This problem seemed inherent in the announcement of the preemption policy in September.

Here are my relevant comments from my blog on September 20

"I am trying to understand how the policy enunciated in the national security policy document released today is going to be a good idea. I'm OK with the idea that new times may require new measures, but the policy that this document appears to outline has tremendous potential to undermine US interests.

For example, in conjunction with [link to Stratfor article] this interpretation of Donald Rumsfeld's press conference on the 16th this seems to me like a large incentive to covert nuclear proliferation, either by internal development or transfer of actual weapons. (Why? Because previously states that didn't actually attack anyone could assume that they wouldn't be attacked by the US. Now they can't assume that, but if possessing nuclear weapons will deter preemptive US action, this increases the desirability of having them substantially. Of course, you have to not get caught, but that was probably true already.)"

I'd say the first really vivid proof that nukes = sovereignity was Clinton's use of NATO as a justification for bombing Serbia in 1999. It was pretty obvious to many observers then that the attack on Serbia, if nothing else, would make the advantages of having atom bombs clear to any country on earth that didn't have them and didn't want to be the U.S.'s punching bag.

Firing cruise missles at a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan in August 1998 didn't make the U.S. look all that great either.

And, in any event, whether Bush's policies have made it clearer than it previously was (which I seriously doubt) or not, it happens to be *true* that the best defense against American military power is to have nuclear weapons. North Korea knew that in 1994, which is how it was able to successfully persuade Clinton to negotiate a deal which N.K. would then proceed to break over the next eight years -- six of which were on Clinton's watch.

It's not clear to me why North Korea is supposed to make Bush look bad.

A quick comment on why one might blame this situation on Bush.

Of course Korea was a problem before Bush II or Clinton or even Bush I, but the Bush error in Korea was to substitute bombast for policy, escalating the visibility and importance of the Korean problem without any benefit to the situation.

A bystander or an opposition party is free to complain about the inadequacy of US policy, but it is stupid for a US administration to do so unless it is prepared with a better alternative. I suspect that the Administration's stance had little to do with Korea per se, and a lot to do with the desire to promote missile defense against a rogue Korea and to do things differently than Clinton. It is important to remember that this this administration consistently subordinates policy to political rhetoric, rhetoric which is intended to rally political support at home, but which also sows problems abroad. I have no idea if their fecklessness will have consequences this time, but we will see.

The problem outlined by Unqualified Offerings has been locked into policy by the Bush Doctrine, but almost certainly existed in the logic of nuclear deterence prior to the statement of the Doctrine. Saddam Hussein apparently caught on to that some time ago. He reportedly regrets having attacked Kuwait prior to acquiring nuclear weapons, on the assumption that he could have made his brief territorial gains permanent if he had had a nuclear deterent. It's looking like he was right.

Now, I don't understand why the GWB administration is so upset about DPRK having nuclear weapons.

Does this Administration not argue that people should not be prohibited from owning guns because that is the best way to deter gun violence?

Am I missing something here?

So, here is a solution:

'If we outlaw nuclear weapons, only rogue nations will have nuclear weapons. So, let us arm South Korea and Japan to the teeth with neutron and hydrogen bombs'.

Think of the possibilities:
- More support from the NRA and 'Second Amendment means I can have stinger missiles' believers
- supplanting the hated French as the market leader in Nuclear Proliferation
- real measurable 'peace dividend' and a quick solution to the balance of payments issue with Japan and South Korea (and perhaps even Taiwan)

I love it.

here is my motto for 2003:

' A gun in every home and a Nuke in every country'

This should also create an order imbalance in the spot market for weapons-grade or near-weapons-grade material. (The "device" can come later.)

This in turn creates a strategic windfall for the "haves" ... Russia, France, other names you've thought of, other names you haven't thought of ... and an array of extortion strategies on the part of actors we don't ordinally classify as hostile.

This may drive al Qaeda out of the auction on the front side of the spike ... but it suggests the likelihood of a supply glut and a more liquid market on the trailing edge.

Matthew, the NSSD implications go beyond accelerating the rogue arms race. It commits us (in perpetuity) to suppressing advanced military development -- hence advanced technology, hence economic development -- worldwide. In short, it's a "bomb 'em back to the industrial age" strategy.

I couldn't blame anybody (individually or in concert) for self-interested counterplay, but I hope the world at large will bear in mind that USian manic episodes normally run their course and we come to our senses eventually.

In this context, recommending a book I have not read: Lodal's "Price of Dominance", a COFR publication which must seem especially prescient considering its release date (Feb 2001).

Oh My God!

When I wrote my comments above, I had not seen This article by Krauthammer (via Atrios)

Yikes!

“I'd say the first really vivid proof that nukes = sovereignity was Clinton's use of NATO as a justification for bombing Serbia in 1999. It was pretty obvious to many observers then that the attack on Serbia, if nothing else, would make the advantages of having atom bombs clear to any country on earth that didn't have them and didn't want to be the U.S.'s punching bag.”

Is somebody losing their sanity? The United States did not unfairly attack Serbia and flippantly use it as a “punching bag.” Our actions saved countless lives. Why is this fact being cavalierly overlooked? And so what if the thugs of the world conclude that it is to their advantage to possess atom bombs? Don’t most criminals and tyrants try to up the odds in their favor? The logical conclusion of your comments seem to be: we should never confront evil because the evil doers will just become more evil in the future! In other words, we should never do anything militarily.

None of the posters have even come close to suggesting any realistic alternatives for the Bush administration to pursue. Thus, one can honestly claim that they have nothing legitimate to offer. They are merely interested in taking cheap shots from the peanut gallery.

None of the posters have even come close to suggesting any realistic alternatives for the Bush administration to pursue. Thus, one can honestly claim that they have nothing legitimate to offer. They are merely interested in taking cheap shots from the peanut gallery.

What was so hell-fired wrong with the Clinton policy? It worked for 7 years, didn't it?

DT,

here is an alternative:

let everybody have nukes - south korea, japan, taiwan, outer mongolia... everybody.

Oh, you don't like the idea? (apparently krauthammer likes that idea)

here are some radical thoughts:

Negotiate with the man. Stop calling him evil, even if he is. Work for 'regime change'. Come down hard on anyone who sells any nuclear material to DPRK. Isolate him and threaten to wipe him and his country out if he should so much as arm his rockets. Stop behaving like the entire world is an American school and the US is the hall monitor.

Don't make threats you are not willing to follow through on. Accept the fact that Nuclear nations will not disarm as long as they are marginalized, since the nuclear threat is the only thing that keeps them in the game.

Above all, stop listening to Rove, Wolfowitz, Rice and Cheney and start listening to Powell.