North Korea

[Stactix]

It's an impossible situation, you cannot use military force on NK because they'll go out guns blazing and take out a large portion of South Korea.
Taking out Kim won't work as the next person will have a genuine reason to want to blow everyone up.. and lets be honest here, Kim isn't the evil mastermind behind these threats. So whoever replaces him will be pushed to go down the same path.

It's an almost impossible task to invade and destroy all the missile launchers before they are used.
You can't enforce a strict embargo on food/Medical aid/energy because it's not going to have ANY effect on those that it's aimed at. Kim and his band of cnuts will be chilling in their military bunker with enough supplies to last 5 years while his people starve to death. So millions die because Nutty wants to act like a big man and threaten everyone.
The thing to bare in mind though, is that most of these missile launchers and 'parades of strength' coincide with military demonstrations between US/SK.. and that despite fatboy being batshat insane he's never going to use those nukes unless attacked first. Even if he hits Somalia or Antarctica he's a goner.

Scary to see so many in favor of military action against NK(Probably not on this forum), even if it meant SK being nuked in the process. 'It's war, people die' was the common excuse.

It is a truly horrifying situation with no genuine solution, it can only end with the innocent suffering.

 

[Brwned]

The problem that arises now is how do you go about it? Up until recently the only real issues with a ground invasion of North Korea apart from China was the large contingency of artillery it had which were within range of Seoul and how to deal with the population afterwards. Now it seems the threat of nuclear tipped warheads is, if not now, imminently going to be part of the equation. That's an entirely different proposition. It would take weeks for the US to mass enough forces to conduct a swift invasion, plenty of time for Kim to know what is coming. THAAD isn't designed to take down ICBM's, no one really has a reliable, field-tested system proven to shoot down ICBM's. Seoul, Tokyo, Guam and even some eastern US cities would be at a very real risk of being nuked.

I'm not particularly well versed on the whole military thing but Kissinger was still suggesting a diplomatic approach. It's based on two assumptions: China has the ability to destroy the North Korean's economy and essentially smoke them out, and that so far they haven't remotely attempted to do so. There's lots of evidence that China has helped North Korea cheat the sanctions so far.

“By definition what we don’t know is what is not reported,” Snyder said. “People who go to Pyongyang and ask themselves the question: ‘Gosh, it seems like there’s a lot of liquidity here. Where is the capital coming from?’ I think part of the answer to that question is that not everything that goes into North Korea is officially recorded.”

“We’ve seen the Chinese stop recording oil exports to North Korea,” Snyder told me, though “I think the widespread presumption is that the supply from China to North Korea has continued. Circumstantial evidence for the idea that they have continued is that there has been discussion in the run-up to this resolution [on the new UN sanctions] to implementing a petroleum trade ban. That does not appear in the resolution.”

David Pressman, a former U.S. ambassador to the UN who is now partner at Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, said that, even if previous rounds of UN sanctions against North Korea have forced it to find new ways to look to circumvent the restrictions, the North hasn’t “had to work all that hard because they’ve continued to have next door to them a government that’s willing to continue to do business with them.”

Whether they have the power to destroy them single-handedly is somewhat debatable, and whether the North Korean response to cutting off their supply lines will be a favourable one is just guesswork unfortunately, educated or otherwise.

 

[Kentonio]

I'm not particularly well versed on the whole military thing but Kissinger was still suggesting a diplomatic approach. It's based on two assumptions: China has the ability to destroy the North Korean's economy and essentially smoke them out, and that so far they haven't remotely attempted to do so. There's lots of evidence that China has helped North Korea cheat the sanctions so far, but whether they have the power to destroy them single-handedly is somewhat debatable.

China could not only seal the land border but also basically close off sea transit into NK if they felt the desire. If China ever properly turn on NK they are seriously fecked.

 

[The Firestarter]

He is so unbelievably dumb, that I am getting worried about this thing.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/04/politics/donald-trump-south-korea/index.html

Amid crisis, worries of rift between Trump and South Korea grow

 

[Hernandez - BFA]

Can someone help me out here.

Someone on this forum said they wanted to visit North Korea, can't find the thread they were in but someone posted a list of reasons why it's a bad idea etc, and then a video/radio clip was added which heard a celebrity telling about his trip there and that he had to keep his identity on the down low. He had to be swiftly evacuated after someone recognised him.

He may have been a singer?

Anyone know what I'm referring to?

Edit: It was Henry Rollins.

 

[IWat]

I'm not particularly well versed on the whole military thing but Kissinger was still suggesting a diplomatic approach. It's based on two assumptions: China has the ability to destroy the North Korean's economy and essentially smoke them out, and that so far they haven't remotely attempted to do so. There's lots of evidence that China has helped North Korea cheat the sanctions so far.

Whether they have the power to destroy them single-handedly is somewhat debatable, and whether the North Korean response to cutting off their supply lines will be a favourable one is just guesswork unfortunately, educated or otherwise.

IMO we have already lost the sanction battle. A majority of the sanctions imposed were to attempt to stop them reaching what they are now reaching. We've lost, very little point putting additional sanctions of them now or getting China to enforce them. It's fairly clear he doesn't give a shit about his own population: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/12/north-korean-children-malnutrition-un and the people are going to feel the brunt of the sanctions. If they have developed the tech to create an ICBM and a miniaturised hydrogen bomb it's only a matter of years before he has a few hundred of them irrespective of sanctions. Unless the idea is to starve the people to the point they revolt against him, I am not sure what sanctions are now going to do.

 

[17 Van der Gouw]

It's an impossible situation, you cannot use military force on NK because they'll go out guns blazing and take out a large portion of South Korea.
Taking out Kim won't work as the next person will have a genuine reason to want to blow everyone up.. and lets be honest here, Kim isn't the evil mastermind behind these threats. So whoever replaces him will be pushed to go down the same path.

It's an almost impossible task to invade and destroy all the missile launchers before they are used.
You can't enforce a strict embargo on food/Medical aid/energy because it's not going to have ANY effect on those that it's aimed at. Kim and his band of cnuts will be chilling in their military bunker with enough supplies to last 5 years while his people starve to death. So millions die because Nutty wants to act like a big man and threaten everyone.
The thing to bare in mind though, is that most of these missile launchers and 'parades of strength' coincide with military demonstrations between US/SK.. and that despite fatboy being batshat insane he's never going to use those nukes unless attacked first. Even if he hits Somalia or Antarctica he's a goner.

Scary to see so many in favor of military action against NK(Probably not on this forum), even if it meant SK being nuked in the process. 'It's war, people die' was the common excuse.

It is a truly horrifying situation with no genuine solution, it can only end with the innocent suffering.

Only speculation on my part, but given that the DPRK has only just claimed to have miniaturised its warheads sufficiently to be attached to an ICBM, one wonders just how ready they'd be if the U.S. and ROK were to pre-emptively strike now. They've only just achieved long range nuclear capability, and I'm skeptical as to whether or not they'd have a short range nuke ready for South Korea should the war start tomorrow. Without nuclear weapons, there's only one outcome and that's overhwhelming defeat for the DPRK, the fall of Kim and the reunification of the DPRK. I doubt it would be like Vietnam, rather, I think we'd see the army of the north attempting to fight a set-piece battlefield war, losing horrendously and surrendering en-masse, and unlike Vietnam, I doubt there'd be much resistance to national unification once the northerners come to understand just how good they have it down south.

Part of me hopes for a war, a quick conventional war - just because the idea of even one nuclear weapon being used by either side on any city is absolutely heartbreaking.

 

[Carolina Red]

Without nuclear weapons, there's only one outcome and that's overhwhelming defeat for the DPRK, the fall of Kim and the reunification of the DPRK

Let's not lose sight of the devastation they could rain down on South Korea and possibly also Japan with the rest of their military arsenal.

 

[IWat]

Only speculation on my part, but given that the DPRK has only just claimed to have miniaturised its warheads sufficiently to be attached to an ICBM, one wonders just how ready they'd be if the U.S. and ROK were to pre-emptively strike now. They've only just achieved long range nuclear capability, and I'm skeptical as to whether or not they'd have a short range nuke ready for South Korea should the war start tomorrow. Without nuclear weapons, there's only one outcome and that's overhwhelming defeat for the DPRK, the fall of Kim and the reunification of the DPRK. I doubt it would be like Vietnam, rather, I think we'd see the army of the north attempting to fight a set-piece battlefield war, losing horrendously and surrendering en-masse, and unlike Vietnam, I doubt there'd be much resistance to national unification once the northerners come to understand just how good they have it down south.

My personal opinion is that if there is to be military action, it has to be now, and even now is leaving it late. Even 2 years from now is too late and will multiply the casualty rate 50x. A massive air and naval attack by the US on military and nuclear installations commencing at the same time that the ROK army moves over the DMZ and tries to take as much territory in the first 12 hours as possible backed up by US air power to limit the damage to their territory by moving far enough North that a lot of their weaponry becomes out of range of Seoul. Any short range nuclear weapons fired at ROK or Japan THAAD or Aegis would hopefully deal with. feck knows if it would work, feck knows if it's the correct solution. But the threat of military action will be even more piss weak when they have 100 thermonuclear weapons strapped to ICBM's.

 

[JustAFan]

My personal opinion is that if there is to be military action, it has to be now, and even now is leaving it late. Even 2 years from now is too late and will multiply the casualty rate 50x. A massive air and naval attack by the US on military and nuclear installations commencing at the same time that the ROK army moves over the DMZ and tries to take as much territory in the first 12 hours as possible backed up by US air power to limit the damage to their territory by moving far enough North that a lot of their weaponry becomes out of range of Seoul. Any short range nuclear weapons fired at ROK or Japan THAAD or Aegis would hopefully deal with. feck knows if it would work, feck knows if it's the correct solution. But the threat of military action will be even more piss weak when they have 100 thermonuclear weapons strapped to ICBM's.

The kind of surprise necessary to even attempt the military operation you describe would be next to impossible to achieve. The forces the US would need to move in theater, the ROK armed forces unceasing their readiness and massing on the DM, well the NK intelligence services would pick up on that. As would others who might directly or indirectly send word to the NK leadership.

 

[VeevaVee]

The craziest thing about all this is, it can all be avoided if a bunch of blokes stopped being dickheads, stfu, and get on with their lives.

 

[Carolina Red]

The kind of surprise necessary to even attempt the military operation you describe would be next to impossible to achieve. The forces the US would need to move in theater, the ROK armed forces unceasing their readiness and massing on the DM, well the NK intelligence services would pick up on that. As would others who might directly or indirectly send word to the NK leadership.

Yes. It would take weeks, if not months to get that kind of operation together.

 

[IWat]

The kind of surprise necessary to even attempt the military operation you describe would be next to impossible to achieve. The forces the US would need to move in theater, the ROK armed forces unceasing their readiness and massing on the DM, well the NK intelligence services would pick up on that. As would others who might directly or indirectly send word to the NK leadership.

Yep, I agree. I honestly just think if the aim is to have a North Korea that is not a nuclear power then the sanctions/diplomacy options ran out the moment he detonated a thermonuclear weapon.

 

[Raoul]

Looks like Drumpf is setting the table for some sort of action....

 

[Raoul]

 

[Red Dreams]

We used to give Aid before to NK right?
That must have been stopped. With the condition he does not threaten us.
If he continues to launch missles against us and our alies, what other options are there?
No gurantee one of those things will not hit us.

 

[langster]

The craziest thing about all this is, it can all be avoided if a bunch of blokes stopped being dickheads, stfu, and get on with their lives.

Ultimately, that's the underlying thought I keep having. Pretty much the entire population of the world don't want anything to do with this and I find it absolutely terrifying that two people have so much power, let alone the fact they are threatening so much death and destruction. People can say it's just rhetoric and it wont happen as much as they like, but I don't see how anyone can be comfortable predicting that with these two morons in charge, and I'm sorry, but I doubt saying that would be much comfort for the poor people of Japan that are having to deal with rockets flying over their heads and air raid sirens and warnings on their phones. It's time this shit was stopped.

 

[IWat]

Ultimately, that's the underlying thought I keep having. Pretty much the entire population of the world don't want anything to do with this and I find it absolutely terrifying that two people have so much power, let alone the fact they are threatening so much death and destruction. People can say it's just rhetoric and it wont happen as much as they like, but I don't see how anyone can be comfortable predicting that with these two morons in charge, and I'm sorry, but I doubt saying that would be much comfort for the poor people of Japan that are having to deal with rockets flying over their heads and air raid sirens and warnings on their phones. It's time this shit was stopped.

How though? If we're going to lay the blame at Trump.. This exact stuff happened under Obama for 8 years, North Korea got progressively closer to a legit nuclear capability, would come out with their stuff about wiping America off the planet etc periodically.. it was all a good laugh because at the time they were a fish in a shark tank, Obama would go to the UN, get some piss weak sanctions implemented which got ignored and have now ultimatly failed. Granted Trump is not exactly who you would want as president when the time came that NK actually cracked ICBM's and thermonuclear weapons.. But he can't exactly carry on with Obama's strategy of strategic patience which was tried for 8 years and produced nothing except getting NK to the point of becoming an emerging nuclear power. I don't know what the right strategy is, I don't think anyone does really.

 

[Smores]

How though? If we're going to lay the blame at Trump.. This exact stuff happened under Obama for 8 years, North Korea got progressively closer to a legit nuclear capability, would come out with their stuff about wiping America off the planet etc periodically.. it was all a good laugh because at the time they were a fish in a shark tank, Obama would go to the UN, get some piss weak sanctions implemented which got ignored and have now ultimatly failed. Granted Trump is not exactly who you would want as president when the time came that NK actually cracked ICBM's and thermonuclear weapons.. But he can't exactly carry on with Obama's strategy of strategic patience which was tried for 8 years and produced nothing except getting NK to the point of becoming an emerging nuclear power. I don't know what the right strategy is, I don't think anyone does really.

Its absolutely nothing to do with Trump there's far more complicated actors here but people will try to make it so. The choice now because of decades of inaction is further appeasement or action, not necessarily war they can cut off the oil and wait for collapse for instance.

The change in tone from South Korea and Japan is telling enough for me that diplomacy isn't a choice right now. Burying heads in the sand right now might feel good but if North Korea then invade South Korea the same inaction that people want now will occur, the world will sit on their hands.

 

[Kentonio]

Its absolutely nothing to do with Trump there's far more complicated actors here but people will try to make it so. The choice now because of decades of inaction is further appeasement or action, not necessarily war they can cut off the oil and wait for collapse for instance.

The change in tone from South Korea and Japan is telling enough for me that diplomacy isn't a choice right now. Burying heads in the sand right now might feel good but if North Korea then invade South Korea the same inaction that people want now will occur, the world will sit on their hands.

Diplomacy is the only choice right now, and it was the only choice for decades past. Americans like to think of themselves as some invincible and unstoppable force, but this has never been remotely true. The last genuine opportunity the US had to win militarily was during the last Korean War, well over half a century ago. The Chinese sacrificed an estimated million lives to push back the US and the Americans held back for fear of causing a nuclear exchange. It turns out that fear was overblown and they could probably have continued, but even then there was a strong chance that they'd have ended up using nuclear weapons themselves.

Since then there has been basically no military scenario that doesn't result in hundreds of thousands of dead South Koreans and a likely war with China which would potentially go nuclear. Even today China have been quite clear that a pre-emptive attack on NK will result in Chinese intervention.

Similarly though, any attack by NK on SK would result in devastating counterattack by the US and allies, and would topple the NK regime. This has always been the case (which is why NK never tried to invade) however now even China have said they won't defend NK if they attack first.

There is no win scenario for either side attacking militarily. None.

 

[Smores]

Diplomacy is the only choice right now, and it was the only choice for decades past. Americans like to think of themselves as some invincible and unstoppable force, but this has never been remotely true. The last genuine opportunity the US had to win militarily was during the last Korean War, well over half a century ago. The Chinese sacrificed an estimated million lives to push back the US and the Americans held back for fear of causing a nuclear exchange. It turns out that fear was overblown and they could probably have continued, but even then there was a strong chance that they'd have ended up using nuclear weapons themselves.

Since then there has been basically no military scenario that doesn't result in hundreds of thousands of dead South Koreans and a likely war with China which would potentially go nuclear. Even today China have been quite clear that a pre-emptive attack on NK will result in Chinese intervention.

Similarly though, any attack by NK on SK would result in devastating counterattack by the US and allies, and would topple the NK regime. This has always been the case (which is why NK never tried to invade) however now even China have said they won't defend NK if they attack first.

There is no win scenario for either side attacking militarily. None.

Of course there's no win, people will die. Its a balance of risk right now, clearly you think Kim will just go quietly into the night once he has his nuclear weapons but thats guess work we know leaders do carry out invasions despite the risk.
It reads like your stating it would be sensible to intervene if North Korea invade but not until then? The issue with that is that the risk of nuclear retaliation would then be so great you're talking about tens of millions of lives so i don't quite understand why you think its an option then but not pre-emptive action.

China's statements reflect only their interests, i wouldn't assume them to be close to a statement of fact that they'd defend North Korea its simply not in their interests as territory would be negotiated. I wouldn't imagine US attacking without prior agreement with China.

 

[The Outsider]

I think diplomacy will work, Sanctions will be relaxed and NK will scale down it's missile launches.

I just don't think Trump despite his failings wants the blood of millions of defenceless South Koreans on his conscience.

I wonder how Japan will react in the long term, will they now seek to get nuclear weapons due to longstanding feud between the two nations since WWII or will they just rely on the goodwill of the US to defend them.

If the US finds a way to neutralise the deeply embedded mountain side artillery I might see a different outcome though it would appear current technology does not provide an adequate answer and the current defence shields are ineffective against these types of weapon.

 

[devilish]

Its time we put some heavy sanctions against this warmonger who bombed 37 countries since WW2.

 

[Kentonio]

Of course there's no win, people will die. Its a balance of risk right now, clearly you think Kim will just go quietly into the night once he has his nuclear weapons but thats guess work we know leaders do carry out invasions despite the risk.
It reads like your stating it would be sensible to intervene if North Korea invade but not until then? The issue with that is that the risk of nuclear retaliation would then be so great you're talking about tens of millions of lives so i don't quite understand why you think its an option then but not pre-emptive action.

Ok so lets say America invade tomorrow. Almost certainly the outcome would look something like this:

• US launch massive airstrikes against North Korean air defences and military positions. Thousands of North Korean casualties are inevitable.
  
• Within minutes of the attack, North Korea respond with a devastating artillary barrage against Seoul. Somewhere between tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of South Korean citizens die within hours.
• America intensify their air attacks, North Korean military installations are deliberately placed close to civilian centres, so the North Korean death toll quickly rises into the tens of thousands. The intensive North Korean air defence system also results in significant US air losses.
  
• China activates its defensive pact with North Korea and enters hostilities, reinforcing the NK air defense system.
• North Korean ground troops engage with US/South Korean forces at DMZ. Thousands die on both sides.
  
• And then...
• We have no idea. North Korean/Chinese troops cannot realistically invade South Korea without a massive escalation and full scale war between China and the US. Chinese air and naval forces would then certainly engage US naval assets in the South China Sea and we get to see whether the new Chinese anti-ship missiles can indeed sink an aircraft carrier. US forces cannot realistically invade NK on the ground as they'd be attempting to conduct a land war on China's border against a vast and massively well funded Chinese military. Russia becomes a massive wildcard. Do they sit aside and watch two countries they traditionally hate beat each other to a bloody mess, or do they use the diversion to grab back some territory on their western borders like Ukraine or even the Baltic States. If they do, what do we do about it? Enter a two front war against China and Russia?

The point here is that when people talk about diplomatic solutions as if they're some cowardly way to avoid action, its basically demonstrating a completely misunderstanding of the situation. Unless China suddenly jump on board with US intervention then there is no magic solution that doesn't lead to a death toll in the millions. Even WITH Chinese backing, there are very few routes to toppling the NK regime militarily that avoid a massive death toll if the NK regime resort to desperate measures feeling they have nothing left to lose.

China's statements reflect only their interests, i wouldn't assume them to be close to a statement of fact that they'd defend North Korea its simply not in their interests as territory would be negotiated. I wouldn't imagine US attacking without prior agreement with China.

We have to believe China's declarations, because assuming they're lying would be ridiculously risky. In the normal run of events your final point is quite true though, the US wouldn't attack without Chinese consent. The issue now though is that the US commander in chief appears to be quite capable of doing exactly that.

 

[langster]

How though? If we're going to lay the blame at Trump..

Its absolutely nothing to do with Trump there's far more complicated actors here but people will try to make it so

Nobody is making it about Trump or blaming him for it all at all. What people are saying is that they do not trust Trump or his volatility and inexperience to be able to deal with a situation such as this. If anything many believe he can only make things worse, or at least be used by Kim in this whole debacle. That's a far cry from being blamed for something that has been going on for decades.

 

[Smores]

Nobody is making it about Trump or blaming him for it all at all. What people are saying is that they do not trust Trump or his volatility and inexperience to be able to deal with a situation such as this. If anything many believe he can only make things worse, or at least be used by Kim in this whole debacle. That's a far cry from being blamed for something that has been going on for decades.

My point was only none of us here like Trump that much is obvious, from there its easy to overemphasise his involvement in anything and not see any benefits.

His inexperience is a huge issue but i disagree on his volatility. North Korea have been able to very easily get away with anything they want as they know the predictable outcomes and can play certain parties. Trump is a wildcard in all this and i can only imagine thats on all parties minds particularly China and South Korea who will be pushed to action because of it.

 

[Smores]

The point here is that when people talk about diplomatic solutions as if they're some cowardly way to avoid action, its basically demonstrating a completely misunderstanding of the situation..

I don't think thats a fair summation of the thread at all, people fully understand the risks involved in any intervention. There's obviously disagreement on whether those risks are unacceptable or not and differing opinions in whether it suddenly sparks a world war.

Whats clear is even if we de-escalate and just assume North Korea will use their new found nuclear capabilities peacefully with no aggression at all, other countries and dictatorships will know as long as they pose a significant risk they won't be stopped from gaining nuclear capabilities.

We're suddenly in a world where any dictator just has to be trusted to be rationale and not use a WMD.

 

[Brwned]

I don't think thats a fair summation of the thread at all, people fully understand the risks involved in any intervention. There's obviously disagreement on whether those risks are unacceptable or not and differing opinions in whether it suddenly sparks a world war.

Whats clear is even if we de-escalate and just assume North Korea will use their new found nuclear capabilities peacefully with no aggression at all, other countries and dictatorships will know as long as they pose a significant risk they won't be stopped from gaining nuclear capabilities.

We're suddenly in a world where any dictator just has to be trusted to be rationale and not use a WMD.

We've lived in that world for decades. On a vaguely related note...Putin's a bit of a despicable human being, to put it lightly, but he does often say the right thing.

“Ramping up military hysteria in such conditions is senseless; it’s a dead end,” he told reporters in China, according to the Kremlin-backed broadcaster RT.

“It could lead to a global, planetary catastrophe and a huge loss of human life. There is no other way to solve the North Korean nuclear issue, save that of peaceful dialogue.”

Speaking on the final day of the Brics summit in Xiamen, China, Putin said foreign interventions in Iraq and Libya had convinced North Korean leader Kim Jong-un that he needed nuclear weapons to survive: “They will eat grass but will not stop their program as long as they do not feel safe.”

 

[Silva]

If I was a despot I wouldn't feel safe without Nuclear weapons regardless of what happens in North Korea. Dictators who can't threaten the worlds superpowers can't defend themselves from outside intervention.

 

[Sky1981]

If kim didn't have china/russia/nuclear/millions of soldier, would the sk leave them alone? Genuine question

 

[Silva]

If kim didn't have china/russia/nuclear/millions of soldier, would the sk leave them alone? Genuine question

This seems a pointless question. There wouldn't have been a North Korean state in the first place if not for outside help during the Korean War. Much like there wouldn't be a South Korean state without Western support during the war.

 

[Wednesday at Stoke]

We've lived in that world for decades. On a vaguely related note...Putin's a bit of a despicable human being, to put it lightly, but he does often say the right thing.

The Atlantic put it in much more layman's terms today:

Imagine you’re in a standoff with a man you have bloodied before. You have an AK-47. He has a hunting rifle, which you consider a threat but he considers his best shot at staying alive. If you fire in the air and scream that you’re going to blow him to smithereens, as Trump has done in recent weeks, you won’t make your adversary drop his weapon. You’ll make him to cling to it for dear life.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/09/south-korea-north-korea/538815/

 

[JustAFan]

The Atlantic put it in much more layman's terms today:



https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/09/south-korea-north-korea/538815/

On the other hand if you attack your neighbor and bloody him, then refuse to come to peace terms, spend decades threatening your neighbor, build arms, try on several occasions to kill your neighbors head of household, dig tunnels under his property, sink one of his ships, and continue to threaten them and their friends you can't really be surprised when you get threats back.

 

[2cents]

We've lived in that world for decades. On a vaguely related note...Putin's a bit of a despicable human being, to put it lightly, but he does often say the right thing.

What he says there especially in regards to Libya is bang on. Qadhafi voluntarily gave up his WMD program in the mid-2000s, only to be taken out less than a decade later. What lessons do we think were learned from that episode in places like North Korea and Iran?

 

[Wednesday at Stoke]

On the other hand if you attack your neighbor and bloody him, then refuse to come to peace terms, spend decades threatening your neighbor, build arms, try on several occasions to kill your neighbors head of household, dig tunnels under his property, sink one of his ships, and continue to threaten them and their friends you can't really be surprised when you get threats back.

I mean we know North Korea is a nutter, what's the point of trying to out nut them? You should read the article on how close Clinton came to negotiating a peace deal and how the Republicans subsequently fcuked it up once Dubya came to power.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/09/south-korea-north-korea/538815/

 

[JustAFan]

I mean we know North Korea is a nutter, what's the point of trying to out nut them? You should read the article on how close Clinton came to negotiating a peace deal and how the Republicans subsequently fcuked it up once Dubya came to power.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/09/south--north-korea/538815/

You mean the deal the article mentions that North Korea was always cheating on? Yeah it was fecked up by the Republican's.

I find it funny the article mention's the US "practicing decapitation strikes" but does not mention the actual attempts at decapitation strikes against the South that the North has actually attempted.

The whole Chinese mentioning of the annual military training by the US and ROK is also laughable, reminds me of the Cold War when both sides would whine about the other's military training and how "threatening" they were. Especially since we have seen the NK military of course, as any military does, has it's own training exercises on a regular basis.

The point being North Korea has painted themselves into a corner here, and they have done so of their own free will. No point trying to blame anyone else.

But as I said earlier there really is not much of an option other than to accept the NK as a nuclear power, since then end of the Korean War the South and the US has not invaded NK, just keep doing that, not attacking them. It puts them in the role of aggressor in any situation, while people are just as dead no matter who shoots first, there is no putting the genie back in the bottle.


I am guessing the lesson's of German reunification weigh heavily in the minds of the NK power elite, they see what happened to those who held power in a dictatorship when it reunited with it's more democratic neighbor.

 

[Kentonio]

I don't think thats a fair summation of the thread at all, people fully understand the risks involved in any intervention. There's obviously disagreement on whether those risks are unacceptable or not and differing opinions in whether it suddenly sparks a world war.

Whats clear is even if we de-escalate and just assume North Korea will use their new found nuclear capabilities peacefully with no aggression at all, other countries and dictatorships will know as long as they pose a significant risk they won't be stopped from gaining nuclear capabilities.

We're suddenly in a world where any dictator just has to be trusted to be rationale and not use a WMD.

If anything I was being kind, the alternative is that people are willing to trade potentially millions of innocent Korean lives on both sides (plus the potential for global nuclear war) in exchange for a feeling that 'we must do something!'. The sad truth is that we can't do anything much beyond what we have been doing, and yes it could well happen again. This isn't some new thing, it's exactly the reason people like Hussain wanted nukes and chemical weapons, he just didn't have the capability to wipe out millions of another countries civilians as leverage.

On the wider point though, most leaders/countries ARE rational actors if you accept that their rationales may be abhorrent to us.

 

[Organic Potatoes]

Diplomacy is the only choice right now, and it was the only choice for decades past. Americans like to think of themselves as some invincible and unstoppable force, but this has never been remotely true. The last genuine opportunity the US had to win militarily was during the last Korean War, well over half a century ago. The Chinese sacrificed an estimated million lives to push back the US and the Americans held back for fear of causing a nuclear exchange. It turns out that fear was overblown and they could probably have continued, but even then there was a strong chance that they'd have ended up using nuclear weapons themselves.

Since then there has been basically no military scenario that doesn't result in hundreds of thousands of dead South Koreans and a likely war with China which would potentially go nuclear. Even today China have been quite clear that a pre-emptive attack on NK will result in Chinese intervention.

Similarly though, any attack by NK on SK would result in devastating counterattack by the US and allies, and would topple the NK regime. This has always been the case (which is why NK never tried to invade) however now even China have said they won't defend NK if they attack first.

There is no win scenario for either side attacking militarily. None.

China isn't going to war with the US over the NK regime's survival. That is absurd, and ignores the past 40 years or so of geopolitics.

And while it is fashionable to poke fun at the US military, engaging it in a conventional war where they have well established logistical support would be unwise. To say the least...

 

[Brwned]

Reuters: The situation on the Korean Peninsula at the moment is extremely tense. North Korea has again test missiles this week. Does China think there will be war on the Korean Peninsula? What is China's strategy for preventing war from breaking out?

Wang Yi: Once again, tensions are rising on the Korean Peninsula. On the one hand, the DPRK has ignored international opposition and insisted on advancing its nuclear and missile programs in violation of Security Council resolutions. On the other hand, the US and the ROK are conducting military exercises of an enormous scale and putting more military pressure on the DPRK. The two sides are like two accelerating trains coming towards each other with neither side willing to give way. The question is, are the two sides really ready for a head-on collision?

Given the situation, our priority now is to flash the red light and apply brakes on both trains.

To defuse the looming crisis on the peninsula, China proposes that, as a first step, the DPRK suspend its missile and nuclear activities in exchange for a halt of the large-scale US-ROK exercises. This suspension-for-suspension can help us break out of the security dilemma and bring the parties back to the negotiating table. Then we can follow the dual-track approach of denuclearizing the peninsula on the one hand and establishing a peace mechanism on the other. Only by addressing the parties' concerns in a synchronized and reciprocal manner, can we find a fundamental solution to lasting peace and stability on the peninsula. China's proposal, fully in keeping with resolutions 2270 and 2321, tries to get to the crux of the matter. To resolve the nuclear issue, we have to walk on both legs, which means not just implementing sanctions, but also restarting talks, both of which are set out in the Security Council resolutions.

The nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula is mainly between the DPRK and the United States. China is a next-door neighbor with a lips-and-teeth relationship with the peninsula, so we're indispensable to the resolution of the nuclear issue. China has a strong commitment to denuclearizing the peninsula, to maintaining stability there and to resolving the issues peacefully. Indeed, China has done its level best to bring the DPRK and the US together and to chair the Six-Party Talks. We've also contributed to the adoption and implementation of Security Council resolutions. Going forward, to continue my earlier railway metaphor, China will continue to be a "switch-man". We will try to switch the issue back to the track of seeking a negotiated settlement. And I wish to emphasize that nuclear weapons will not bring security, the use of force is no solution, talks deserve another chance and peace is still within our grasp.

@Raoul @JustAFan what's your view on China's proposal? Just them playing politics, trying to shift the blame onto the US and advance their own political goals?

 

[Wednesday at Stoke]

You mean the deal the article mentions that North Korea was always cheating on? Yeah it was fecked up by the Republican's.

I find it funny the article mention's the US "practicing decapitation strikes" but does not mention the actual attempts at decapitation strikes against the South that the North has actually attempted.

The whole Chinese mentioning of the annual military training by the US and ROK is also laughable, reminds me of the Cold War when both sides would whine about the other's military training and how "threatening" they were. Especially since we have seen the NK military of course, as any military does, has it's own training exercises on a regular basis.

That article specifically mentions the Koreans cheated after a republican led congress failed to deliver on their promise of oil to compensate for them closing their plutonium enrichment, which you conveniently ignored like someone with a two sentence attention span.

You do you. I won't bother engaging any further.