And poking a nuclear armed bear, potentially forcing him to do the one thing that you really really don't want him to do somehow makes more sense?
I'm pretty sure "use magical fairy dust to turn the nukes into wildflowers" would work a lot better than any plan either of us has suggested, but guess what? That's a complete fantasy. So is asking North Korea to give up their nukes.
For ****'s sake, dude, you just said that it's North Korea's modus operandi to extort other countries for money, and then we give them money and they back down. Right? So, is that country ACTUALLY going to give up its main source of leverage?
No. No it is not. Of course it isn't. So obviously we're not going to be able to convince them to give up their nukes.
---
Once again, making ourselves feel good about how we've maintained the status quo when things are really just getting worse and worse, and with us helping it get worse and worse, makes exactly as much sense the aforementioned mice/alligators exchange and congratulating ourselves on its fulfillment.
The only way we can call anything a solution to the problem is if it solves the problem. The Kim regime is the problem. Getting rid of the problem means getting rid of the Kim regime, either through the Kim regime collapsing on its own, or through intervention. Obviously, the former would be preferable. The problem is, we're not working towards it. We are currently responsible for the Kim regime having existed all of this time and continuing to chug along due to our giving them aid. That's not only not a solution, it's perpetuating the problem.
This the pedantic part. Yeah we know officailly the war has not ended offically. You need to overcome 60 years of inertia if you want to end that and now engage a hot war. A hot war that is going to most likely involve lobbing shells into down town Seoul with in hours if not minutes.
Clearly you did not read my post. I have already stated that peaceful resolution to the problem is obviously better than war.
However, in order for something to be called a resolution to the problem, it must actually solve the problem. You're praising the same status quo that has produced a nuclear Korea and a perpetuated Kim regime. That's the equivalent of calling an exterminator to deal with a mouse infestation, finding out that the mice have been replaced with alligators, and declaring mission accomplished.
This is the disengenous part. North Korea has not lobbed shells/missiles at Japan or Korea. They deliberately pick stretches of Ocean in the middle of nowhere. Sure if the North Koreans were dumb enough to do the above, which is a complete break from what they have done up to now. Yeah then we could justify an attack.
But that is very unlikely to happen. What is more likely to happen is the status quo is going to continue.
Which would be fine, if the status quo did not also involve the international community essentially bankrolling the Kim regime.
If you are not then regardless of our feelings the status quo is the best we can realisticly hope for.
Again, if this would not involve us giving North Korea the very money that continues to prop up their horrendous regime in response to their saber-rattling, then North Korea is free to dump whatever missiles it wants into the ocean. This is not, however, the status quo.
They were actually counter-productive. We effectively forced North Korea to develop Nuclear Weapons, and every time we attempt to ratchet up the pressure we confirm to them just how much they need the damn things.
Because they were on the fence about whether or not they wanted nukes? What the hell are you talking about?
Convincing someone to not go nuclear only works when they haven't gone nuclear already. Are you seriously insinuating that North Korea might have scraped their nuclear program if we were to give them more money, after already explaining about how the status quo of North Korea is them threatening hostility to get money?
perhaps we should be trying to open more stable communications with North Korea and hopefully use that to peacefully convince them to disarm.
Yes, let's convince the regime that gets by through essentially extorting the international community for money that they need to present less of a threat to the stability of Southeast Asia. Let's convince the hostile totalitarian regime that they would be better off without the very thing that's making people balk at any idea of military intervention. Because I'm sure you'll get really far with that, seeing how ANYTHING about that makes any sense at all.
No, it's a fact. The Korean War has never actually ended. It would be a mistake to think that it has.
Whilst there might not have been an official ending to the Korean War, just an armistice. That has held for 60 years successfully
"Successfully" is a term I am challenging here. You have not addressed my previous post. If by "successfully," you mean that North Korea continues to exist due to the aid money the international community continues to send to it, and is now a nuclear power, making it far more of a threat than it ever was, then no, that's not a success, now is it? That's the textbook definition of a failed policy.
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.
Are we talking about the same North Korea? North Korea commits acts of provocation all of the time. If we wanted a justifiable act of retaliation, all we have to do is wait for the next time they launch a missile at Korea or Japan, I guarantee you it won't be long.
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?
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?
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?
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?
For ****'s sake, dude, you just said that it's North Korea's modus operandi to extort other countries for money, and then we give them money and they back down. Right? So, is that country ACTUALLY going to give up its main source of leverage?
No. No it is not. Of course it isn't. So obviously we're not going to be able to convince them to give up their nukes.
---
Once again, making ourselves feel good about how we've maintained the status quo when things are really just getting worse and worse, and with us helping it get worse and worse, makes exactly as much sense the aforementioned mice/alligators exchange and congratulating ourselves on its fulfillment.
The only way we can call anything a solution to the problem is if it solves the problem. The Kim regime is the problem. Getting rid of the problem means getting rid of the Kim regime, either through the Kim regime collapsing on its own, or through intervention. Obviously, the former would be preferable. The problem is, we're not working towards it. We are currently responsible for the Kim regime having existed all of this time and continuing to chug along due to our giving them aid. That's not only not a solution, it's perpetuating the problem.
However, in order for something to be called a resolution to the problem, it must actually solve the problem. You're praising the same status quo that has produced a nuclear Korea and a perpetuated Kim regime. That's the equivalent of calling an exterminator to deal with a mouse infestation, finding out that the mice have been replaced with alligators, and declaring mission accomplished.
Which would be fine, if the status quo did not also involve the international community essentially bankrolling the Kim regime.
Again, if this would not involve us giving North Korea the very money that continues to prop up their horrendous regime in response to their saber-rattling, then North Korea is free to dump whatever missiles it wants into the ocean. This is not, however, the status quo.
Because they were on the fence about whether or not they wanted nukes? What the hell are you talking about?
Convincing someone to not go nuclear only works when they haven't gone nuclear already. Are you seriously insinuating that North Korea might have scraped their nuclear program if we were to give them more money, after already explaining about how the status quo of North Korea is them threatening hostility to get money?
Yes, let's convince the regime that gets by through essentially extorting the international community for money that they need to present less of a threat to the stability of Southeast Asia. Let's convince the hostile totalitarian regime that they would be better off without the very thing that's making people balk at any idea of military intervention. Because I'm sure you'll get really far with that, seeing how ANYTHING about that makes any sense at all.
"Successfully" is a term I am challenging here. You have not addressed my previous post. If by "successfully," you mean that North Korea continues to exist due to the aid money the international community continues to send to it, and is now a nuclear power, making it far more of a threat than it ever was, then no, that's not a success, now is it? That's the textbook definition of a failed policy.
Are we talking about the same North Korea? North Korea commits acts of provocation all of the time. If we wanted a justifiable act of retaliation, all we have to do is wait for the next time they launch a missile at Korea or Japan, I guarantee you it won't be long.
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?
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.
Would an escalation of conflict truly result in nuclear armageddon?