North Korea and thier nuclear weapons

There are many questions to be addressed about North Korea’s nuclear weapons programming. These questions can be why North Korea is not keeping its promise to disable Yongbyon; is the country trying to gain some time; or is North Korea going to be bigger issue in the near future for the six party nations if it does not discontinue its nuclear programming? It may be hard to find answers to all of these entire questions. However; one thing is clear, and that is, North Korea is taking its time and acting slowly to shut down its nuclear facilities. There could be a couple of reasons to be addressed as to why North Korea is not taking six- party talks seriously to stop its main nuclear facilities at Yongbyon and hand over complete details of its nuclear programmings.

The first reason that North Korea has not yet disabled its nuclear programming could be that since its intention to take advantage of the six-party nations` leniency. For one thing, last February, North Korea agreed to stop the nuclear programming by the Dec. 31, 2007. In return, six-party nations promised to supply fuel to the country (BBC, 2007). However, the deadline came and passed by and still has not disabled the nuclear facilities at Yongbyon. Another example of leniency is that last year, North Korea demanded South Korea to provide food in return shutting down the nuclear facilities (Smith, 2007). Even though, South Korea did sent food, North Korea did not keep its promise. Additionally, in the beginning of last year, the country was not willing to co-operate with the six-party nations unless it received $25m that was in a Macau bank which was frozen since the United States suspected North Korea had something to do with money laundering and counterfeiting. Once again, in six-party talks, they decided to give the country another chance to and transfer the funds. Even though of the reactor at Yongbyon was shut down in July 2007, it is still not disabled completely (BBC, 2007).

The second reason is that North Korea’s intention has never been to disable its atomic programming, but instead was trying to gain some time to finish the programming. The Six-Party nations started negotiations over North Korea's nuclear programming in late 2003. However, in late 2002, the nuclear stand-off began as soon as the United States accused the country has violated 1994 disarmament deal by enriching uranium without permission (CNN, 2007).Six party nations such as South Korea and the United States as well as Japan, are realizing that time is running out for North Korea, and it has to fulfill its promise to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula (Korea, 2008).

All these problems started with North Korea's plan to restart a plutonium based nuclear program at Yongbyon, North Korea's plan to build a new highly enriched uranium (HEU) nuclear program, and the tension that emerged between the United States and South Korea. Even though many problems were occurring, there were some positive things that were happening at the time. The United States began negotiating with North Korea and South Korea about establishing railroad links, demining portions of the demilitarized zone, allowing athletes to compete in the Asian games, and allowing abductees to visit Japan.

The problems started occurring when North Korea admits that they have been establishing a HEU program, ending any diplomatic progress. North Korea said that they would stop their program if we decided to make a pact with them. We denied this proposal because we did not want to reward them with bad behavior. In November, the United States declared that Korea broken the rules against the Agreed Framework. There have been various theories on why North Korea had developed this highly enriched uranium program. One of the theories is that they were afraid that the United States was going to attack them, the same way we attacked Iraq.(North Korea Profile) They figured that if we attacked Iraq, an isolated nation with a suspected nuclear program, then we could easily attack North Korea for the same reason. There also have been various reasons why North Korea revealed to us their HEU plan. One theory is that they wanted us to notice them. They did not want us to disengage and isolate from them.(Korea)

the beginning, our response to North Korea's HEU and plutonium programs was very hostile and involved condemning them. Eventually, we took little baby steps to ease the tension. We also agreed to talk to them, but limited the things we could talk about with them. At the very time all of this chaos is happening, our relationship with the South Korea is reaching an all time low.

I think there are many things that the United States has to do in order to resolve the problems that are occurring and to prevent more problems from happening in the future. The first thing that I think the United States should do is to treat them as nicely as possible, even if it means going against what we believe and letting them get away with bad behavior. In the long run it might be a bad thing to do because it could influence other nations to think that they can walk over us and take advantage of us. However, I think it would be the correct thing to do right now because the last thing anyone wants is a nation that is angry with you that holds nuclear weapons. If, however, North Korea refuses to accept our proposal for negotiations and does not agree with anything that we have to offer, I think the only other option is to attack them with full force. We have to sneak out any hidden places where they are making nuclear weapons and get rid of them. We have to let them know that we are not fooling around them and that we mean business. If we are destined to go to any kind of war with them, even nuclear, in the future, then it is best to attack them while they have limited nuclear weapons, rather waiting a couple before they have more artillery than we do. North Korea's highly enriched uranium nuclear program and our recent struggles with South Korea could result with terrible things to come. If we do not think of a plan to get rid of all their nuclear weapons, the world could be facing tough times in the near future. Dealing with North Korea is a must, and we need to do whatever we can to take care of the situation.

In a discussion with the United States and China in Beijing on April 24, 2003, North Korean officials admitted for the first time that they possessed nuclear weapons. North Korean officials claim to have reprocessed and reproduced spent fuel rods and have threatened to begin exporting nuclear materials, unless the United States agrees to one-on-one talks with North Korea. Tension between the United States and North Korea have been running pretty stiff and high since early October of 2002. Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly informed North Korean officials that the United States was aware that North Korea had a program that was allowing them to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. Initially North Korea denied this, but later confirmed the veracity of the US claim.
In confirming that they had an active nuclear weapons program, they also declared the Agreed Framework agreement. The Agreed Framework signed by the United States and North Korea on October 21, 1994 in Geneva agreed that: North Korea would freeze its existing nuclear program and agree to enhanced International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, Both sides would cooperate to replace the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (D.P.R.K.) graphite-moderated reactors for related facilities with light-water (LWR) power plants, Both countries would move toward full normalization of political and economic relations,Both sides will work together for peace and security on a nuclear-free Korean peninsula,and Both sides would work to strengthen the international nuclear non-proliferation regime. (Albright,O'Neil)

Bush has established its top priorities in foreign policy. He claims that an acts in the government to improve the international community through negotiation and cooperation. Likewise President Bush remark "It is to inspire and be inspired by other nations to work together toward a peaceful and prosperous future" (BBC News). Bush, as well as our society, feels the president should be strong- especially in international politics and policies. When the United States was attacked September 11, 2001, the people looked to the president to lead, and in essence, seek revenge. On both of these levels of domestic considerations, we will never know to exactly what extent they influence the president's choice of action, but they help us in understanding some of the foreign policy decisions. Going beyond the individual to the expectations of the position, the role consideration plays an influential domestic part in the response to an external event and ultimately foreign policymaking. President Bush's most important goals currently are internationalism, national security, limiting weapons of mass destruction, and nationalism. Bush has encouraged democracy and democratic ideals in other countries. "American internationalism" (BBC news) is what our president call his foreign policy. American internationalism seeks to preserve liberty and to promote opportunity, human dignity, freedom, prosperity, and peace, both at home and abroad that's basically what bush American internationalism stand for. Bush, as well as our society, feels the president should be strong- especially in international politics and policies. Going beyond the individual to the expectations of the position, the role consideration plays an influential domestic part in the response to an external event and ultimately foreign policymaking. Furthermore to do this, Bush's administration has outlined some specific objectives. Allies are crucial to conduct foreign operations, so the Bush has joined several international organizations that allow it to serve at the forefront of international policy. Some of the more famous ones are the United Nations, which is the biggest organization and has many sub-level organizations, the World Trade Organization, the World Health Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank Group (Directory of Economic, Commodity and Developmental Organizations). Knowing that United States is involved in these international organizations President Bush refuses to listen to UN and decided to attack Iraq (NY times). Today issues of terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, and Middle East peace are front runners in American foreign policy. These current issues facing the US, compiled with traditional objectives in international relations, dictate the current most important countries and actors to the United States.

The threat of weapons of mass destruction was enough to cause the United States to attack pre-emotively in Iraq. In the Middle east, as well as elsewhere, the threat of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons has increased exponentially. The government does not know which groups have them, what their capabilities are, or when the United States and its allies could be attacked by them. As technologies have increased and become more available, the need to know this information has become even more crucial in order to strategize and prepare. The United States must remain close to both its allies and enemies in order to avoid the possibility of being attacked at home or abroad. Furthermore Since September 11, 2001, the United States, with the help of its allies and partners, has dismantled the Taliban, denied Al-Qaida a safe haven in Afghanistan, and defeated Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. Many countries play a vital role with US assistance, especially regarding intelligence. Preventing terrorism on the homeland is a priority but also is prevention elsewhere. That is why consistent relations are maintained especially in the Middle East, but also elsewhere. One of President Bush's four objectives in the War with Iraq was the removal of weapons of mass destruction (Dunn). These weapons include chemical, biological, and nuclear capabilities. Many countries have, or will have nuclear capabilities, and the numbers will only increase. Not all of these countries are known but some of importance includes North Korea, Pakistan, India, Iran, and every other country with related technologies. All nuclear capable countries, both allies and otherwise, are vital to defense policy making of the United States.
Nationalism is very important to the people of United Stated and our dear President Bush uses this idea to persuade the people. Many symbols have been adopted as symbols of freedom, especially after the September 11 attacks. As a result of the rise of nationalism, ideology tends to decline, which means the United States gives ideology very little importance. Leaders such as the President Bush use example of symbol like the symbol of freedom as a symbol to persuade the citizens of the United States to agree with him. In a speech the President gave on the need for freedom in Cuba "Today, the struggle for freedom continues -- it hasn't ended -- in cities and towns of that beautiful island, in Castro's prisons, and in the heart of every Cuban patriot." (Dunn). A way nationalism is also seen in this country is in its war against terrorism. Ever since the September 11 attacks, almost all of the government's attention has been on the war against terrorism. This can be seen through a statement made by the President on July 24, 2003, "And this [September 11] was the merest glimpse of the violence terrorists are willing to inflict on this country. They desire to kill as many Americans as possible, with the most destructive weapons they can obtain. They target the innocent as a means of spreading chaos and fear, and to shake our national resolve."(Dunn) The use of terrorism as a symbol was a way to persuade the citizens of the United States that this war is justified.

National security has become a large focus for President Bush and Congress, as well as the international community. Following the tragic events on 9/11/01, the importance of allies and partners became even more important to Bush's administration. While the United States had not looked to act creatively in the past, "multilaterals" became crucial in order to determine how to thwart terrorism in the most effective way. When threat is put on U.S. homeland security and elsewhere, the United States defense policy can step in; however; defense policy can become costly due to fact of utilizing the military will result in more military spending in order to complete the mission. The U.S. national security strategy "is based on a distinctly American internationalism that reflects the union of our values and our national interests. The aim of this strategy is to help make the world not just safer but better" (US, 1). When dealing with matters of foreign policy, results in the makings of a defense policy, which is considered as a subset of foreign policy. Strong military capability is an essential means in dealing with foreign policy due to the fact that countries such as North Korea, China, and Russia all pose a potential threat to destroy using "weapons of mass destruction."(NY times) When threat is put on U.S. homeland security and elsewhere, the United States defense policy can step in; however; defense policy can become costly due to fact of utilizing the military will result in more military spending in order to complete the mission.

North Korea is possibly the least accessible, and "the most brutal and repressive country in the world." (Martin, 2006) Since its formation after World War II very little information has left the country. What has left are the defectors and the stories of horrible atrocities against humanity the government is bestowing upon its citizens. Classified as a democracy, it is just a mask hiding the Kim Dynasty's totalitarian ways. With its ideology of "Juche," they have relied as little as possible on outside help. They rule and produce on the inside, with only the close to communist China being its biggest factor for production of money. Human rights are completely unheard of, and reports of torture within its reform camps are common from those that flee and escape Kim's grip. Humanitarian aid is being pulled, and the country has started to show some of its nuclear power to the world. While these are just some of the issues at hand, North Korea's dignitaries show no sign that they have broken all human rights laws, and that the country is in a state of economic need. With North Korea finally being recognized for its harsh living conditions for its people and the human rights violations being brought upon them, more and more people are seeing what is actually happening. With this international relationships are teetering as North Korea removes any help the people may get from outside sources. The testing of North Korea's first bomb in 2006, there have been many moves to attempt to De-denuclearize the North. Yet still, talks are still being made to attempt to join North and South Korea and bring peace to the area.

The state, due to its Juche ideology, has had most humanitarian aid removed from the country lately. Even with humanitarian aid, the state is left with low supplies of food and power. Monthly wage of farmers decreased in 2005 when a ban on free markets was raised, where in some cases they did not make over $1 a month creating a giant surge for those to change jobs, creating a larger deficit in food. Clean water is in scarcity, as well as access to good health care and hospitals. Human rights infractions are constantly broken among its citizens, and there is nothing they can do to fight the power Kim holds in the top seat of the state. (North Korea Profile)

Since North Korea announced it had tested an atomic bomb underground in October 2006, several countries including China, South Korea, Russia, Japan and the United States have been in a constant state of discussion on what to do to the North. In an attempt to begin to make the state de-nuclear, agreements have come forth which have shut down Yongbyon nuclear reactor, which is a main source of North Korea's weapon plutonium. Kim also ordered other plants to shut down in exchange for a large stock pile of fuel oil. Several funds previously frozen in Macau of Mr. Kim's have also been unfrozen, but it is unlikely this may soften his actions and what his people suffer. (Background Note) "North Korea's nuclear weapon power makes it the most dangerous nuclear power in the world." Defectors from the country are also aware that Kim Jong-Il is stockpiling chemical weapons. So much so that he may have enough to decimate South Korea's population. (Martin)

Relations between Japan and North Korea are very stiff as well. North Korea had previously abducted several Japanese citizens, and Japan wants to know what has happened. Over 20 of it's citizens were taken. Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, vows not to normalize relations until they know what has happened of these people. George Bush has also vowed not to begin discussions until this has been figured out. North Korea says they know nothing of the abductions, and none of those listed missing had ever entered North Korea.(North Korea Profile)

In an article written by Adam Liptak called , “Is the Group Responsible for the Individual’s Crime?” he described the case of the Pakistani Army and the tribal elders near the Afghan border. In order to save their town, it was decided that the elder should “turn over 72 men wanted for sheltering AL Qaeda Members” (p17). This decision of is commonly used throughout the world, especially when it comes to military actions. This is what we call collective sanctions. A sanction by definition is a social control to enforce society’s standards. Thus, in order to maintain the orderly nation, collective sanctions are necessary.

People value group identity, so it is the group’s responsibility to parent the individual members. People are always in a part to a group because people lived a life that circles around what we called “group life”. People are always a member of a family, school, or a society. We people have learned that individual should share the responsibility of others in our groups because not only problems can be solved more easily, but also that we all share a responsibility to watch over the others. For example, in a Chinese family, constituted of brothers, the elder are punished for whatever that younger brother did wrong because it’s his responsibility to watch over the young ones and not allowing them to do wrong.. This is yet another example of collective sanctioning.

The use of collective sanctions is a good idea for a nation to proper function.
Liptak quotes that “Group members might be punished not because they are in an advantageous position to identify, monitor, and control responsible individuals, and can be motivated by threat of sanction to do so.” A prefect example would be the offer that President Bush made to the Afghanistan, where he said “the Taliban will hand over the terrorists, or they will share their fate.” This is the use of collective sanction. Since the Untied States of America can not find out the individual’s crime, and may have been unable to catch the terrorists, the terrorists may make another attack to other cities or countries. In older to avoid another attacking, the collective sanctions are necessary.

In addition, another case of collective sanction appeared when the world that Koreans are making some nuclear weapons. The United Nations are against North Korea government to make any type of nuclear weapons, and demanded North Korea to stop or the Nations such as Denmark, Belgium,Norway, Sweden,Iceland,Finland,France,Germany,and Spain will obstruct with their economy sources. The question is; will North Korea government stop making nuclear weapons under the threat of international sanctions? There is no doubt that the North Korea should stop the process, not only due to the threat of international sanctions, but also because the people in North Korea don’t want to become poor. They put pressure on their government to stop the process of making nuclear weapon, to maintain a stable economy. In this case, collective sanctions are necessary to maintain a peaceful world order.

Those who are opposed to group sanctions said that the application of group sanctions is unfair to the others who did not commit any crime. “Rich people can buy their way out of any punishments.” (p18). This is somewhat true; however, this decision showed a need for the collective sanctions. Collective sanctions are a good idea because people value group identity, and this forces the group to work together more tighten and thus making the sanctions a necessity thing for a properly function town. Since there are people who can but their way out of punishment with their wealth, collective sanctions will make someone else who are aware of what will happen to report the case, and thus punish those who deserve to be punished.

Liptak said, “If we recoil at the idea of collective responsibility, it is because we are afraid the village is out of the political mainstream. The government never says it’s going to do that in downtown Kabul, where the rich guys live.” Collective sanctions are practiced to those who are not acting properly, and are used to maintain the order of the nation. In the quote, it means the same thing. The government won’t do such thing to a place where the rich people lived because they know the rules and they will obey them. On the other hand, a place where no rules are followed, collective sanctions is the best way to commit to the obedience of the people of that place.

Another thing that further increased my reason that north Korea is a threat is a documentary that I rented from Blockbuster called “The Fog of War”. In the documentary, The Fog of War, Robert McNamara Secretary of Defense from 1961 to 1968 said, "Rationality will not save us." McNamara argues, "even though we failed, we did behave rationally." Meaning, they acted upon their best evidence and motives, rationally; however, in the end they failed to realize the truth of the matter. Basically, the reason we did not have nuclear war was out of sheer luck. Therefore, McNamara draws the conclusion that rationality had failed them, and therefore it will not save us in the future. Another point that this lesson implies is that classical nuclear deterrence does not work. Nuclear deterrence is based on the rationality of the players. Since rationality is deemed to be unreliable, it would imply that we are all doomed. The problem with this statement is that rationality has been the only thing that has saved us thus far. If rationality was unreliable then we would have been doomed from the start. However, the rationality of nations' leaders has proven to keep us away from a nuclear war. Even though McNamara claims that it was luck that had prevented them from a war, it was the rationality of a former U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union, Llewellyn "Tommy" Thompson, who advised President Kennedy not to attack Cuba. So, in fact, it is rationality that saves us. To further develop this theory we must look at the evolution of the US nuclear deterrent theories and what it is today in regards to new threats.

Currently, the US possesses unquestioned superiority over any potential opponents. However, ever since the 9/11 terrorists attacks up until the present, the US has felt threatened by new opponents, such as non-state based players and rouge nations. In order to protect US national security, the Bush administration has felt the need to pull out of the SALT 1 Treaty and build ABMs. As a result of such an aggressive move, the US has received much criticism. Recently, Russian President Vladimir Putin publicly warned against the US building of ABMs, claiming that a new arms race will begin if they continue. However, the Bush administration strongly believes that ABMs are necessary to protect them from missile launch attacks from "irrational" players,meaning rouge nations. With the rouge nations as a threat, it would seem that classic nuclear deterrent fails, since the US claims that the rouge nations' leaders are irrational and would attack the US. However, the likelihood of rouge nations attacking the US is highly unlikely. The rouge nations that appear as a threat to the US would be Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Afghanistan, maybe Syria, and North Korea. The US fears that those nations could possibly launch ICBMs capable of hitting North America. However, according to top-secret U.S. National Intelligence Estimates found that "while many nations are potentially interested in long-ranged missiles, almost none have, or will ever have, the technology or funds to develop them, or to remotely threaten the United States." These rouge nations are rational players that realize the strength and credibility of the US, and what consequences they would safe if they were to attack. Therefore, classic nuclear deterrence is still applicable.

Terrorism seems to disclaim nuclear deterrence since rationality and communication does not apply. However, as stated earlier, it is difficult for rouge nations, including terrorists, to possess the credibility and capability to launch nuclear weapons. If weapons such as ICBMs are too expensive, than there is also the threat of terrorist groups possessing chemical or biological weapons. According to Michael Rebehn writing for Open Democracy, "it is now obvious that chemical and biological weapons have indeed become the ,poor man's nuclear bomb'; a cheap and portable option for those, like terrorists or ,rogue states', without access to expensive nuclear technology." If terrorists were to strike the US with a biological weapon, it would be difficult to react since terrorists are often non-state based players. The US might seemingly not use old deterrence theories with these new threats; however, the example of the US invasion in Afghanistan is a clear example of the US using classic nuclear deterrence. The US retaliated against the non-stated based terrorists in Afghanistan since the nation was held accountable for hosting the training camps of the Al-Quaeda.
Nuclear Deterrence is not dead. Even with new threats such as rouge nations and non-state based players. As Keith B. Payne writing for The Journal of International Security Affairs said, "The confidence in deterrence that typified the Cold War now is presumed to apply to post-Cold War rogue threats,as if the dramatic changes in opponent and context are irrelevant." It is obvious that the US has evolved the nuclear deterrence theories as well as added some modifications to keep the US as "the superior nation". The US today has the ability to protect themselves from nuclear missiles attacks (ABMs) as well as the ability to launch them (First Strike). By analyzing the US evolution of deterrence we can see that McNamara's lesson does not apply, even with new enemies. Rationality has and continues to remain our source of reliability and hope.

In an article "How to Stop Nuclear Terror",the author Allison Graham discusses that although President Bush has determined that terrorist nuclear attacks on the U.S. is the biggest threat facing the country in the future, his administration has not created a clear plan to prevent the issue. She uses a quote from the President to show that he thinks that the "highest priority is to keep terrorist from acquiring weapons of mass destruction." Graham goes on in her introduction to explain that the administrations inaction is a reflection on their inability to understand that nuclear terrorism is in fact preventable. She says that the problem should be combated at the root, which is the fissile material, because without that material, nuclear bombs can not be made. She then introduces her idea of the "Three No's": no loose nukes, no new nascent nukes, and no new nuclear states.

In the next section of her article, Graham presents a number that I found extremely startling and eye-opening. She says that "According to best estimates, the global nuclear inventory includes more than 30,000 nuclear weapons, and enough hue and plutonium for 240,000 more." Even more startling is the fact that, according to Graham, hundreds of these weapons are stored in areas where it is not that difficult for certain criminals to steal them and sell them to terrorist. She then gave examples of people who were apprehended trying to smuggle nuclear weapons or nuclear material. She also explained how easy it would be to smuggle nuclear weapons into the U.S.
Next, Graham discusses how Saddam-era Iraq is not even on the top ten countries most likely to provide nuclear weapons to possible terrorist. Graham believes that Russia would top the list because of their enormous supply of nuclear material. Pakistan would rank next because of its ties with Al-Qaeda. Next would be North Korea because they have already sold weapons to countries such as Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. She also explains that the Bush administration HAS taken steps to reduce the dangers of a nuclear attack by terrorist, however the number of actions they HAVE NOT taken is longer and more worth worrying over. Graham also discusses a point that I find extremely true and important. The Bush administration used the possibility of Saddam selling Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) to terrorist as an excuse and reason for the invasion of Iraq. After WMDs were not found, the Bush administrations credibility in regards to many things, namely WMDs has been severely damaged. Also in the almost year and half that the U.S. was trying to get the support of other countries, North Korea and Iran both developed their programs.

Graham says that preventing nuclear terrorism will require a plan that "denies access to weapons and materials at their source, detects them at borders, defends every route by which a weapon could be delivered, and addresses motives as well as means."
I also agree with her stance on this issues because there are many radical people in the world today who would use nuclear weapons in a heartbeat for a reason that is not even completely clear.

In conclusion, nevertheless, North Korea keeps promising to discontinue its nuclear programming; one thing is getting clearer that the country is taking advantage of six-party nations by receiving food, fuel supply, and funds. It seems like the country’s intention was never denuclearize itself. North Korea likes the attention that it is getting from six- party nations as well as its neighboring countries. In my opinion, North Korea always had the intention to be seen a threat to its surrounding countries. It seems like the country tries to own things forcefully. Therefore, it needs some kind of nuclear weapon to show Asian countries that North Korea is too strong to be mess with. Observing what went on for two years, I think, it is getting harder and harder to make North Korea stop its nuclear programming. Six-Party nations should take further action and be stricter on the country by showing North Korea that the game is over. The nuclear facilities at Yongbyon must be shut down immediately. I believe that it is true that both traditional and current foreign policy objectives determine current relationships between the United States and other countries and various international actors. Traditional objectives of international security and trade have always shaped relations in the international system. Today, issues of terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, and Middle East peace also help shape relationships with the US abroad. Current policy objectives shape US international relations. President Bush as "the chief decision maker", and an individual, influence foreign policy greatly, however it is also difficult to determine to what extent because he needs to be responsive to societal beliefs, values and opinions as to maintain support for reelection. In addition, as the most powerful state, the United States does not appear to be too concerned with systemic variables such as resources. As I stated Our President Bush clearly do defined foreign policy objectives and goals. President Bush has hundreds of foreign policy goals and objectives, its most important goals currently are internationalism, national security, and limiting weapons of mass destruction. "A divided government within Bush's administration" (Dunn) this mean that sometimes makes it difficult for them create clear strategies both domestically and internationally, but both groups are willing to compromise in order to deal effectively with any problems. That's how I view the Foreign policy that our dear President Bush have taking in considerations. As the largest superpower, the United States has been given the responsibility of leading the global community through its actions and words. That is, the opinions and values of the public (as well as interest groups that represent those beliefs) are often an important consideration in a democracy's foreign policy decision-making. I believe that if we don't stop North Korea they can and will use those nuclear weapons. It may not necessarily be on us but it won't be pretty no matter where they put it.

Work Cited

BBC. “Q&A: N Korea nuclear deal” BBC news Dec. 2007.

CNN. “North Korea misses nuclear deadline” Dec. 31 2007.

Korea. “Seoul, Washington press for Pyongyang nuclear declaration” Korea Net
March 27, 2008. Foreign Relations March 27, 2008

Smith, Diana. “South Korea to Resume Rice Aid to North Korea” Efluxmedia June 2007.

Martin, B. (2006) Under the Loving Care of the Fatherly Leader: North Korea and the Kim Dynasty. St. Martin's Press

Korea, North. (2006). World Almanac & Book of Facts

North Korea Profile. (2006, November). International Debate. Vol. 4 Issue 8

Liptak, Adam. “Is the Group Responsible for the Individual’s Crime?” Week in Review. New York Times, 8 Feb. 2004
Dunn, David Hasting. "A Doctrine Worthy of the Name?: George W. Bush and the Limits of the Pre- Emption, Pre- Eminence." Diplomacy& Statecraft (2006):1-29.

The National Security Strategy of the United States, 2002 (NSS 2002), New York times, May 10, 2007,p.6

"This is war," New York Time, September 16, 2001. May 10, 2007. 0p.9

Phillip Gordon "Bush outlines foreign policy" Ft 1-2/2/3. BCC News

The Fog of War. Errol Morris. Robert S. McNamara. Sony Pictures, 2003.

Graham, A. (2004). How to Stop Nuclear Terror. Foreign Affairs Journal, 83 (1), 64-74
Albright, David/ O'Neil, Kevin(2000) Solving the North Korean Nuclear Puzzle,Institute for Science and International Security, Isis Press, p.34-35

Related Essays Political Science