Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News What do you think about the deal with North Korea?

  1. Feb 18, 2007 #1
    Full article:


    This may also be of interest


    Anybody think this is evidence that the US is starting to conduct diplomacy less with a big stick and more with careful diplomacy? Is this a sign that finally Bush has got the message that posturing and threatening is not always the best method of gaining co-operation.

    Could the same be done with Iran in light of Condoleeza Rice saying that they would consider talks with Iran, and the defence Secretary Robert Gates conceding that they were not planning a war with Iran.

    What are your thoughts about this article in particular, and do you think this is a gradual trend away from the aggressive tactics we have become used to? Are Bush and his neocon cronies finally starting to listen, or are these recent developments just a result of him losing the senate and congress?
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2007
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 18, 2007 #2

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I would rather the emphasis for spending be for Korean energy independence, as Brazil has already managed using sugar cane for ethanol production - a cure rather than a Band-Aid.
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2007
  4. Feb 18, 2007 #3


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    As the article says, it is a better agreement than in 1994, but as the article says, N Korea is unreliable (reliably unreliable!). Kim has shown he's willing to let a good fraction of his people starve to death rather than keep up his end of a bargain that could save them. Fudamentally, this will change nothing.
  5. Feb 20, 2007 #4
    rather a bit ironic that the biggest nuclear user in the world, and also the biggest pollutor (I think?) wants OTHER PEOPLE to stop going nuclear.america is going to annoy alot of people doing this (like the iraq thing) and will probably make more trouble. i wouldnt be suprised at all if Kim Jong just blows up the whitehouse to shut them up. ah well
  6. Feb 20, 2007 #5
    DRNK has shown that you win by being smart not strong. The US paid for DRNKs compliance in Fuel oil ever since the 90's, then the US under Bush jumps up and down and says DRNK is evil and we won't play any more.
    DRNK restarts it's nuclear facilities, upgrades it's V2 based ballistic missile systems to make them even longer range and fires a few rockets around the place. Lots of international condemnation (sticks and stones, etc..) and another big oil deal.
    I think this just shows what bullies the Bush regime are. The biggest threat to world peace has got to be DRNK, but the US will make a deal because they know they will get smacked back if they try and do anything, so they go after the little kids.
    Why does DRNK get oil and Iran gets invasion threats, it's because DRNK can actually field a nuclear device that may reach US trading sites in the short term where as Iran is decades away at best.
  7. Feb 20, 2007 #6
    China wants to keep the US in check. I think this all has to do with the development of the Sakhalin Islands by Royal Dutch and either Gazprom/Lukoil. It is a large project being undertaken off the east coast of Russia in close proximity to N.Korea and China, which leads me to believe this was a debate about mineral rights in the immediate area bordering Manchuria.
  8. Feb 20, 2007 #7
    The article mentions humanitarian aid. Does anyone know if this aid is going to be given to the government to distribute as it sees fit?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook