U.S. To Confront, Not Board, North Korean Ships

North Korea:

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration will order the Navy to hail and request permission to inspect North Korean ships at sea suspected of carrying arms or nuclear technology, but will not board them by force, senior administration officials said Monday.

Read the whole story: North Korea

Comments

[mbondr1]

11:12 AM on 06/17/2009

Oh, why don't we just give them their bribes, skip the theatrics, and move on. It's what we always do eventually.

[breakfast]

08:18 AM on 06/17/2009

Better to do nothing at all than to proceed with this pointless charade.

[Paulo1]

06:58 PM on 06/16/2009

"hail and request permission to inspect"

After all the tough talk and the new sanctions this is an outright embarrassment.

And if the Koreans decide they do not exactly want to pull over and submit to a search?
Toothless Obama

[CigarGod]

11:22 AM on 06/17/2009

"Toothless Obama"?
With China sworn to protect NK from aggression, what do you think he should do?

[CigarGod]

02:59 PM on 06/16/2009

China would have vetoed the resolution if force was part of it.
They have a non-aggression pact with NK.

USA had to agree or there would have been nothing.
This is a small, but significant step.
Keeps the ball in our court and keeps NK on defense.

Not that I agree with the whole approach...but that is what it is, anyway.

[davidwayneosedach]

01:48 PM on 06/16/2009

How many millions will we waste on this "plan?"

[Pimpinnati]

01:37 PM on 06/16/2009

Wow.

That's a real strong deterrent.

Hey , let us aboard. We want to check your cargo!

NO!

Well, okay then. I hope you learned your lesson ...

Talk about toothless.

[stunsitfel]

02:18 PM on 06/16/2009

My guess is that we will also read them their rights as we board.

[sc300nc]

02:53 PM on 06/16/2009

Maybe we will give them refuge in Bermuda?

[Liberal2]

01:28 PM on 06/16/2009

Just a thought, but what would North Korea do if one of their ships were boarded?

Would they actually attack South Korea?

The South Korean military isn't exactly a push over.

So if the US boarded one of their ships, North Korea would do a "Bush" and attack another country?

Bet they wouldn't.

[SwingingFromCenter]

09:17 AM on 06/16/2009

"We request to come aboard and inspect your ship!"

"NO!"

"Oh...ok"

[sc300nc]

09:13 AM on 06/16/2009

Either you are or you are not. Let's not do this halfway crap. It makes you look ridiculous.

[Pimpinnati]

01:38 PM on 06/16/2009

Exactly. This is just stupid. Either force to board them or dont even ask.

[SangZe]

07:45 AM on 06/16/2009

Obama rolls over again.

[demrepub]

07:02 AM on 06/16/2009

In the weeks ahead of and after its second nuclear test, conducted May 25, North Korea has disavowed its past commitments to give up those weapons, and said it would never bow to the demands of the United States, its allies, or the United Nations. On Saturday the North said that it would reprocess its remaining stockpile of spent nuclear fuel into plutonium, adding to an existing stockpile believed sufficient to make six or eight weapons.

Such announcements have heightened fears that North Korea’s next step could be to sell more of its nuclear or missile technology, one of the few profitable exports of a broken, starving country. The result is that Mr. Obama, in his first year in office, is putting into effect many of the harshest steps against North Korea that were advocated by conservatives in the Bush White House, including Vice President Dick Cheney.

Well whadayaknow. Obama is adopting the tactics of Darth Cheney. Go figure.

[arvay]

08:31 AM on 06/16/2009

Actually, this is a measured and thoughtful response to North Korea, avoiding direct confrontation and gunplay while achieving the result of preventing the spread of nuclear weaponry.

Once a war starts, the results are unpredictable. Millions of people could die if war breaks out on the Korean peninsula. Prudence is not weakness, it's evidence of a brain.

North Korea actually has very limited options.

They're burning the furniture to stay warm in winter, and very vulnerable to economic pressures, some of which we can re-apply. Attacking Seoul would mean suicide. Expect alerts, border incidents maybe attacks on other nations' vessels.

All of which will produce -- nothing.

The USSR was far more dangerous, and we successfully implemented a containment strategy. Surely, we and the Chinese and others can hem in this tiny nation, even if it has a few nukes.

Of course Kim is not the apex of rationality. But neither was or is Khaddafi. who eventually gave up his nuclear weapons program and has tried to integrate his country into the global economic system.

[jestanle]

02:47 AM on 06/16/2009

Ooooohhhh tough! I bet they will just pull on over!

[We-Are-The-Ones]

03:36 AM on 06/16/2009

What do you want . . war? Do you want the US to fire on ships like we are renegades or pirates?

North Korea is, after a sovereign nation. Stop the warmongering for God's sake.

[dsws]

06:51 AM on 06/16/2009

Formally, North Korea is still at war and has renounced the armistice.

[bbuudd]

08:02 AM on 06/16/2009

I say we should avoid war like the plague that it is. I believe our nation should have a Department of Peace.

There are times when intervention before the fact makes sense. Although the lies and actions of GWBush have given most in our nation - including me - an allergic reaction to such talk, the scepter of half-crazed men unleashing nuclear weapons just because they can forces us to confront our responsibilities of being the super power.

Failure to short-circuit the spread of nuclear arms will leave the burden of guilt squarely on our shoulders should the nightmare of nuclear terrorism / war become a reality. I'm not saying this because we're the ones who let the genie out of the bottle, but because if we do not put a stop to NK's crazed actions - nobody else will. And when nukes start being lobbed around by people who feel they've got nothing to loose, humanity is in for an awful melt-down.

If Kim Jung Il were racing to the edge of a cliff by himself, daring us to stop him, I'd say let him go. But he's dragging the rest of the world with him to the edge of that precipice.

Imagine that. Me, of all people, advocating the use of pre-emptive force in this situation. I'm, on one hand, ashamed of myself for even thinking such a thing. But -