October 9, 2006
From the desk of Jane Galt:Question of the day
Does the North Korean nuke help the Republicans at midterms, by putting security back on the map, or hurt them, because people will blame Bush for letting it happen on his watch?
Posted by Jane Galt at October 9, 2006 12:10 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links"); ?>People today are more concerned about the Middle East and Islam, so I don't imagine that there'll be much reaction to the North Korean bomb test and neither party will be especially affected. We just aren't scared enough of Kim Jong Il to really get worked up over things. Had it been an Iranian bomb test public reaction would have been exponentially greater. I suspect it would have helped the Republicans.
Posted by: Peter on October 9, 2006 12:23 PMDear Jane:
I like to think I am an optimist and I think that over the next four weeks to the election, much of the nation will refocus on the things that are important to the nation such as national security and that we'll get away from the silly season that has been ensuing. Let's face it, while disgusting, in the context of the issues of the nation, the actions of Mark Foley are insignificant fodder.
Jack
Posted by: Jack Raia on October 9, 2006 12:42 PMWon't matter. Not many vote in the midterms, and those who do have already made up their minds.
Posted by: Randy on October 9, 2006 12:52 PMNeither - it won't push sex off the front pages for more than a day or two.
Posted by: ptm on October 9, 2006 1:02 PMRecent polls indicate the GOP has lost its traditional perceived advantage in security matters so I'm not sure that bringing up NK will be helpful.
Posted by: GT on October 9, 2006 1:12 PMRecent polls indicate the GOP has lost its traditional perceived advantage in security matters so I'm not sure that bringing up NK will be helpful.
Agreed. If, however, there were a severe national security crisis - an Iranian test might qualify - we probably would see a rally-round-the-flag boost for Bush and, in turn, the Republican candidates.
Posted by: Peter on October 9, 2006 1:19 PMThis will fall off the news cycle long before it can effect the elections.
Posted by: Chris on October 9, 2006 1:34 PMI don't know which it'll do, if either, but I'm boggled by the (sadly, plausible) idea that people will blame Bush for "letting" that happen.
What would they expect him to do to stop it, exactly?
Tell North Korea "we'll make pouty faces at you if you test a bomb"? (Already did that, really, and doesn't work. Ever.)
Threaten to annihilate Pyongyang if they test a bomb? (Crazy even by my hawkish standards, immoral what with the mass-killing of captive civilians, plus nobody'd believe the threat anyway, plus that'd be a real no-BS war-crime.)
Use secret Robot Ninja SEALs to find and stop the test, and do that again and again every time Kim tries one? (Lack of Robot Ninja SEALs makes this difficult, plus we'd have to know when and where ahead of time.)
Now, I'm not denying that people will be happy to blame the President for anything North Korea does, but I'm not sure I see any rational basis for it in this case.
(Wheras on Iraq, for example, the reasons for blaming the President are quite rational, though I tend to disagree with the calculus and assumptions underlying them.
But they're rational, even if I think they're mistaken.)
Posted by: Sigivald on October 9, 2006 1:42 PMI don't think it will either hurt or help Bush in the long run, although it's not good and combined with all the other "not good" things out there for the party as a whole and Bush in general I can't think that it would help. It's going to be another in a long list of things that Bush has seemingly failed at.
Now I agree there was very little he could do about it, but that is irrelevent at this juncture. So while I don't think the news in and of itself is damaging it might be from a "straw that broke the camels back" perspective.
Posted by: Kate on October 9, 2006 1:55 PMOf course, the Bush administration can go to the people and brag about another great success for their foreign policy.
Right??
Posted by: spencer on October 9, 2006 2:37 PMHelp, as it will move the conversation away from talking about Foley-gate and State of Denial and allow for some macho and reassuring presidential posturing.
I don't know which it'll do, if either, but I'm boggled by the (sadly, plausible) idea that people will blame Bush for "letting" that happen.
What would they expect him to do to stop it, exactly?
Of course he couldn't stop the test, but that is irrelevant. Just one less North Korean nuke, as far as I'm concerned. The problem was, through some classic W diplomacy, significantly advancing the date when they actually aquired the nukes in the first place! See:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.kaplan.html
Judging from the tone of your comment, I guess you'll just dismiss Kaplan, dial-up the conservative talking-points article and blame Appeasing Bill Clinton, but hey, it's always worth a try.
Posted by: hoosier state of mind on October 9, 2006 3:05 PMSigivald - What would they expect him to do to stop it, exactly?
The US has limited millitary resources. Would they have been better spent used against Korea (which now has nukes) or Iraq (which might have had chemical weapons?)
I'd go a step further and say that with our resources in Iraq the rest of the world knows that we're not going into any other place any time soon.
Posted by: Ryan on October 9, 2006 3:13 PMNo effect.
Regarding North Korea, what exactly would a Democratic administration do that's really different than a Republican one?
I think the threat is being overblown. Both Stalin and Mao had atomic bombs, yet they never used them. So why would Kim Jong-Il be different or more evil, dangerous, or crazy?
Nuclear states are threats to only non-nuclear states that do not have a nuclear state protecting them.
Deterrence will keep the peace as it always has since the end of WWII.
> Would they have been better spent used against Korea (which now has nukes) or Iraq (which might have had chemical weapons?)
Would any of the people asking that question have supported using the military against NoK or Iraq?
Only the ones that would get to complain that the military was unavailable because it was used elsewhere. The rest got their "no military action" way on Nok and Iraq.
Kim Jong Il now has both tiny little nukes (capacity, if not size) and ICBMs that don't work very well. Yippee!
Now we send him a note (with copies to the UN, China, Russia, etc.), letting him know that we have dedicated both an Aegis missile cruiser and an Ohio-class submarine to him; and, providing a list of the target coordinates for each of the MIRVed warheads on one of the Trident II missiles on the Ohio-class submarine, should he launch another missile in the general direction of Hawaii. Importantly, he must be convinced that this note is not a threat; it is a promise. "Stroke your ego - kiss your ass goodbye."
Posted by: Ed Reid on October 9, 2006 5:52 PMI don't think it will help or hurt. Smart Democrats will let the issue drop, because to dwell on Bush's NK policy will only devolve back to "Oh, you mean, like Clinton did?" which, at worst, cannot hurt Bush but might hurt the Democrats depending on who is around to spin it. Bush, if he is smart, will stay out of the fray (other than the cermonial posturing with other world leaders and a comment in the next SOTU), allowing any un-smart Democrats to his work for him.
Meanwhile, it might get the general public aroused for a few days, but the bomb was relatively small and probably represented a sizable portion of all available NK fissionable material irrecoverably converted to E via mc^2, and meanwhile, somebody in the US capitol is sure to have done something salacious since Foleygate. The leaker for that story is undoubtedly waiting in the wings and should turn up any day now.
Posted by: anony-mouse on October 9, 2006 6:18 PMEverybody sing!
I'm so ronery
So ronery
So ronery and sadry arone
There's no one
Just me onry
Sitting on my rittel throne
I work very hard and make up great prans
But nobody ristens
no one understands
Seems rike no one
Takes me seriousry
And so
I'm ronery
A rittle ronery
Poor rittle me
There's nobody I can rerate to
Feer rike a bird in a cage
It's kind of sirry
But not rearry
Because it's firring my body with rage
I'm the smartest, most crever, most physicarry fit
But nobody else seems to rearize it
When I change the world
Maybe they'rr notice me
And until then,
I'll just be ronery
Yeah, a rittle ronery
Poor rittle me
I'm so ronery...
Ryan: The US has limited millitary resources. Would they have been better spent used against Korea (which now has nukes) or Iraq (which might have had chemical weapons?)
One of the problems with that idea is that the South Koreans weren't sufficiently eager to see Seoul flattened by conventional artillery.
Posted by: Bill Woods on October 9, 2006 9:07 PMBill: Agreed. Any military action against NoKo would have *severe* consequences...for SoKo.
Hundreds of thousands of civilians dead (on both sides) and SoKo's economy wrecked for probably a generation, maybe more. The multi-party talk strategy was about the best card to play, IMHO.
Furthermore, I believe that NoKo *can* be contained, to a point. Iran, to me, is a much bigger concern in that they have the experience, the means, and the will to use non-state actors. San Diego isn't going to get turned into a glowing cloud of radiactive ozone from a missile lobbed at us from NoKo...but I think it might be a possibility that Iran's henchman might sneak a nuke in on shipping or some such -- and without a return address to be sure.
Posted by: Nate on October 10, 2006 12:04 AMMy guess is that it helps Bush. For all of his many many many many (ad nauseam) screwups, nobody who isn't a Democrat-for-life trusts Democrats on foreign policy. Reminding voters that there really is an Axis of Evil with WMD will just make Democrats campaigning on lesser, domestic issues look out of touch.
Just my guess; if I knew the answers to the future, I'd be in Vegas making lots of money.
Posted by: David Nieporent on October 10, 2006 1:09 AMThree reasons against invading North Korea:
1) The terrain. We could race across Iraq in light armored vehicles, and even though the Humvees amd Strykers were actually pretty vulnerable, they were moving too fast to get hit very often. Most of Korea is mountainous, which slows vehicles down and makes them much easier targets. Mountains are also natural fortifications for the defense. If the NK army decided to fight (and unlike the Iraqis, they don't have a record of running away), we'd have needed a lot of infantry plus heavy tanks and artillery, and they'd have taken tens of thousands of casualties as they slowly crunched across the mountains.
2) The South Koreans are hostages. Their capital and main city is within artillery range of NK lines, and the artillery is thought to be so well dug in that even nukes wouldn't eliminate it.
3) At no point in the Bush administration has it been clear that the Norks didn't already have a few nukes tucked away. They hadn't tested them, and they didn't have much in the way of delivery systems, but a suicide air mission could have put a small nuke in Seoul and killed millions, or they could have planted a nuke in the ground and triggered it when American forces rolled by.
4) It wouldn't do the job just to occupy part of NK, we'd have to roll right to the Chinese border. The last time we did that, we wound up fighting about a million Chinese troops. They don't seem any more well-disposed to having us there now.
Posted by: markm on October 10, 2006 9:17 AMRegarding North Korea, what exactly would a Democratic administration do that's really different than a Republican one?
Well we know that that last Democratic administration (at the urging of the Democratic administration before that one) thought that the way to handle North Korea was to essentially try to buy them off with the “promise” that they would stop trying to develop nuclear weapons. Not surprisingly, the North Koreans began breaking the agreement before the ink was dry.
We also know that the last Democratic presidential candidate, in addition to defending the previous Democratic administration’s policies, wanted to have bilateral negotiations with North Korea rather than trying to have other nations in the region who didn’t want a nuclear North Korea (including the one nation that could effectively cut off their energy supply) at the table to put diplomatic and economic pressure on the North Koreans.
Ironically enough, the multilateral approach favored by the Bush administration and he’s still accused of acting “unilaterally” and as a “cowboy.” Which just goes to show that Democrats really don’t have any ideas for foreign policy nor do they have any desire to develop any that go beyond than just mindlessly opposing whatever it is that Bush does or says.
Sigivald, given a time frame of six years rather than a few days, I'm sure a creative and engaged administration that prides itself on its security experience could come up with something. They've certainly deployed some plans everyone knew would fail.
Posted by: Brittain33 on October 10, 2006 4:08 PMThe current military problem from North Korea is that they can launch a ton of missiles at Seoul, and those missiles may very well be chemical. And, in theory, they may have a nuclear weapon or two, although that's unclear, and they don't have much of any way to deliver it anywhere right now, and certainly not farther than Japan.
Other than that, they pose no military threat, for one very basic reason: they've got no fuel. If by some miracle all their planes weren't shot down ten seconds into any conflict with the U.S./South Korean Air Forces, they'd be unable to keep them in the air anyway. And they couldn't keep tanks running for the same reason, even if they could get them past the heavily fortified/mined DMZ.
I'm not at all trying to minimize the problem; they could kill millions in Seoul right now, and in the not-too-distant future, they may have real nuclear weapons, and at least a way to deliver it to Seoul or Japan. And they would likely, given their lack of anything resembling an economy, be willing to sell it indiscriminately. But let's perceive the threat accurately.
David says "And they would likely, given their lack of anything resembling an economy, be willing to sell it [nuclear weapons] indiscriminately."
That is the real threat of NK nuclear program. Particularly worisome is that "indiscriminately" potentially includes non-state buyers.
Posted by: Tom on October 12, 2006 3:11 PM