With North Korea getting closer to a nuclear bomb, progressing in missile technology, and with its leader showing more and more signs of being unhinged, what policy should the US, South Korea, other countries within the region (especially China and Japan), and the international community at large adopt in dealing with this situation?
I don't like the usual characterisation tha Kim Jong-un is unhinged or deranged. Its a lazy characterisation that means we dkon't have to more closely examine his motivations and can just write his actions off as a mad man doing mad things with nuclear weapons.
Taking a closer look at what is happening, what he is doing is very logical admittedly a very twisted sense of logic. Since the end of the Korean war a pattern has emerged where North Korea has run out of something important like food or other neccesities and in order to get an increase supply has rattled its sabre and then demanded concessions and supplies in exchange for not doing it again in the near future whilst looking pointedly at Seoul. The obvious implication being sod the Americans and Japanese I already have millions of innocents in range not just of rockets and missiles but with conventional artilery as well. This tactic has largely worked with the major powers not wanting to provoke first Kim Jong-il and now Kim Jong-um into doing anything rash.
Unfortunately now it appears that we have someone in the White house that appears to be as unpredictable as the world fears Kim Jung-un is and is using his millatry to gain favorable headlines by acting abroad to divert attention away from domestic failngs.
Also as a factual correction. North Korea have no problems blowing up nuclear bombs. The only problems they appear to have is sticking them in missiles that are capable of reaching Japan or Hawaii or the West Coast of America. If they are actually invaded, unless we manage a massive first stike that takes out their entire Nuclear aresnal Seoul is going to glow in the dark...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
I'm with Kahedron on this. The escalating factor in North Korea is not just North Korea: it's Donald Trump.
First a little context. North Korea has always been reactionary in how it operates. Whenever North Korea makes headlines, it's because something else happened to provoke them. This does not excuse their horrible regime, but there's a method to North Korea's madness. This is in large part because North Korea has so little that it operates more on posturing than it operates on global influence. Part of that posturing is illustrated in the opening post. Don't be fooled by the caricature of North Korea as a cartoon villain. They present that image to the outside world because they want the outside world to leave them alone. Operating below the radar is off the table for them, so they make themselves look ridiculous, and this has led to people not taking them nearly as serious as they could be.
This is where Trump comes in. While most world leaders don't fall for North Korea's charades, Donald Trump is doing more than not being intimidated by them. He's responding, allegedly in part because his domestic agenda is not working out the way he'd hope, which is a lot like poking a bear: even a trained professional does not think it's a good idea. But then again, maybe Trump believes engaging North Korea is a bad idea after all.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
North Korea's antics are North Korea's fault. Always.
But it's the responsibility of the US President and other world leaders to respond to those antics and keep them from boiling over into a shooting war. Trump is very capable of screwing that part up.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
North Korea's antics are North Korea's fault. Always.
But it's the responsibility of the US President and other world leaders to respond to those antics and keep them from boiling over into a shooting war. Trump is very capable of screwing that part up.
Blinking Spirit is right. I meant it in that way he puts it, but my partisan bias slipped a little too far. I apologize.
North Korea's antics are North Korea's fault. Always.
But it's the responsibility of the US President and other world leaders to respond to those antics and keep them from boiling over into a shooting war. Trump is very capable of screwing that part up.
This. There has been a well practiced game that has regularly been held with North Korea, with every player knowing their moves and making them with a common goal. So far the game has always ended in an honourable draw, with North Korea getting some of what it needs and the rest of the world breathing easier that that Nuclear Armageddon has ben avoided again for a while.
We now have had a new player sit down at the table that appears to be playing by a different set of rules and apparently a different set of objectives to the other players.
Whilst Trump is not responsible for this round of the game starting, he does have a responsibility to ensure it ends with out escalating either into a Kinetic war which would mean that Seoul is very likely to glow in the dark or a Cyber War which the Americans are likely to lose very badly. Unfortunately he appears to be fond of the large grandstanding actions which are almost exactly what you don't need in this situation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
This. There has been a well practiced game that has regularly been held with North Korea, with every player knowing their moves and making them with a common goal. So far the game has always ended in an honourable draw, with North Korea getting some of what it needs and the rest of the world breathing easier that that Nuclear Armageddon has ben avoided again for a while.
Is maintaining the status quo truly the most beneficial stance?
Would an escalation of conflict truly result in nuclear armageddon?
The missile barrage on the empty airfield in Syria occurred while Xi Jinping was here in the states. Trumps moves are showing that he's not going to play these games, and it's making China step up and say "Maybe we should stop playing too then". 80% of North Koreas trade is with China, so when China says "enough is enough", this little dog and pony show is over.
Is maintaining the status quo truly the most beneficial stance?
Would an escalation of conflict truly result in nuclear armageddon?
The problem is that, as in Russian roulette, the only way to find out is to pull that trigger.
If Trump escalates and North Korea starts shooting, clearly Trump is a reckless and irresponsible leader.
But if Trump escalates and North Korea backs down, does that make Trump a foreign policy genius, or just a reckless and irresponsible leader who got lucky this time?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The missile barrage on the empty airfield in Syria occurred while Xi Jinping was here in the states. Trumps moves are showing that he's not going to play these games, and it's making China step up and say "Maybe we should stop playing too then". 80% of North Koreas trade is with China, so when China says "enough is enough", this little dog and pony show is over.
China's been making grumpy noises about North Korea for a while. It's been a very long time since they actually liked the Kim regime; they just want to see a pro-Western unified Korea on their border even less. Stopping coal imports is a new and positive development, but it represents a step-up in China's existing frustration, not a dramatic about-face in their attitude, and does not signal that they can be relied upon to support, e.g., pressure to liberalize. As long as North Korea doesn't embarrass them by trying to obliterate South Korea, they don't mind it being a dysfunctional hermit state prone to horrific human rights abuses.
The missile barrage on the empty airfield in Syria occurred while Xi Jinping was here in the states. Trumps moves are showing that he's not going to play these games, and it's making China step up and say "Maybe we should stop playing too then". 80% of North Koreas trade is with China, so when China says "enough is enough", this little dog and pony show is over.
That would be a lot more comforting if that was actually Trumps motivation behind the strike. And the strike acutually doing something useful.
As all the indications we have are that Trump doesn't think that far ahead and the strike was only good at generating headlines. Not to mention that he either deliberately lied about a Carrier groups movements or lost track of it there are very few reasons to feel to comfortable at the moment.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The problem is that, as in Russian roulette, the only way to find out is to pull that trigger.
True.
The thing is, while I do believe avoidance of a shooting war with North Korea is of course intelligent and should be prioritized, is our goal that North Korea just keeps on sitting in the corner quietly, or is our goal the collapse of the Kim regime?
The problem is that this avoidance of conflict has involved placating North Korea with aid money every time they take to saber-rattling. This has served only to perpetuate the Kim regime and keep North Korea going, and it has not served to prevent North Korea from getting nuclear capabilities and ever-advancing missile technology.
So to what extent, then, can the status quo really be said to be working?
Granted, it's not solely the international community and their aid money that's the problem. China's been a major reason North Korea has been propped up for this long. BUT, should a change in China's policies occur, if we could finally get the Chinese to cease their support for the regime, would this just result in more saber-rattling from the Kim regime, and/or possibly using the saber? If so, what happens then?
So I disagree with what Kahedron is saying. Avoiding war with North Korea is fine if we believe the hostile regime is going to collapse on its own, but our means of avoiding war has thusfar amounted to providing them with the very money that's keeping them going, and the threat of North Korea dealing a lot of damage before it goes down has only increased with each passing day.
It's certainly better to avoid a war when a non-military solution to the problem can be found. The thing is, we've had about 64 years of dealings with North Korea since the armistice, and they're not only still around, but they're even more of a threat than they were before. Nothing about this is a solution.
If Trump escalates and North Korea starts shooting, clearly Trump is a reckless and irresponsible leader.
But if Trump escalates and North Korea backs down, does that make Trump a foreign policy genius, or just a reckless and irresponsible leader who got lucky this time?
The missile barrage on the empty airfield in Syria occurred while Xi Jinping was here in the states. Trumps moves are showing that he's not going to play these games, and it's making China step up and say "Maybe we should stop playing too then". 80% of North Koreas trade is with China, so when China says "enough is enough", this little dog and pony show is over.
Did you just cite an example of Trump playing exactly these kind of games as a rational as to why he wouldn't?
So I disagree with what Kahedron is saying. Avoiding war with North Korea is fine if we believe the hostile regime is going to collapse on its own, but our means of avoiding war has thusfar amounted to providing them with the very money that's keeping them going, and the threat of North Korea dealing a lot of damage before it goes down has only increased with each passing day.
It's certainly better to avoid a war when a non-military solution to the problem can be found. The thing is, we've had about 64 years of dealings with North Korea since the armistice, and they're not only still around, but they're even more of a threat than they were before. Nothing about this is a solution.
From what I was reading yesterday, the issue with the US starting a war is I am pretty sure most, if not all, of the Eastern Pacific does not want a second Korean War for one reason or another. Even if the United States were to avert nuclear warfare with Korea and keep it to a conventional war, Japan and South Korea could withdraw their support of the United States and China could cut diplomatic ties. There's a bigger picture than us vs. them, and I'm not sure the diplomatic fallout is worth the risk.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
You think they would rather risk North Korea having nukes?
I'm going to have to ask how much you know about North Korea because North Korea already has nukes.
What they don't have is the missile projectiles to launch them long distances, but even then, we're not certain how far they could get a device that can detonate. That's why the phrase "Seoul will glow" has been tossed around in this thread. While there's little chance that a nuclear devise could cross the Pacific to reach the United States (or Australia because they stepped in this as well for some reason), the chances are much, much higher to South Korea, China, and Japan.
So to answer your question, the answer is that the time to worry about acquisition has passed; North Korea has the technology. They don't want to risk them using it, which means they want to avoid a war.
Also as Blinking Spirit mentioned, China doesn't want the the United States to have strong ties along the entire Korean Peninsula. It would not be in China's political interests, which is one of the reasons why the Kim regime has lasted so long. So they don't want a war for a second reason as well.
Yes, I know Korea has nukes. The implication was ICBMs, as in long-range missiles. They don't have those, as you say so yourself.
When your capital is only 35 miles away it really does not matter if North Korea has ICBMs or not. Seoul is already in range. Hell if they wanted to North Korea could stick fissionable material into artilery shells and lob them into Seoul.
The only people that worry about North Korea getting ICBMs is America cause that then means they are in range. Every one else is already sitting under the threat of someone with Nuclear weapons which is why they don't want anyone poking the nuclear armed bear.
As to China's interest it is the same one they have had for the past 60 odd years, they don't want American forces sitting on their borders or a flood of North Koreans heading north. All of which is served by keeping North Korea in place and hopefully in line.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
I feel that it's not China who needs to worry about refugees. If the rich South is calling, do you think they will go to yet another communist state?
Well your 'feelings' are going against the historical record. Which is kinda logical as the Northern border isn't a 4KM wide Demilitarized Zone. Which is reputed to be lousey with landmines and other such nasties designed to keep the Americans and South Koreans out the North and the people from the North in.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
I feel that it's not China who needs to worry about refugees. If the rich South is calling, do you think they will go to yet another communist state?
Well your 'feelings' are going against the historical record. Which is kinda logical as the Northern border isn't a 4KM wide Demilitarized Zone. Which is reputed to be lousey with landmines and other such nasties designed to keep the Americans and South Koreans out the North and the people from the North in.
The DMZ would be removed once North Korea falls. If there is no North Korea, there is no need for the DMZ.
Declaring the DMZ gone doesn't get rid of anything that's actually there. Like landmines, which Kahedron mentioned.
Come on. I've seen you post, certainly you don't think that I think getting rid of the DMZ does not include the clear of mines and sundry ordnance? Come on...
That's not exactly an easy or timely process, and even if it was, it doesn't mean that the Northern border into China is any less tempting.
But either way, getting back to the bigger picture, everything being discussed goes to show why the region doesn't want a war with North Korea. Everything we're debating is a quagmire for the entire region. There needs to be a solution to the Kim Regime, but the surrounding countries don't want one that either literally and/or figuratively blows up in their faces.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
From what I was reading yesterday, the issue with the US starting a war is I am pretty sure most, if not all, of the Eastern Pacific does not want a second Korean War for one reason or another. Even if the United States were to avert nuclear warfare with Korea and keep it to a conventional war, Japan and South Korea could withdraw their support of the United States and China could cut diplomatic ties. There's a bigger picture than us vs. them, and I'm not sure the diplomatic fallout is worth the risk.
First of all, starting a second Korean War would mean the first Korean War ended. It didn't.
Second, I'm not talking about a preemptive strike.
Also, what on earth could interest China in Korea? Let's be honest here.
Many things.
1. China is a trade partner of North Korea. I would say China is the hermit country's "major trade partner" but that's not a high bar to clear.
2. North Korea is anti-America, and given the frictions between China and America, it provides a buffer zone between China and the pro-US South Korea.
3. Were there a war, many refugees would flee to China. China doesn't want to have to deal with that.
I feel that it's not China who needs to worry about refugees. If the rich South is calling, do you think they will go to yet another communist state?
If you want to flee an army that's at your country's southern border going northward, and you can only go north or south, which direction would YOU head?
Come on. I've seen you post, certainly you don't think that I think getting rid of the DMZ does not include the clear of mines and sundry ordnance? Come on...
You don't seem to understand how difficult demining is. Egypt has successfully removed 10 million mines... but they still have more than 20 million more, some dating back to WW2. At the current demining rate of Combodia, experts estimate it'll take them 100 years to be mine-free.
From what I was reading yesterday, the issue with the US starting a war is I am pretty sure most, if not all, of the Eastern Pacific does not want a second Korean War for one reason or another. Even if the United States were to avert nuclear warfare with Korea and keep it to a conventional war, Japan and South Korea could withdraw their support of the United States and China could cut diplomatic ties. There's a bigger picture than us vs. them, and I'm not sure the diplomatic fallout is worth the risk.
First of all, starting a second Korean War would mean the first Korean War ended. It didn't.
Second, I'm not talking about a preemptive strike.
This is one part pedantic one part disingenuous. Whilst there might not have been an official ending to the Korean War, just an armistice. That has held for 60 years successfully for us to justifiably break it something fairly significant would have to change. On current form North Korea is very good at staying just the right side of the line that military intervention is not currently justified.
For any attack not to be prememptive then North Korea has done something completely insane like actually shelled Seoul or Japan. At that point all bets are off and at that point I would not be surprised if China were the one to initiate the response.
Pretty much anything below that level of action for us to respond by going into a hot war would be seen as a prememptive strike and the US's allies in the area trying to distance themselves once they have dealt with the North Korean reprisals.
Come on. I've seen you post, certainly you don't think that I think getting rid of the DMZ does not include the clear of mines and sundry ordnance? Come on...
You don't seem to understand how difficult demining is. Egypt has successfully removed 10 million mines... but they still have more than 20 million more, some dating back to WW2. At the current demining rate of Combodia, experts estimate it'll take them 100 years to be mine-free.
Most likely even longer than that. French and Belgian farmers are still finding World War 1 shells when they plow their fields. Every so often a shells gets hit by a plow in the wrong place and WW1 adds to its death toll. Whilst the large concentrations of mines might get cleared in a century there are still going to be some lurking around in unexpected places for a very long time after that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Come on guys. Please...you're coming across as deliberately obtuse here...
You don't have to clear the entire DMZ, now do you? If you create a safe corridor you don't literally have to get rid of all the mines, now do you?
If you are willing to accept mines being moved around during rainstorms, land slips and other fun things yeah I suppose you could do that. Of course that would just mean that you would regularly have to sened minesweepers back in to clear out any new mines that have moved into your corridor. You would also have to be willing to accept people will wander out of the safe corridors in an attempt to get south and possibly into a minefield and probably not come out the other side.
This is all supposing that people don't decide that 4KM strip that is currently unusable would actually be useful as farmland and there by help feed a population that has been on very reduced rations for about 60 years.
So sure we could do what you suggest it would just be really stupid and more expensive than trying to get rid of all of them in a single sweep.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Then you'd leave it in place even in the case of a reunification after North Korea falls? Good to know you have the best interests of the Korean people at heart.
No that appears to be your position not ours, leave it in place and make some 'safe corridors' through so refugees could hopefully make their way south?
Im am in favor of removing the whole damn thing if possible and I am sure Lithl is on the same page as me. Though we are both looking at it realistically and realising that it is not going to be the simple easy task you seem to believe that it will be. So in the short term won't persuade the vast majority of people who want to leave North Korea to go South instead of crossing the Northern Border into China like they are doing at the moment.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Taking a closer look at what is happening, what he is doing is very logical admittedly a very twisted sense of logic. Since the end of the Korean war a pattern has emerged where North Korea has run out of something important like food or other neccesities and in order to get an increase supply has rattled its sabre and then demanded concessions and supplies in exchange for not doing it again in the near future whilst looking pointedly at Seoul. The obvious implication being sod the Americans and Japanese I already have millions of innocents in range not just of rockets and missiles but with conventional artilery as well. This tactic has largely worked with the major powers not wanting to provoke first Kim Jong-il and now Kim Jong-um into doing anything rash.
Unfortunately now it appears that we have someone in the White house that appears to be as unpredictable as the world fears Kim Jung-un is and is using his millatry to gain favorable headlines by acting abroad to divert attention away from domestic failngs.
Also as a factual correction. North Korea have no problems blowing up nuclear bombs. The only problems they appear to have is sticking them in missiles that are capable of reaching Japan or Hawaii or the West Coast of America. If they are actually invaded, unless we manage a massive first stike that takes out their entire Nuclear aresnal Seoul is going to glow in the dark...
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
First a little context. North Korea has always been reactionary in how it operates. Whenever North Korea makes headlines, it's because something else happened to provoke them. This does not excuse their horrible regime, but there's a method to North Korea's madness. This is in large part because North Korea has so little that it operates more on posturing than it operates on global influence. Part of that posturing is illustrated in the opening post. Don't be fooled by the caricature of North Korea as a cartoon villain. They present that image to the outside world because they want the outside world to leave them alone. Operating below the radar is off the table for them, so they make themselves look ridiculous, and this has led to people not taking them nearly as serious as they could be.
This is where Trump comes in. While most world leaders don't fall for North Korea's charades, Donald Trump is doing more than not being intimidated by them. He's responding, allegedly in part because his domestic agenda is not working out the way he'd hope, which is a lot like poking a bear: even a trained professional does not think it's a good idea. But then again, maybe Trump believes engaging North Korea is a bad idea after all.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
But it's the responsibility of the US President and other world leaders to respond to those antics and keep them from boiling over into a shooting war. Trump is very capable of screwing that part up.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Blinking Spirit is right. I meant it in that way he puts it, but my partisan bias slipped a little too far. I apologize.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
This. There has been a well practiced game that has regularly been held with North Korea, with every player knowing their moves and making them with a common goal. So far the game has always ended in an honourable draw, with North Korea getting some of what it needs and the rest of the world breathing easier that that Nuclear Armageddon has ben avoided again for a while.
We now have had a new player sit down at the table that appears to be playing by a different set of rules and apparently a different set of objectives to the other players.
Whilst Trump is not responsible for this round of the game starting, he does have a responsibility to ensure it ends with out escalating either into a Kinetic war which would mean that Seoul is very likely to glow in the dark or a Cyber War which the Americans are likely to lose very badly. Unfortunately he appears to be fond of the large grandstanding actions which are almost exactly what you don't need in this situation.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Would an escalation of conflict truly result in nuclear armageddon?
The missile barrage on the empty airfield in Syria occurred while Xi Jinping was here in the states. Trumps moves are showing that he's not going to play these games, and it's making China step up and say "Maybe we should stop playing too then". 80% of North Koreas trade is with China, so when China says "enough is enough", this little dog and pony show is over.
If Trump escalates and North Korea starts shooting, clearly Trump is a reckless and irresponsible leader.
But if Trump escalates and North Korea backs down, does that make Trump a foreign policy genius, or just a reckless and irresponsible leader who got lucky this time?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So I'd be cautious in my optimism here.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
That would be a lot more comforting if that was actually Trumps motivation behind the strike. And the strike acutually doing something useful.
As all the indications we have are that Trump doesn't think that far ahead and the strike was only good at generating headlines. Not to mention that he either deliberately lied about a Carrier groups movements or lost track of it there are very few reasons to feel to comfortable at the moment.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
The thing is, while I do believe avoidance of a shooting war with North Korea is of course intelligent and should be prioritized, is our goal that North Korea just keeps on sitting in the corner quietly, or is our goal the collapse of the Kim regime?
The problem is that this avoidance of conflict has involved placating North Korea with aid money every time they take to saber-rattling. This has served only to perpetuate the Kim regime and keep North Korea going, and it has not served to prevent North Korea from getting nuclear capabilities and ever-advancing missile technology.
So to what extent, then, can the status quo really be said to be working?
Granted, it's not solely the international community and their aid money that's the problem. China's been a major reason North Korea has been propped up for this long. BUT, should a change in China's policies occur, if we could finally get the Chinese to cease their support for the regime, would this just result in more saber-rattling from the Kim regime, and/or possibly using the saber? If so, what happens then?
So I disagree with what Kahedron is saying. Avoiding war with North Korea is fine if we believe the hostile regime is going to collapse on its own, but our means of avoiding war has thusfar amounted to providing them with the very money that's keeping them going, and the threat of North Korea dealing a lot of damage before it goes down has only increased with each passing day.
It's certainly better to avoid a war when a non-military solution to the problem can be found. The thing is, we've had about 64 years of dealings with North Korea since the armistice, and they're not only still around, but they're even more of a threat than they were before. Nothing about this is a solution.
Second. Definitely the second.
Did you just cite an example of Trump playing exactly these kind of games as a rational as to why he wouldn't?
From what I was reading yesterday, the issue with the US starting a war is I am pretty sure most, if not all, of the Eastern Pacific does not want a second Korean War for one reason or another. Even if the United States were to avert nuclear warfare with Korea and keep it to a conventional war, Japan and South Korea could withdraw their support of the United States and China could cut diplomatic ties. There's a bigger picture than us vs. them, and I'm not sure the diplomatic fallout is worth the risk.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
I'm going to have to ask how much you know about North Korea because North Korea already has nukes.
What they don't have is the missile projectiles to launch them long distances, but even then, we're not certain how far they could get a device that can detonate. That's why the phrase "Seoul will glow" has been tossed around in this thread. While there's little chance that a nuclear devise could cross the Pacific to reach the United States (or Australia because they stepped in this as well for some reason), the chances are much, much higher to South Korea, China, and Japan.
So to answer your question, the answer is that the time to worry about acquisition has passed; North Korea has the technology. They don't want to risk them using it, which means they want to avoid a war.
Also as Blinking Spirit mentioned, China doesn't want the the United States to have strong ties along the entire Korean Peninsula. It would not be in China's political interests, which is one of the reasons why the Kim regime has lasted so long. So they don't want a war for a second reason as well.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
When your capital is only 35 miles away it really does not matter if North Korea has ICBMs or not. Seoul is already in range. Hell if they wanted to North Korea could stick fissionable material into artilery shells and lob them into Seoul.
The only people that worry about North Korea getting ICBMs is America cause that then means they are in range. Every one else is already sitting under the threat of someone with Nuclear weapons which is why they don't want anyone poking the nuclear armed bear.
As to China's interest it is the same one they have had for the past 60 odd years, they don't want American forces sitting on their borders or a flood of North Koreans heading north. All of which is served by keeping North Korea in place and hopefully in line.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Well your 'feelings' are going against the historical record. Which is kinda logical as the Northern border isn't a 4KM wide Demilitarized Zone. Which is reputed to be lousey with landmines and other such nasties designed to keep the Americans and South Koreans out the North and the people from the North in.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
That's not exactly an easy or timely process, and even if it was, it doesn't mean that the Northern border into China is any less tempting.
But either way, getting back to the bigger picture, everything being discussed goes to show why the region doesn't want a war with North Korea. Everything we're debating is a quagmire for the entire region. There needs to be a solution to the Kim Regime, but the surrounding countries don't want one that either literally and/or figuratively blows up in their faces.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
Second, I'm not talking about a preemptive strike.
Many things.
1. China is a trade partner of North Korea. I would say China is the hermit country's "major trade partner" but that's not a high bar to clear.
2. North Korea is anti-America, and given the frictions between China and America, it provides a buffer zone between China and the pro-US South Korea.
3. Were there a war, many refugees would flee to China. China doesn't want to have to deal with that.
If you want to flee an army that's at your country's southern border going northward, and you can only go north or south, which direction would YOU head?
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
This is one part pedantic one part disingenuous. Whilst there might not have been an official ending to the Korean War, just an armistice. That has held for 60 years successfully for us to justifiably break it something fairly significant would have to change. On current form North Korea is very good at staying just the right side of the line that military intervention is not currently justified.
For any attack not to be prememptive then North Korea has done something completely insane like actually shelled Seoul or Japan. At that point all bets are off and at that point I would not be surprised if China were the one to initiate the response.
Pretty much anything below that level of action for us to respond by going into a hot war would be seen as a prememptive strike and the US's allies in the area trying to distance themselves once they have dealt with the North Korean reprisals.
Most likely even longer than that. French and Belgian farmers are still finding World War 1 shells when they plow their fields. Every so often a shells gets hit by a plow in the wrong place and WW1 adds to its death toll. Whilst the large concentrations of mines might get cleared in a century there are still going to be some lurking around in unexpected places for a very long time after that.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
If you are willing to accept mines being moved around during rainstorms, land slips and other fun things yeah I suppose you could do that. Of course that would just mean that you would regularly have to sened minesweepers back in to clear out any new mines that have moved into your corridor. You would also have to be willing to accept people will wander out of the safe corridors in an attempt to get south and possibly into a minefield and probably not come out the other side.
This is all supposing that people don't decide that 4KM strip that is currently unusable would actually be useful as farmland and there by help feed a population that has been on very reduced rations for about 60 years.
So sure we could do what you suggest it would just be really stupid and more expensive than trying to get rid of all of them in a single sweep.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
No that appears to be your position not ours, leave it in place and make some 'safe corridors' through so refugees could hopefully make their way south?
Im am in favor of removing the whole damn thing if possible and I am sure Lithl is on the same page as me. Though we are both looking at it realistically and realising that it is not going to be the simple easy task you seem to believe that it will be. So in the short term won't persuade the vast majority of people who want to leave North Korea to go South instead of crossing the Northern Border into China like they are doing at the moment.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru