Obama worshipers fell all over themselves when he offered food to N Korea. Wonder how they feel now?

In researching Island Turtle’s article on the folly of President Obama’s agreement to buy the same horse twice (actually the third or fourth time is more accurate) with his 240 kilotons of food, for 8 months of good behavior (until the election)  I was bowled over by the obsequious praise of The One by NY Times readers. 

It took only two weeks for young Kim to announce he was breaking the deal and 6 weeks to launch the rocket which ended in failure.  And it now appears he will detonate a nuclear weapon to add an exclamation point to his defiance of Obama.  Young Kim is now a big cheese with his flock, showing he has no fear of The One.

Here are a few of the comments from the true believers. The Times’ article and complete comments are here, read them all if you can stand it. Yes there were some doubting Thomases who expressed concerns, but most were on the praise heaping side.  I wonder if they have second thoughts now.

Jack  Illinois

This is welcome and encouraging news. If this is the result of a new leader in North Korea I am glad that this could happen. Let's build on this development to stabilize the region and hopefully strengthen our ties to the Korean people.
Feb. 29, 2012 at 9:50 a.m.

Jb  ok

You mean that the war hawks aren't going to shriek and stomp and demand that "we" bomb and invade North Korea? With its nuclear program as far as it is?

Oh, I see. No oil.
Feb. 29, 2012 at 9:50 a.m.

Travis Bennett  New Hampshire

Good news! Peace!
Feb. 29, 2012 at 9:51 a.m

Lisa  NYC

Wow...imagine that, a diplomatic breakthrough which didn't involve going to war. Are you listening, Iran? I'd imagine that those in the US who are beating the drums for war with Iran are not going to like seeing this news because it demonstrates that diplomacy can work - even with whacko dictators at the helm.
Feb. 29, 2012 at 10:04 a.m

Newton Gregory  Miami

This is encouraging. Way to go Obama administration..Let's build bridges that break down barriers one step at a time and count each victory, even though small, as progress in the right direction.
This is a win win for USA and the world.
Feb. 29, 2012 at 10:04 a.m

Puristartist  Boulder, CO

God Bless Obama - seriously people, it does make a difference that's he's president.
Feb. 29, 2012 at 10:05 a.m

Donald Dal Maso  Manhattan

I want to congratulate HILARY CLINTON for her extraordinary work over the past three years. President Obama, you made a terrific choice by enlisting her in the work.
Feb. 29, 2012 at 10:07 a.m.

Lastcardjb  ct

This is a huge win for international diplomacy - to all those who say Obama doesn't have the chops- take a look at a surging auto industry, the justice brought to many terrorists, the opening of at least a small crack in the North Korean facade and many other small steps forward. Not perfect but damn good.

Also, NK insisting on tying the food to the disarmament, it saves face. They can spin it so their people don't perceive thee government as weak - good politics.
And the people win.
Feb. 29, 2012 at 10:31 a.m.

Mark T.  Henderson, NV

Another example of this government working quietly, professionally, behind the scenes, to make small improvements around the world. I'll never forget watching the "Correspondents' Dinner" and Obama's hilarious speech, and finding out the next day he knew all the while that we had just gotten bin Laden. And he never said a word. He must have been BURSTING to tell, but he didn't. Very professional. Never saw Bush do ANYTHING comparable.

Of course there's so much stuff going on behind the scenes we'll never know about, but that's just the world we live in. Good victory for Obama and Secretary of State Clinton.
Feb. 29, 2012 at 10:32 a.m.

Mehrdad Sahba  Sarasota, FL

This is triumph of diplomacy and sane thinking over sabre rattling which hopefully will add to promise of less nuclear weapons and a safer world for all humanity.
Feb. 29, 2012 at 10:32 a.m

Rene Joseph Louis Lefebvre  Montreal

We can praise President Obama and his administration for engaging North Koea in a way that lead to today's announcement that will open North Korea's nuclear facilities. China and Russia had much more leverage to engage this secretive nuclear country but it seems that their policies toward North Korea were only facilitating the late Kim Jung-il to increase his nuclear military arsenal while starving his people and depriving his country of much needed money and revenues used to buid and maintain his nuclear arsenal and facilities instead of making sure every North Korean citizen had enough food to survive.

I hope that Republicans are not going to use this opening and try to point at President Obama as being weak on defense and caving to North Korea's traditional threats and chest beating. It is in everybody's interest that this openeing, "although limited" be used to continue to engage Korea's new leader in a face saving and not try to humiliate him and his people by blocking food aids in order to get more demands and risk going back the terrible policies of the past. Russia and China should also send positive signs to encourage North Korea to continue in this deirection. They must show clearly to North Korea will benefit from taking further steps similar to the change of mind they just demonstrated. After blocking twice the UN's Security Counsel votes against Syria, Russia and China must demonstrate they are not only mentors for crual dictators.
Feb. 29, 2012 at 10:33 a.m.

James Hadley  Orleans, MA

How true! You can bet that the Republican candidates will denounce this as another enormous mistake by Obama. But at least no-one will have to explain to Herman Cain where N. Korea is located.
Feb. 29, 2012 at 10:34 a.m

Scott  Massachusetts

A step at a time. Good work by the Administration. Hillary Clinton is doing such a great job -- she is completely inspiring.
Feb. 29, 2012 at 10:38 a.m

Cedar  Colorado

The Republican candidates for all governmental offices can yap all day long about the social agenda they want to foist on the US, but nothing will overshadow the accomplishment of getting the worst rogue nuclear power in the world to stop its weapons development programs. Why? North Korea can blow up parts of Japan, South Korea, and the US, including large population centers, easily. If the new "dear leader" has the sense to take aid in exchange for peace and stick to the agreements, then real progress has been made. The trouble on our side has been the right wing ideological idiocy of Bush and others in refusing to meet, much less negotiate, with North Korea. The trouble on their side has been similar ideological volatility. Combine those two ideologies and you get only closer to danger.

I cannot see that any of the current crop of Republican blow hards would ever have been able to accomplish this since they are too knotted up in their own radical right wing ideas and threats against peace (or too focused on figuring out clever ways to deny basic health care to women, treat our veterans like garbage, discriminate against gays and reduce medical and educational benefits to the poor and needy all in the name of reduced taxes and "self sufficiency".)

As a country we must be vigilant and ready to meet any military threat, but must equally be ready to make peace. This is a great accomplishment for America and our current President, even if it is only an incremental step.
Feb. 29, 2012 at 12:06 p.m

Final comment by Island Turtle:  Eat your words liberals!

Don’t believe the NIE … Iran will have a weapon far sooner, by following the South African model.

Iran most likely will develop a nuclear capability far sooner than the NIE timeline of around 2015 . They will do it because they likely already have the technology and they are in a hurry to close the window of vulnerability from an attack by the West. All they need is sufficient weapons grade uranium.

Iran will probably take the South African approach, where 25 years ago they developed a lightweight gun type weapon for the similar reasons. South Africa needed a weapon soon, not later because of a perceived threat from Soviet backed Cuban forces in nearby Angola. Much of the analysis both classified and from think tanks, mistakenly presupposes Iran will only pursue an implosion device. That’s what most nations would do and are doing. But most nations have different aims; deterrence and massive retaliation if attacked. Numbers of weapons are important. Iran on the other hand is more into terror and nuclear blackmail. For Iran numbers are less important than a credible threat.

There are two roads to nuclear explosives; one, highly enriched uranium (U-235), the other - plutonium. Uranium is the most difficult road, requiring massive centrifuge plants that use large amounts of electricity to concentrate the fissionable isotope U-235 to weapons grade (80-93%). The plants are difficult to hide from prying eyes.

Plutonium on the other hand is naturally produced in power and research reactors and can be extracted easily from spent fuel by simple chemical precipitation. Covert extraction of plutonium is far easier to hide than enriching uranium. Iran is pursuing the more difficult uranium road. North Korea is going for plutonium.

And there are also two roads for weapons design. One is an implosion device (used at Nagasaki) or a gun type (Hiroshima) where two subcritical masses are literally shot into each other to form a critical mass and a nuclear explosion. The former is more efficient and produces a bigger bang. For these reasons, most in the nuclear club have developed only implosion devices. On the other hand, the less efficient gun type device can be developed faster and is easier to design with a very high assurance of success even without testing (the Hiroshima device was never tested before it was used). A limiting factor for gun type weapons is they can not use more easily obtained plutonium, only uranium. But this limitation doesn’t affect Iran, which has begun enriching uranium on a massive scale.

The South African Experience

In the mid 1970’s feeling threatened by Soviet/Cuban intervention in Africa, the South African government started down the road to becoming a nuclear power. Similar to Iran today, they settled on the production of uranium as the fuel and developed a gun type of weapon. Between 1982 and 1989 they completed 6 lightweight (750 kg/1,650 lb) weapons with an estimated yield of 10-18 kt. (Hiroshima was 15 kt.). A seventh was partially completed when the South African government voluntarily made the decision to give up its nuclear aspirations. The weapons were deliverable by either their Buccaneer jet fighter-bombers or locally produced ballistic missiles.

There are serious parallels between Iranian and South African programs. Both use(d) uranium, giving the ability to make either implosion or gun devices. Iran sees time as the enemy, prolonging its window of vulnerability. The question is not whether they will develop the simpler gun type weapon, but why wouldn’t they? They can have their cake and eat it too. While it takes about three times as much uranium for a gun weapon, around 5 years down the road when they have an operational implosion system, they can use the fissile fuel from the earlier weapons for three of the new. It’s win, win.

In addition you can’t ignore the knowledge sharing going on between Iran and North Korea in both nuclear and missile technology. Iranian scientists were present at both N. Korean nuclear tests and most of their missile technology is N. Korean. The Koreans are doing the heavy lifting on implosion devices, but they are stumbling. Their first test was essentially a fizzle (less than 1 kt) and the second most likely only around 4 kt. That shouldn’t give the Iranians a lot of confidence.

No, they will pursue the low tech gun approach for an interim weapon and surprise us.

Good Taliban, Bad Taliban … a failed concept

The seeds of Pakistan’s rapid descent began in mid February with a peace agreement crafted by cleric Sufi Mohammed that the Taliban would disarm in exchange for control of the Swat Valley. In India there was shock and horror that Pakistan’s government could accept such a deal. The Times of India reported at the time:

Reactions from US officials to Islamabad’s latest "peace deal" with extremist forces who have scorched the Swat region indicated that Washington was once again buying into the discredited theory of "good Taliban and bad Taliban." Pakistan has argued that some Taliban (those sponsored by the ISI whom it regards as strategic assets) can be won over and trusted whereas others (who have turned "rogue") and are irreconcilable.

Shortly after, the Taliban consolidated their hold, imposed strict Sharia law and began moving into neighboring Buner district by force of arms. There are reports of hostage taking by the Taliban to shield themselves from Pakistani attacks. There is now a realization from the US administration that working with the Taliban simply won’t work. The trustworthy cannot control the extremists and hold on to power at the same time. From today’s Wall Street Journal:

But U.S. officials and analysts in Pakistan say the Swat deal shows it is the men with weapons -- ordinarily the hardest core of extremists -- who decide on what terms peace will come. Men like Mr. Mohammed must find favor with them to maintain their positions. The deals "actually neutralize the moderate people," said Samina Ahmed, the South Asia program director for the International Crisis Group. "Where are they now? They're not in Swat. They're fleeing for their lives."

The seriousness of this can’t be overestimated. If even one of Pakistan’s 60 or so nuclear weapons falls into the hands of the Taliban, the world changes. We have been told that the weapons are safe, but these are hollow assurances. Most reports have them spread around the county side at missile sites and air bases. Spiriting them out of the country would have to rely on absolute cooperation at each location. The problem is, the Pakistani military sees them not just as weapons, but as symbols of national power and sovereignty. There is no better example that you can’t work with terrorist organizations and expect positve results. Good Taliban, Bad Taliban is a failed concept.