Proliferation is the issue, not Iraq

[BillA]

come on fellows
you are welcome to plant flowers, or go to church, or place your trust in UN resolutions

the issue here is specifically what to do - now

can anyone address that question ?

nexxo, any 'plan' that does not address the worst case scenario is pap to make YOU feel good
bigben2k, take your 'agreements' and perforate them and wipe your a*s with them
TerraMex, your agenda by now is apparent - can you directly address the question ?

Proliferation is the issue

what is to be DONE to stifle the proliferation of WMD ?
(nothing is/can be absolute or perfect, so lets shoot for 99.9%)

[TerraMex]

First you need to classify each country when it comes to WMD. Each have different agendas, needs, fears and economical and political situations. A general rule can be applied but each has a different reality.

Take North Korea for example. It's know that they have missile and nuclear programs, but not know to what extent the nuclear program goes. It could be next to nothing for what we know, but i dont think it is. They are not willing to have UN or other agencies look at their facilities and access the programs. However, you cant just bomb your way through.

It's a military country, driven by an out of date policy from the Cold War, and fearfull from its neighbours. The nukes (as an example) serve as a dissuasion to others, but it also makes a paranoid government feel safe, and less prone to conflicts, due to the nature of their arsenal.
Its your standard "dont mess with me, and i wont mess with you". Of course, this , however, makes other countrys jumpy, as has been noted in several UN discussions, including of the security council. For them, it is simply a reflection of the regime's inherent aggressiveness and ongoing efforts to prosecute the Cold War on the Korean peninsula.

Now you know what the problem is. How to solve it? Its not easy. You need several key factors.

One has to be through diplomatic relations between countrys, specially between North and South Korea. Having a good relationship stabilizes that particular peninsula and drops the agressiveness. Two, aid, changing the financial and economical status of the country can effectively change their policy on WMD. Three, make an example out of yourselfs. Good examples were made by the US and Russia by destroying a good deal of WMD. Four , maintain a good deal of information through the country. If people have access to information, a slow , but steady change of mentality usually occurs, and for the best. Currently they are very closed countrys.

Use inspectors. The inspectors who are there today have a far better chance of finding nuclear materials as well as other infrastructure related to weapons of mass destruction than an occupying army. The United Nations-led inspections of Iraq between 1991 and 1998 led to the historic accomplishment of completely dismantling Iraq's illegal nuclear weapons infrastructure . Its a good example, that it can work. If the inspectors needed armed protection, as well they might, they should get it should be provided by a police force with United Nations authorization. Small task force, not composed directly by members of the security council.

These need to backed by the countrys who make up the UN , and maintain enough pressure to be effective.

Quote :

"If possession of power is not to become a proof of virtue, then nuclear weapons states need to attend to their own obligations and allow permanent independent inspections of their nuclear installations as well. "

Most of the components of WMD can be tracked and can be discovered by a good use of intelligence. And then dismantled. Most countrys that have them rely on misinformation to hide them.

Continuous development of usefull and efficient countermeasures against those types of attack. If you cant use them, then they have no pratical use.

The worse case scenario is not if they have WMD, is when they use them, or minimum of miniums directly threaten a country with them , this does not include the dissuasion type events much seen during the cold War. Then you're in full justification of using armed force. A country with WMD, willing to use them, that has used them against other countrys, or with an agressive policy against other countrys based on those WMD, threatning them to use them instead their demands are met, yes, IS dangerous.

No corrolation have been made with countrys, because currently it has not reach that type of events. Fortunately. It may or may not be in the near future, but that usually depends on diplomatical and political affairs and not as much as military might.

Unregistered: Fair enough?

[BillA]

objective and to the point, fine
North Korea will be the 'next case', it will be interesting to see how intransigence is dealt with

if I had to bet, I think bombs will be the ultimate 'resolution'

[Blackeagle]

Bill, the thing that has bothered me with N. Korea is how they had a good deal going, yet sh!t canned it themselves. They had the US and (not sure) perhaps other nations funding oil shipments to N. Korea. So why in He[[ go with a nuke program that they had to know would create problems? To me this it's self speaks to a goal that requires those weapons. Forced reunification with the South?? The nukes being their hoped for sheild aginst US support for S. Korea?

I agree with you that N.Korea will be the most likly hot spot Bill. And I'm afraid that the use of force you forsee is also correct.

But if proliferation is to be stopped, then the N. Koreans situation is going to have to be resolved. The economy in N.Korea is so far in the tank it's beyond easy redemption. And the stress this is causing that rather parinod goverment is the driving force in what they are doing. They need the better resourses of the South Koreans to revive and maintain, for a while longer, they're own weakening grip on control. They have spent and continue to spend such massive amounts of the nations money on arms they have large numbers of people starving and dieing from a lack of shelter and heat. The country is bankrupt and those in power need the resourses of the South Koreans to maintain their power.

What I'm saying is the have created a downward spiral they can't find a way out of. The nukes are only the most extreame example of the truly massive military they have for the size of the nation. N.Korea has the most powerful military in the world today for the size of the population and GNP. I don't think they see a alturnative to taking the South, but see the US standing in the way.

How to stop the spiral? It is going to have to go one of three ways.

1) Convince them to reduce spending on the armed forces and help their own people, that would be best. Even if it requires some help from the outside to do it. This could take the form of grain, oil ect. until they can restart their badly damaged economy. This is the basic approach that was in place, but should be offered again. But with the stipulation that this time they must dismantle the nuke program, and reduce military spending overall. Without this being done they could welll think they can get limitless handouts at the point of a gun.

2) A extremly tight economic response, in a attempt to force the N. koreans to reverse themselves and the nuke program.

3) Forced destruction of the nuke program. Due to the risk of their using their nukes aginst the South Koreans or even Japan this could not be done as we are doing with Iraq. No slow start if forced to fight a country holding nukes. Massive strikes from subs off the coast as well as air strikes from stealth fighters and bombers. As the subs could be very close to the targets and have plenty of sea room this would work. And keep the carriers out of reach until these strikes are carried out. Not because the carriers arn't a powerfull force. But because once they are seen to be closing in on the coast the N. Koreans would open up with all they have. Both aginst the US and S. Korea, possibly even Japan. Once we are sure of disableing their nuclear potential we can then decide how much farther to go with it.


Not a pretty picture. Now I'd like to hear you, and others, think the N. Korean problem should be handled. And I really do hope someone see better working options that I've overlooked.

[BillA]

Originally posted by unregistered
. . . .if I had to bet, I think bombs will be the ultimate 'resolution'

how does one reason with an irrational paranoid egomanic ?

(no TerraMex, I'm not talking about the US)

above most other considerations, one must be mindful of the 'example' being provided to other wannabes
it is not possible to dissuade one who seeks death

[nOv1c3]

Its the same old game with North Korea That we have been playing for 50 years .. Before Kim Jong Il it was his father Kim Il Sung


Its going to be interesting to see how it plays out this time...

[TerraMex]

I think you're very fatalist BillA. Personally i think you need to lighten up a little bit .

Back to North Korea.

Two widely held views blame a) either the United States and the Bush administration's "hard-line" policy towards North Korea, or b) the North Koreans, who, according to proponents of this view, failed to honor most of their commitments.

I go with both. But thats no surprize . Inicially there was a good effort with the Sunshine Policy between both South and North Korea. It was working rather well until recently when the Bush Administration called it off, and labeled the North Korea as part of the "Axis of Evil". That was a direct insult to the N.Koreans, and didnt help one bit. Those type of subjects need to be dealth with with a more sensitive diplomacy.

It's like calling "bloody muderers" to every company that manufactures guns. And enter the cliche frase " guns dont kill people, people kill people".

The North Koreans arent helping either by not complying with a number of requests from the UN , and being a country that has a mass industry of balistic missiles and selling them to whoever has the money. But they do need the money, they are in an economical mess. Its a dilema for them also. Having a neighbour with a very strick line of diplomacy doesnt help either, creates an instability between both, leading to a security paranoia.

However, the north koreans, feeling they were next in line due to the fact they "sell missiles to whoever pays", boosted the nuclear program. Its not about using it. Its about reaching an agreement, and a degree of respect for their soberany. They basically want to be paied off. I bet if the UN (countrys, support) develops an AID package , new trade and economical agreements, the problem literaly goes away. With some luck, they'll even let inspectors access the nuclear programs.

If not, a good deal of political and economical pressure can go along way. It has worked in the past. Using the UN , it ca go to the point of imposing sanctions/embargos until a change of "heart" can occur towards the inspectors. It requires, however, the support of the most influential countrys in the UN, and for that , an agreement is needed. But that's something we'll find out soon enough.

Unless.. the US/Uk declares war on them.

But there's another topic to be discussed here. South Korea. They're not a choir boy. There's been a good deal of internal skirmishes , specially with the Sunshine Policy. I'll take a few quotes :

- The government's minority status. President Kim used his sunshine policy to improve both his personal political position and his minority party's electoral prospects. This approach riled his political opposition and politicized what had generally been considered a non-partisan issue.

- The role of reciprocity. Support for government policies in any democratic society hinges on a public view that such policies are effective in advancing important national interests. Absent clear manifestations of North Korean reciprocity, the "payback" for South Korea's largesse became increasingly hard to demonstrate.

- The approach to domestic critics. The President's confidence and conviction kept his policies focused and solidified his support among the left but also alienated many more in the middle of the political spectrum and narrowed the potential base for political consensus.

- The war with the press. The Administration's attack on the media under the rubric of "reforming" the press stimulated a de facto allegiance between the press and opposition parties to prevent the government from achieving its objectives.

- Lack of trust and willingness to compromise. South Korea's short experience with democratization has allowed little time for alternative approaches to the political rigidity and "winner take all" attitudes that have traditionally bedeviled Korean politics. Also, the government attempted to exploit internal discord in the opposition parties, which intensified distrust and weakened the opposition parties' willingness to compromise.

This last is very important to fully understant the local politics. Doubles for North Korea. To make a point on the political and economical landmines scattered through out the entire subject. Its not a simples "good / bad " approach. The reunification of both Koreans it nowhere to be seen , and their relationships dropped to a new low recently due to the comments made by the Bush Administration, combined with the personal gains from the South Korea , the pointing of fingers.

Bottom line, there are a number of paths that can be followed, and most not directly connected to a declaration of war. But even then , a misplaced word (hint) can be all it takes to screw it up.

....

[winewood]

Giving in to the N. Korean demands isn't an option. If you are dealing with good faith, you don't have to threaten the other party. As part of this administrations policy not to deal with terrorism, I find myself in full support. N. Korea is the equivilent of a homeless man using a gun to fill his cup. Its not his 'right' to be fed using this tactic, and its not 'our job' to provide aid to those choosing this action.
Paying him off to resolve this will not solve ANYTHING. It will just prove that he can obtain what he wants with threats of nuclear war and show the world we will negotiate with aid with a gun to our head.
We are essentially being asked to give a hungry, threatening, gun weilding man a fish, and knowing fully well he will be hungry tomorrow. Expecting him not to react in the same way tomorrow when he's hungry again is naive.
Any understanding of Kim Jong and his father, and they way the operate easily qualifies them for 'Axis of Evil' status. Frankly I admire Bush for NOT being political and calling them what they are. Its refreshing to not see the WH pampering their ears and cowering to tyrants.
If it only takes 'one word' to set off a conflict, it was in the making LONG before it got to that point. Pointing a finger at the victim for not giving in is laughable.

[deeppow]

Go skiing for a day and you folks get way ahead of me! But I see there is some discussion of the thread issue. Proposed solutions are thin at best though.

I’ll note a few points from the posts that I find useful (sorry cause I’m sure it won’t be complete but I’ll start):
1) don’t expect rational behavior from irrational folks --- There is a reasonable amount of logical discussion of why some country might do what it is doing. Your discussions may be right but on the other hand your trying to apply logic where it may not apply.
2) a need to realize cultural and value differences --- In dealing with a difficult situation, we need to realize these and use them in our interactions. I’ll contend that most of the folks in the world are basically good and have a live and let live attitude. Unfortunately there a reasonable number that have other motives.
3) the importance of knowledge (intelligence) can not be overstated --- It is highly probably that the world was saved a couple times because the US and the USSR had a very good understanding of the other’s capabilities, i.e. no surprise/unknown weapons. However don’t think that satellites and BlackBirds provide all the answers, they have limitations. Also understand that our governments aren’t going to tell us everything they know.


I would add these points:
1) don’t expect an ideal solution --- They seldom occur in real situations. Can you get to a position where all can live? It is valid to ask if all should live?
2) TerraMex notes “The North Koreans aren’t helping either by not complying with a number of requests from the UN , and being a country that has a mass industry of balistic missiles and selling them to whoever has the money.” This is part of the issue.


I simply change missiles to WMD. Or they don’t sell em, they provide them in support of someones activity. --- All possible variations.

What are you going to do?

I don’t want a rational explanation of why it may be happening and that others share possible blame. I already know that!!

What are we going to do?

Type less, say more. Use BillA’s approach, short and sweet (or sour). I’ll try to do better next time myself.

[bigben2k]

Perhaps a refinement or a clarification of the term WMD might be in order. Exactly what does this include, and not include?

[phreenet]

Two widely held views blame a) either the United States and the Bush administration's "hard-line" policy towards North Korea, or b) the North Koreans, who, according to proponents of this view, failed to honor most of their commitments.

And are we suppose to help N. Korea then? They violated a treaty for money/food in exchange for not continuing nuclear weapons research, they admitted they were continuing their research anyway. So.... We upheld our end of the agreement and cut them off. End of story. Are we suppose to go on a dick sucking mission to get them back on the agreement? No they are using this situation to exploit MORE money and food so they can feed their illeritate army of fools.


And it is you TerraMex who needs to lighten up. Your political agenda is as obvious as the majority of the other Bush/War protestors.

[BillA]

Originally posted by bigben2k
Perhaps a refinement or a clarification of the term WMD might be in order. Exactly what does this include, and not include?

seriously STUPID post
NOT words dumbdumb

-> define, succinctly, a course of action

[phreenet]

Type less, say more. Use BillA’s approach, short and sweet (or sour). I’ll try to do better next time myself.

Exactly I have browsed through four or five of these threads and in the end they just get philibustered by the same leftist socialist/liberals. Basically its copy and paste from the other threads, change some words. post.... It gets kind of repetitive.


[edit]
TerraMex no one is going to decalre war or N. Korea all they do is talk shit. They keep telling the media around the world that we are preparing for war, yada, yada, yada. Do they believe the shit that comes out of their own mouth? And we don't need to send it troops. Hunger is a good weapon and since the N. Koreans put themselves in that position it will be easy to execute.
[/edit]

[deeppow]

Originally posted by bigben2k
Perhaps a refinement or a clarification of the term WMD might be in order. Exactly what does this include, and not include?

Come on Ben, give me a break.


TerraMex, I'm about to stop reading any of your posts. I've reached the point that the time to dig through your rationals (which are always debatable) is an investment with no return.

[g.l.amour]

/off topic

during peace protests in brussels today, 2 kids got scorched and taken away, heavily burnt, to a hospital; when trying.... to light the stars and stripes. it makes me sick seeing people do that. looks to me like alot of ppl are losing their minds over this. comon, lighting the US - flag was something a privilige to radical islamist groups. not left wing anarchist kiddies. maybe they should take some courses in palestine. they could get some terrorist tourism going. if those ppl get their way, everyone will soon be queing at the unemployment office.

/off topic

[phreenet]

The Stars and Stripes always fight back

[BillA]

off topic

"they could get some terrorist tourism going."
already in full swing
- a main attraction is "dozer dodging"
aka putting one's head up their a*s and complaing about the view

[TerraMex]

Im going to loose sleep from people not reading my posts....

Those are valid issues that need to be taken in consideration when dealing with a complex situation like north korea, or any other for that matter. You cant just say "they're evil and that's that". Knowing what drives them is knowing the main issues of the problem.

Or you're having difficulties in understanting the post...? I can rewrite it in or make it more simple. I know my english isnt that good.

>which are always debatable

Everything usually is. But most of what i said i find it valid, and alot of it based in facts, past and current events. Feel free to argue with them.

>Perhaps a refinement or a clarification of the term WMD
>might be in order. Exactly what does this include, and
>not include?

I was thinking the same thing. There are clear differences between biological, chemical and nuclear WMD ... and a few others .

phreenet :

What i've stated before whas a good deal of direct help to the general population can have a change in the government atittude, and combined with a good diplomatic relations , and trade relations (including south korea) can make a change in the WMD program. It's about "killing" the paranoia and making a good stable enviorment for North and South Korea. However i dont think that will stop the missile industry. A little pressure is in order, but not by military intervention.

[phreenet]

TerraMex, but that is just your opinion and the VAST majority of people agree with the actions in Iraq, minus a few unhappy socialist, Chirac and Putin. And why should we listen to them? No one asked Putin about Chechnya (sp?), nor do they try to hold him accountable for the terrible things that are going on there inflicted by the Russian military. At least in Iraq we are using precission weapons that most people can't even understand. Whereas in Chechnya (sp?) they are just shelling the city with artelliary with no ryhme or reason, nor is there a end in sight. And France, with its poor track record of war time decsiison making in the last century has no right to question us. And if they think Saddam could have been disarmed with peace, then why are they sending troops who specialize in chemical warfare. I say they are there to clean up the stuff before the US finds it.

[BillA]

TerraMex
your command of English is not the problem, its the content

you are promoting more discussion, debate, and diplomacy (sic);
and by many these activities are viewed as diversionary, delaying, and deluded

it is understood all too well that the business of diplomats is diplomacy
they stay in 5 star hotels while the victims of their words are raped, starved, and hacked to pieces with machetes
- then they schedule a new series of 'urgent' conferences

diplomacy does NOT solve problems, merely delays paying the bill for past due accounts

if you cannot perceive the failure of diplomacy behind every international problem existent today, it is because you do not wish to
- you wish to surround yourself with 'nice' ideas and reject the intrusion of 'ugly' reality

did you read my factual account of the kidnapped Russian above ?
they answered in the same language, and the message was clearly understood

when you choose to accept the behaviorist nature of human activity, the direct linkage between cause and effect (even if only dimly understood); then you may be qualified to express an opinion to which reasonable men may agree

for now, you are lost – imNho

proliferation will be stopped only by making the cost ‘excessive’
and it is far cheaper to ‘nip a problem in the bud’, than to have to start weeding the whole garden
- and talking about it will not make it so

[TerraMex]

Of course, i disagree. I dont have a fatalist view on the worlds problems, and see an "eye for an eye" method a good and efficient one. I agree to the point there are cases that i can help, but exception makes the rule. And Iraq isnt it.

> but that is just your opinion and the VAST majority of
> people agree with the actions in Iraq.

Only if its in American. On the rest of the world, and mainly Europe, i can tell you for a fact , they dont. They see it as a severe punishment for the people of Iraq, when things have been pretty quiet with Saddam. They dont like him, but fail to see the point of generating more deaths a benefit for the people of iraq , or for the world in that matter, no real danger for the "civilized world" existed there.

> has no right to question us.

If they dont agree, they have every right as a people, a country and a security council member. Or freedom of speech only applies when is to agree?

>And if they think Saddam could have been disarmed >with peace, then why are they sending troops who
>specialize in chemical warfare.

They were... asked? France does not support a direct military action in Iraq, but it can (and will) help when asked.

> I say they are there to clean up the stuff before the US
> finds it.

Now whos going with the conspiracy theory? Blix and the inspectores found no real evidence of WMD in operation, or built or stored in relevant quantities in Iraq, its on the papers. And they know their business. They effectivly dismantled the Iraqian nuke programs very recently. I see no reason not to trust them. And they have been flamed constantly by the US, who hasnt proven jack in the UN.

>diplomacy does NOT solve problems, merely delays
>paying the bill for past due accounts

>you are promoting more discussion, debate, and
>diplomacy (sic); and by many these activities are
>viewed as diversionary, delaying, and deluded

This is were we mainly disagree. I know it can work. It has worked before, and will continue to work . But there is an effort needed from both, and support, parts to reach an understading and some significant changes.

I agree to the point that its not perfect, it has flaws and does not solve some problems. But to exagerate and say it solves nothing, sorry, i cant agree with that. It's supposed to cause debates, reach understadings , mutual interests , and promote better relationships. I dont see it as a bad thing.

You cant just barge in and telling everybody "here's the deal, if you dont like it then i have some friendly bombs ". There are other methods. And this is a last resort .

Going back to an agressive method, menacing with military might without any conversations or discussions, will almost be to go back in history 500 years. There the military might counted , and nothing else. It's irresponsable to have power and using it without judgement.

> then you may be qualified to express an opinion to
> which reasonable men may agree

Those are the one that agree... with you? You sound like airspirit , but nicer. It seems that when you dont like what you hear, you dismiss it with some obscure reason and say to yourself "he is irrelevant".

We're not animals, and we're not fatalists and we're not controlled by impulses. That stopped a few thousand of years ago. People can control themselfs, reach agreements, be reasonable . Some less than others but not to the point of "asking for death".

>for now, you are lost – imNho

I see a bigger picture. And i'm more moderate , maybe thats it. I have a different view on the world affairs, and how to deal with it. It not in a garden smelling the roses and say "what a wonderful world". I recognize the use of more agressive methods and force, but only in conjuction of several specific events, facts and motivations. Otherwise , i'm against it.

>proliferation will be stopped only by making the cost
>‘excessive’

Usually is excessive. Take the Russians, they spent so much in military that it was one of the main issues why their economy sunk . It can be controlled by sanctions, i can be controlled by inspections. It can be controlled by political pressure , or even economical agreements. Going to war will cost countless of lives, and achieve a meager result.

>and it is far cheaper to ‘nip a problem in the bud’

When you attack the branches and not the root, then you'll just delayed a problem. The main issue is a sentiment of hate , and very serious religious and political issues with several countrys. Thats not going to change by force. It needs another type of approach.


I see that my opinions are not being discussed , but flamed constantly. If they sting so much, i'll refrain myself from posting on these issues. Now you can all agree and feel happy.

[BillA]

several points of exception and I too will let it rest

"here's the deal, if you dont like it then i have some friendly bombs "
I would phrase it a tad differently:
'here's the deal, if you don’t like it then I have some big and deadly bombs'

"It's irresponsable to have power and using it without judgement."
I quite agree, but again would place the emphasis differently:
'It's irresponsible to have power and forswear its use'

"You sound like airspirit , but nicer."
lol, don't think you'll find anyone here who thinks I'm 'nice'
appreciate the levity

"when you dont like what you hear, you dismiss it with some obscure reason"
no
demonstrated non-performance is not obscure (except to diplomats of course)

"We're not animals, and we're not fatalists and we're not controlled by impulses"
oh my, 3 assertions = 3 errors
we certainly ARE animals, I submit Africa as the example exemplar
anyone not a fatalist is in denial - or immortal
to what do you ascribe the success of television if not "controlled by impulses" ?

the impulsive nature of our "control" really merits a few more words
are you familiar with the huge increases in the performance of thoroughbred racehorses in the last 200 years ?
-> think it was the (uncontrolled) 'impulses' of the stallions that caused such ?
now consider intelligence (as you wish to define it):
intelligence is HIGHLY heritable, which is to say that the inverse, stupidity (used in its correct sense) is also highly heritable
- so we can easily understand that the incidence of stupidity can be hugely reduced
you getting there yet ?
so if we were to CONTROL our "impulses", we could 'cure' stupidity
what is the collective response of the human race to this knowledge ?
- we continue to breed like stupid fu*king rabbits

I had the good fortune of knowing a wonderful Polish refugee, a PhD
- and so was every single member of her family for the previous 3 generations
smart ? ohhh yes (knocked my fat head off !)
truly amazing; but alas, a max of 2 children/couple
- can't compete with the stupid rabbits that way

you see what you wish to,
I see a privileged few - and for most this world is a brutal place
needs improvement ? sure, but intellectual sophistries won't cut it
gonna have to ACT

[deeppow]

I suggest everyone place their efforts elsewhere, this thread has shown no ability to suggest answers regarding the question it posed.

I've modified the original post to suggest others not bother with the thread. You might want to consider unscribing.

[Blackeagle]

Well as I took the time to try to find some facts here they are.

Last year the US alone gave N. Korea 155,000 tons of gain and other food stuffs. The US was also one of the largest supporters of shipping oil to the N. Koreans.

Now the oil shipments are off. And the US contribution of food has been reduced to 40,000 tons.

Japan has also cut off most aid. And even the S. Koreans have reduced their aid to the north.

China is the only other real source supporting the N. Korean goverment. They have not reduced their aid, but have not increased it either. Nor can the Chinese very well afford to replace the reductions of the other 3 nations.

They were starving before. With these reductions a desperate situation is going to become untenable. The N. Koreans have become a nation of beggars, living on the donated foods and oil of others. Without these donations they can't continue, the county will collapse.

The solution is to stop underwritting a goverment of extortionists. With draw ALL aid until they agree to the requirments set out for them to EARN further aid. No matter what threats they utter, no more help for them while they threaten others.

No need to attack them. Just make it clear they will be struck hard if they try using force aginst anyone else.

[BillA]

why do think they will sit on their thumbs and starve ?
they can earn hard currency
and they just restarted the plants to do so

there are buyers of the 'low grade' plutonium that they now have

no, I don't think waiting is a good strategy
remember, the idea is to keep the genie inside the bottle

BTW, S Korea paid N Korea $200,000 for the last (sham) conference
causing a bit of a scandal once it came out