Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
"There is no Phase IV in thermonuclear war."
November 9, 2009 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 5:18pm | 3 Comments
This has nothing to do with counterinsurgency, but neither do most of the products we produce at CNAS, so I'll direct your attention to our new report on negotiating with the North Koreans anyway.
I love the title. It solves
I love the title. It solves so many problems and answers all our questions.
Anyone who would suggest negotiations with NORK at this point ...uh...needs to be taken about as seriously as a UN resolution.
Can we fit healthcare into nuclear war, somehow?
If you wanna talk someone outta nukes before it's too late, I suggest you try harder with Chavez. Otherwise Brazil (which could probably get it faster) ..well Brazil is totally justified in getting there first, and we really don't have any ground to stand on.
And the answer for NORK is...let Japan and South Korea go nuclear. That can (and I predict will) happen fast as well.
"There is no Phase IV in
"There is no Phase IV in thermonuclear war."
Funny, I seem to distinctly remember plans for martial law and extensive rebuilding... Oh, I see, it only counts as Phase IV if it happens on somebody else's soil.
A very nice and logically
A very nice and logically laid out plan that, naturally, leaves out the two most important aspects.
1) WMD are, at this point, the ONLY "leverage" North Korea has. Period. Just what makes anybody think the DPRK will negotiate away its hole card? The US and other regional powers may have "limited" options in gaining "leverage" vis-a-vis the DPRK, but what they are essentially asking the DPRK to do is give up its ONLY source of power vs the rest of the region. As we say in East Tennessee, "that dog just ain't gonna hunt."
2) Given the above, WHEN (not if) negotiations fail or the North Koreans proceed to follow their template and simply ignore any provisions of an agreement, then what? More talk and more meaningless agreements that justify everybody's expense accounts? Or do we just wait until Seoul or Tokyo get reduced to radioactive slag?
That, boys and girls, is the ONLY question.
I'm absolutely not advocating that we crank up the B-2s and settle this the old-fashioned way, but having a fall-back plan that does not assume that the other guy is approaching this in a logical and reasonable manner would seem to be worthy of inclusion in a document intended to be read and acted upon by the highest authorities.
As I said, "A+" for arrangement, argument and layout. But ...
Add your comment