North Korea

[kab21]

 

China has pretty much the same problem we have...just what exactly do you do about anything in N Korea? They don't respond to sanctions, don't care about world opinion, and military action would be incredibly bloody.

If you take out nuclear facilities from distance, you are likely forced into a ground conflict.

This isn't a new problem, which is why the strategy has always been to let the damn thing collapse on its own while watching closely.

China's problem is very different since they are keeping NK afloat. NK doesn't respond to sanctions because they receive (just) enough to keep everything going (from China and likely also Russia). And NK knows that China will defend them against any aggression. Very different situation imo.

[Vanimal46]

Forgive me if this is ignorant...

Is it wrong to suggest continuing to monitor the situation closely and let NK remain in isolation from the rest of the world? There's only so much innovation they can do when the rest of the world keeps them out of the loop. They've been beating the drum for years that they're developing nuclear weapons, and it seems like their tests have all failed. By the time they do perfect a weapon, shouldn't a power country like the US, China, etc. have superior technology to stop it? 

[Willihammer]

From what I gather, the status quo serves China and to a lesser extent Russia for reasons that aren't totally clear to me. But, if that's the case, then doesn't this call for a diplomatic solution? What if the US did something to instantly undercut the boogeyman narrative that is the basis for Un's nuclear ambitions?

[Mike Sixel]

 

Forgive me if this is ignorant...

Is it wrong to suggest continuing to monitor the situation closely and let NK remain in isolation from the rest of the world? There's only so much innovation they can do when the rest of the world keeps them out of the loop. They've been beating the drum for years that they're developing nuclear weapons, and it seems like their tests have all failed. By the time they do perfect a weapon, shouldn't a power country like the US, China, etc. have superior technology to stop it? 

 

I think that is the plan. to me, the big downside is all the dying, hunger, and lack of freedom for the NK people. That said, we can't fix the whole world.....so it's a tough call. If nukes and chemical weapons didn't exist, I'd say go in and free the people...probably I'd say that.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Where's that South Korean guy who joined up at TD when we signed Park when you need him?

Probably digging a hole in his backyard and filling it with concrete.

[Mr. Brooks]

Forgive me if this is ignorant...

 

Is it wrong to suggest continuing to monitor the situation closely and let NK remain in isolation from the rest of the world? There's only so much innovation they can do when the rest of the world keeps them out of the loop. They've been beating the drum for years that they're developing nuclear weapons, and it seems like their tests have all failed. By the time they do perfect a weapon, shouldn't a power country like the US, China, etc. have superior technology to stop it?

The question is are you willing to take such a potentially catastrophic risk?

Because if you ignore NK under the assumption that they'll never figure it out, and they do...a nuclear warhead hitting a major us city is going to make 9/11 look like child's play.

 

I'm not saying that plan can't work. It might even be very likely to work, but boy that is a huge risk.

[kab21]

 

The question is are you willing to take such a potentially catastrophic risk?
Because if you ignore NK under the assumption that they'll never figure it out, and they do...a nuclear warhead hitting a major us city is going to make 9/11 look like child's play.

I'm not saying that plan can't work. It might even be very likely to work, but boy that is a huge risk.

The problem is that the alternative doesn't work either.

[Mr. Brooks]

The problem is that the alternative doesn't work either.

Well certainly there are no good options. But, even a full scale invasion would almost certainly be a better option than upwards of 100k US civilian casualties.

 

So then you have to weigh how likely it is that they eventually figure out how to develop an intercontinental missile. My uneducated guess would be it's near 100% that they figure it out someday.

 

It's a lose/lose situation for sure. I don't envy those tasked with figuring it how. Talk about high stakes.

[Willihammer]

Interesting.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYeR9Yhp32c

[kab21]

 

Well certainly there are no good options. But, even a full scale invasion would almost certainly be a better option than upwards of 100k US civilian casualties.

So then you have to weigh how likely it is that they eventually figure out how to develop an intercontinental missile. My uneducated guess would be it's near 100% that they figure it out someday.

It's a lose/lose situation for sure. I don't envy those tasked with figuring it how. Talk about high stakes.

I think you over simplify a full scale invasion and the issues that it brings.

A) It gives NK justification in using any and all means necessary to defend themselves and parts of the int'l world will agree with them. Right now NK has been saying STAY AWAY from us or we will hit back. They might be insane but they know that if they launch any attacks on SK, Japan, US, AU or anyone that not even China will be able to stop the complete and total devastation of their country.

Worse yet it is very, very unlikely that China (and probably Russia) wouldn't defend NK against an unprovoked (from their POV) attack on NK. This isn't Iraq where there wasn't anyone to back Hussein. If the US initiates the offensive then there will be hell to pay all over the world from it.

[Mr. Brooks]

I think you over simplify a full scale invasion and the issues that it brings.

 

A) It gives NK justification in using any and all means necessary to defend themselves and parts of the int'l world will agree with them. Right now NK has been saying STAY AWAY from us or we will hit back. They might be insane but they know that if they launch any attacks on SK, Japan, US, AU or anyone that not even China will be able to stop the complete and total devastation of their country.

 

Worse yet it is very, very unlikely that China (and probably Russia) wouldn't defend NK against an unprovoked (from their POV) attack on NK. This isn't Iraq where there wasn't anyone to back Hussein. If the US initiates the offensive then there will be hell to pay all over the world from it.

All fair points, although I'd bet that even China and Russia aren't giddy over the prospects of this nut developing an intercontinental ballistic missile.

[kab21]

 

All fair points, although I'd bet that even China and Russia aren't giddy over the prospects of this nut developing an intercontinental ballistic missile.

Yet they prop him up and don't force him to abandon this madness. If they really wanted this insanity to end then they have enough influence to do it.

[Willihammer]

Here's an idea- why not end the Korean war? We never did, technically. Its been 60+ years. We still have tons of military bases on the Peninsula and Japan. It is really not that hard to understand, from NK's perspective, why they feel like they're being provoked IMO. End the war, maybe withdraw to Japan. That would significantly undercut the basis for nuclearization, no?

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Here's an idea- why not end the Korean war? We never did, technically. Its been 60+ years. We still have tons of military bases on the Peninsula and Japan. It is really not that hard to understand, from NK's perspective, why they feel like they're being provoked IMO. End the war, maybe withdraw to Japan. That would significantly undercut the basis for nuclearization, no?

 

I like the idea of formally ending the war... but I don't think this is the guy you can do it with personally.

[Willihammer]

 

I like the idea of formally ending the war... but I don't think this is the guy you can do it with personally.

Have we tried?

[Willihammer]

I have done a little reading about the SK election being held next month. It sounds like the country is split roughtly 50/50 on their attitude towards US military presence on the peninsula.

Obviously the north doesn't want us there.

By my math that's around 75% of the damn peninsula. Perhaps we should GTFO already.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I have done a little reading about the SK election being held next month. It sounds like the country is split roughtly 50/50 on their attitude towards US military presence on the peninsula.

Obviously the north doesn't want us there.

By my math that's around 75% of the damn peninsula. Perhaps we should GTFO already.

 

I'm 100% behind you on GTFO... think that's a bit different than NK, but GTFO needs to be applied at more than Korea....

 

You're right that we probably haven't tried to formally end the war. 

[Mr. Brooks]

Here's an idea- why not end the Korean war? We never did, technically. Its been 60+ years. We still have tons of military bases on the Peninsula and Japan. It is really not that hard to understand, from NK's perspective, why they feel like they're being provoked IMO. End the war, maybe withdraw to Japan. That would significantly undercut the basis for nuclearization, no?

You won't get any arguments from me on that.

I am a huge opponent of having military bases in foreign countries. I mean, we are still in Germany! Geez, are we really still legitimately concerned about stability there? We are like that leeching relative we all have, once you let us in we never leave.

And that goes double if the country isn't sure they even want us there any more.

[jimmer]

 

You won't get any arguments from me on that.
I am a huge opponent of having military bases in foreign countries. I mean, we are still in Germany! Geez, are we really still legitimately concerned about stability there? We are like that leeching relative we all have, once you let us in we never leave.
And that goes double if the country isn't sure they even want us there any more.

I'm glad we're still in Germany.  Loved my tour there :-)

[drivlikejehu]

 

Here's an idea- why not end the Korean war? We never did, technically. Its been 60+ years. We still have tons of military bases on the Peninsula and Japan. It is really not that hard to understand, from NK's perspective, why they feel like they're being provoked IMO. End the war, maybe withdraw to Japan. That would significantly undercut the basis for nuclearization, no?

 

This is pretty misguided. For one thing, the communists started the war. For another, there already was a path put in place to end the war and normalize relations, but the NK regime violated the agreements it made to pursue nukes instead. And for another, the North openly states its intention to unify Korea by force. NK threatens Japan, yet Japan has no troops in the South - why on Earth would the US withdrawing to Japan have any effect except to embolden the North's aggression?

 

Nor is that aggression only rhetorical. In recent years, they have sunk a SK ship and launched a massive artillery attack against a SK island, along with numerous smaller provocations. They already commit violent acts as a matter of course - the presence of the US at least keeps them in check a bit, since the North would be somewhat nervous about killing American troops out of the blue (though they are happy to put American citizens in labor camps when they get the chance).

 

Now, there's no question that the North appreciates the deterrent value of nuclear weapons. But that deterrent value continues to exist even following the initiation of conventional hostilities, and even after the use of nuclear weapons on a limited scale. 

 

So while the North has a growing deterrent against pre-emptive regime change, it basically already had that deterrent through its conventional artillery forces within range of Seoul (which is also the main reason they were able to get a great deal from Clinton). The main impact of nuclear weapons is that the North now has a deterrent even if they unleash a conventional attack against the South, because they can threaten nuclear retaliation for US/ROK counter-value strikes against the North.

 

And once their invasion force is stopped through conventional means, the North can launch tactical nuclear strikes backed by the threat of targeting Japanese and US cities to prevent a severe US response. The greater the North's strategic nuclear capability, the more coercive this threat becomes. The benefit Kim gets from nukes is entirely due to the power it gives him to kill millions of people and cripple the world economy . . . there is no redeeming aspect to it at all, nor a way to mitigate the harm other than stripping that regime of nukes, or bringing about the collapse of the regime.

[glunn]

I wonder if a deal could be made with China to jointly stage a surprise attack to take out North Korea's military capability, with the understanding that China will take over the country and install a less horrible regime.

 

I am not saying that this would be a good idea, but am wondering if this might be accomplished with minimal casualties for everyone except North Korea.

 

 

[Willihammer]

 

Nor is that aggression only rhetorical. In recent years, they have sunk a SK ship and launched a massive artillery attack against a SK island, along with numerous smaller provocations. They already commit violent acts as a matter of course - the presence of the US at least keeps them in check a bit, since the North would be somewhat nervous about killing American troops out of the blue (though they are happy to put American citizens in labor camps when they get the chance).

NK tested another missile yesterday. Is that holding them in check? 

Its like Korea is a guy with back pain and everyone says "if they weren't taking all our Advil it would be 100x worse" but for all we know, the Advil is the cause of the back pain. In fact if you asked NK they would say that is the case.

 

Honest question- what is the extent of our diplomatic engagement with NK? When is the last time we broached the topic of ending the Korean War and withdrawing from the Peninsula? 

[drivlikejehu]

 

NK tested another missile yesterday. Is that holding them in check? 

Its like Korea is a guy with back pain and everyone says "if they weren't taking all our Advil it would be 100x worse" but for all we know, the Advil is the cause of the back pain. In fact if you asked NK they would say that is the case.

 

Honest question- what is the extent of our diplomatic engagement with NK? When is the last time we broached the topic of ending the Korean War and withdrawing from the Peninsula? 

 

Testing missiles is at least preferable to firing them at South Korea.

 

There is no point in negotiating - North Korea has already ruled out discussing its nuclear weapons as part of peace talks. Of course they would love it if the US withdrew, thus opening up the door to blackmailing the South for economic support. Pieces of paper mean nothing to North Korea, as they proved the last time an agreement was made. 

 

Blaming the North's behavior on the U.S. is asinine and ignorant . . . American diplomats of all political stripes agree on the nature of Kim's regime and on the futility of appeasement.

[TheLeviathan]

I don't think anyone was blaming America for it, just suggesting it's a component to the equation.  I think it's fair to wonder if the influence is all that positive at this point.

 

I also question the suggestion that if America pulls out that NK will start launching attacks on SK.  China isn't going to be a big fan of that and ultimately, they seem to be the ones with the only direct leash on that regime.

[drivlikejehu]

 

I don't think anyone was blaming America for it, just suggesting it's a component to the equation.  I think it's fair to wonder if the influence is all that positive at this point.

 

I also question the suggestion that if America pulls out that NK will start launching attacks on SK.  China isn't going to be a big fan of that and ultimately, they seem to be the ones with the only direct leash on that regime.

 

The North wouldn't rush into an all-out attack, no. The problem is more with the change in the balance of power, and how that would strengthen the position of the North. That's a very bad combination with the North's economic weakness. The game theory just doesn't work out - that's why no US administration from either party has considered withdrawal from the peninsula.

[TheLeviathan]

I'm not suggesting for sure that we should withdraw, but the results of our presence are hard to argue either way.  

[drivlikejehu]

 

I'm not suggesting for sure that we should withdraw, but the results of our presence are hard to argue either way.  

 

Only in the sense that we can't construct a rigorous counterfactual of events in the absence of that presence. The logic behind the US deployment, however, is clearly sound.

 

Major conflicts often begin because the initiating side believes that the reaction from other parties will be limited in a way that makes the war viable in economic-political terms. Examples include:

 

- Iraq invading Kuwait after assessing that the US would not intervene militarily, in part due to comments made by a US diplomat

- North Korea invading South Korea in 1950 due in part to similarly incorrect assessment of US intentions

- Germany invading Poland after Ribbentrop assured Hitler that Britain and France were bluffing with their security guarantee

 

Uncertainty over US intentions and commitment is a destabilizing factor that increases the chances of conflict. The presence of US troops in South Korea substantially decreases that problem . . . a withdrawal would create an extremely volatile situation in which the US guarantees ROK security in theory but appears to be backing off in reality.

 

This dynamic is so dangerous that, even if the US would have been better off without troops in South Korea, it still is completely impossible to remove them now without a dramatic increase in war risk.

[TheLeviathan]

At some point presence can be seen as provocation or a continuance of an adversarial relationship.  We know this is a factor for hostility in other areas as well, particularly in the Middle East.  

 

I think that could be part of this.

[drivlikejehu]

If withdrawal is more dangerous than the status quo, which it is, then it really makes no difference that there are cons to said status quo.

[Mr. Brooks]

So they figured out how to launch a missile really far, and a lot sooner than even I thought they could.

Oh, and its breaking that they did it with help from Ukraine, possibly via Russia.

This is going to get real bad, real quick.