been following the story due to constraints so perhaps this is a most redundant and late coming missive.
M1, there is no public evidence about what got bombed. There isn't even any evidence about what the israelis thought they were bombing.
At this point it's 100% rumor.
Initial reports of the Israeli strike pointed to a Syrian arms shipment to Hezbollah as the likely target. Hezbollah has an affinity for missiles, which North Korea is known to sell.
No, Hezbollah has an affinity for *rockets*, not missiles. Rockets are free-flight, missiles are terminally-guided. Rockets are cheap, missiles are expensive. Hezbollah has no the expertise, no cash and no worthwhile warhead to justify purchasing a missile.
Syria, however, has a known chemical warfare program (and known chemical accidents accompanying that program), but using an IRBM to place chemical munitions on an Israeli target would be foolhardy from Syria's point of view -- a chem warhead gives you a very poor return on your investment.
Think nuke. It's the only scenario under which Israel's actions and Syria's lack of reaction makes sense.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
