The LA Times just ran a piece on the debate surrounding the state of North Korea’s nuclear capabilities and the shortcomings of American intelligence concerning North Korea. It’s an interesting read, the frequent quotes from Clinton-era officials and “ex”- Bush people aside. Just a sample:
The administration’s claims about Iraqi unconventional weapons, which have yet to be verified by evidence on the ground, were based on intelligence that seems robust compared to what is available about North Korea.
Recruiting spies there is almost impossible. Military installations are hidden in thousands of tunnels. Few significant defectors have emerged from a country where disloyalty is punishable by death and families left behind face labor camps or worse.
So the U.S. depends heavily on intercepted conversations, satellite images and intelligence from foreign governments ? sources that many current and former officials say do not bridge the gap between suspicion and proof.
North Korea’s own statements have been contradictory. The regime has said it possesses a “nuclear deterrent,” but has also rejected U.S. assertions about its capabilities.
Charles Pritchard, who resigned last summer as a State Department special envoy on North Korean nuclear matters, said the U.S. is in the dark on essential aspects of the North’s nuclear effort.
“We don’t know what they’re doing,” he said.
And here’s something to think about:
Some experts argue that despite doubts about the CIA’s assessments, the mere prospect of nuclear arms in the hands of an unpredictable, militarized regime requires a tough response.
North Korea is desperate for cash to feed its population of 22 million and maintain its million-man army. Its chief source of hard currency is selling missiles and related technology to such countries as Iran and Libya. U.S. intelligence officials said North Korea also earns tens of millions of dollars a year selling heroin and other drugs on the international market.
Some suggest that trafficking in atomic weapons is a logical next step.
“North Korea is completely amoral, internationally adrift and desperate for dollars,” said Joseph Cirincione, director of the nonproliferation project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. “For the United States, the No. 1 concern is not that North Korea would attack the U.S. with a nuclear weapon, but that it would sell a nuclear weapon to someone who would.”
Others said there is no evidence of contacts between North Korea and terrorists and that Pyongyang recognizes selling nuclear material or weapons could provoke U.S. retaliation on a scale its people have feared for 50 years.
“Nobody can cross the red line,” said the senior foreign intelligence official. “That would mean annihilation.”
Personally, I think nuclear non-proliferation is a lost cause, and while I would generally prefer a North Korea without nuclear weapons, to be frank, I tend to fall in with the “others” who believe the North Koreans are not suicidal enough to try to sell their nuclear goodies to terrorists.
Still, one has to ask oneself if he or she is willing to bet New York or LA on North Korean decision making…
2 Comments
Um, why in the world do you think the Kim Il fruitcake would restrain himself from selling nukes to anyone with the money? He poured all those resources into making them for a reason, and it wasn’t because he likes space travel.
Actually, ambiguity about use of nuclear weapons (i.e., will he or won’t he use them) is what gives them deterrent value–not their use, since that hasn’t happened since 1945. If Kim USED one or allowed one of his to be used (and the radiation signature of a weapon would probably suffice to tie it back to the point of origin), there would be a substantial threat of annihilation–make no mistake, annihilation of his military IS annihilation of Kim, as he would not survive long in the absence of massive repression.