War Drums: North Korea edition

[Larry of the Lawn]

5 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What perplexes me is what he gains from making a threat to launch a missile at US territory if he doesn't do it?  It actually makes him look weaker if he makes the specific threat but doesn't act upon it.

They also said in 2013 after more sanctions were announced that they had plans in place for a strike on Guam.  They have nothing to lose by acting the wild card here.  NK is trying to announce itself as a nuclear power, which affords you as a nation some degree of immunity from international meddling.  

The only one acting the idiot here is Trump, he should just say that all options are the table and sanctions will be imposed as agreed by the UN Sec council.  

NK is literally just doing what they have always done in response to sanctions and at the same time scoring points by making Trump look like the petty, ignorant, used-car salesman-who-won-the-lotto that he is.  

[Swordfish]

26 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Well, my and your recent posts illustrate just two of the many views on what the right course of action is on North Korea. No one claims there is agreement on the correct solution. In my view, the argument that if we just appease the North Koreans enough they will become less of a threat is the wrong one. But I can see its appeal to some.

That's essentially the policy we've followed for decades with, at best, mixed results.

17 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The alternative is, as they say, just kicking the can further down the road. Only it's a road that ends with North Korea having dozens of nuclear armed ICBM's in their arsenal, at which point they become untouchable.

With the extra added bonus of allowing the continuing suffering and death that's already occurring inside the borders under the current regime to continue pretty much indefinitely.

No matter how you slice it up, it's still a super sized shit sandwich.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Swordfish said:

No matter how you slice it up, it's still a super sized shit sandwich.

That's bullshit! I ordered the fucking bulgogi!

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The difference being that this time there are very real weapons of mass destruction, and direct threats to use them. And since you bring party politics into it, Libya didn't even claim to have weapons of mass destruction. In fact, they gave them all up in exchange for their security. Yet Obama bombed them anyway. With disastrous consequences.

I had this argument 15 years ago.  I lost that battle, but the other side lost the war - in every sense of the word.  I'm not having the argument again, or entertaining a false Libya comparison which is fundamentally different on almost every level.  However, feel free to argue with yourself from four months ago.

[Larry of the Lawn]

5 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

That's essentially the policy we've followed for decades with, at best, mixed results.

With the extra added bonus of allowing the continuing suffering and death that's already occurring inside the borders under the current regime to continue pretty much indefinitely.

No matter how you slice it up, it's still a super sized shit sandwich.

Explain how the US's NK policy has been "if we appease them enough they will become less of a threat".  I don't see that at all.  

[Swordfish]

4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

That's bullshit! I ordered the fucking bulgogi!

No bulgogi for you!!

[Free Northman Reborn]

10 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I had this argument 15 years ago.  I lost that battle, but the other side lost the war - in every sense of the word.  I'm not having the argument again, or entertaining a false Libya comparison which is fundamentally different on almost every level.  However, feel free to argue with yourself from four months ago.

Your search of old threads was in vain, I'm afraid. My post from two pages back on this thread (page 8 on this thread, to be more precise) freely volunteers the fact that I have moved from one end of the spectrum to the other on this complex issue.

I don't know why you take it as such an assumed blow to me that you do not wish to argue over this. I do not wish to argue with you either. I'm stating my opinion. I did not post my opinion in the desperate hope that you would engage in debate with me on the issue. Thankfully for you, you won't have to, as you have apparently already settled it 15 years ago.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

40 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Well, my and your recent posts illustrate just two of the many views on what the right course of action is on North Korea. 

There is no right course. We just have to find the least bad option.

35 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Your solution has no appeal because it is the Dr. Strangelove course of action that needlessly kills, at the least, hundred of thousands of civilians.

Is there any realistic course of action that does lead to massive causalities? Because in mind the two most likely courses of action are either a preemptive strike that causes hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, and also possibly destabilizes the region, or do nothing, let the DPRK acquire several more nuclear warheads and watch as they slowly annex South Korea, which has always been their main objective. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Your search of old threads was in vain, I'm afraid.

Not an old thread.  Same thread.

2 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I don't know why you take it as such an assumed blow to me that you do not wish to argue over this.

Likewise, I don't know why you think this either - I don't care if it's a blow to you or not.  I wished to point out the absurdity of advocating a pre-emptive strike again basically once a GOP president took office, then stated I don't wish to replay that argument for North Korea.  That's all.

[Larry of the Lawn]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

There is no right course. We just have to find the least bad option.

Is there any realistic course of action that does lead to massive causalities? Because in mind the two most likely courses of action are either a preemptive strike that causes hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, and also possibly destabilizes the region, or do nothing, let the DPRK acquire several more nuclear warheads and watch as they slowly annex South Korea, which has always been their main objective. 

Even with nukes, no president that is capable of being elected in the US would allow NK to annex SK

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 minute ago, dmc515 said:

Not an old thread.  Same thread.

Likewise, I don't know why you think this either - I don't care if it's a blow to you or not.  I wished to point out the absurdity of advocating a pre-emptive strike again basically once a GOP president took office, then stated I don't wish to replay that argument for North Korea.  That's all.

Ok. Noted.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

There is no right course. We just have to find the least bad option.

Is there any realistic course of action that does lead to massive causalities? Because in mind the two most likely courses of action are either a preemptive strike that causes hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, and also possibly destabilizes the region, or do nothing, let the DPRK acquire several more nuclear warheads and watch as they slowly annex South Korea, which has always been their main objective. 

They might say they want to annex South Korea, but they're rational enough to understand that this would never be allowed and would end their state. China doesn't want it, either. No one wants that. 

A possible end result is to simply make them want to reunite with South Korea so badly that they end up doing it. The main barriers to this are that the public doesn't think this is a good thing (this has been reduced massively with illicit western media), the leaders believe they'd be hosed, and that NK has more to gain by not doing this. 

Of those values, the first one is going away rapidly as it becomes simple to smuggle in media and information to NK via China. (the article I linked earlier about the Netflix for North Korea is awesomely funny and actually important). The third is going away as China is getting less inclined to support their shit. The second one is the real key. 

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Is there any realistic course of action that does lead to massive causalities? Because in mind the two most likely courses of action are either a preemptive strike that causes hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, and also possibly destabilizes the region, or do nothing, let the DPRK acquire several more nuclear warheads and watch as they slowly annex South Korea, which has always been their main objective. 

First, trying to find a diplomatic solution is not "doing nothing."  I do not know what that solution is, and finding one is incredibly difficult (which is one of two reasons I've avoided this thread), but there is precedent for North Korea backing off when confronted with a unified international community.

Second, I disagree with the premise that a nuclear DPRK will inevitably "slowly annex" South Korea.  Doing so without provocation would similarly destabilize the region, which would flip China from a tacit ally to an active foe for the regime.

[TheKitttenGuard]

Is there any possibility China will takeover security of the peninsula with the withdrawal of U.S forces and start what will be a slow and gradual 20-30 year process that will end with reunification.

It does have it perils and Korea does not have a favorable view of China. I am just not sure the U.S willingness to have many others die so we do not face the problems that other face dealing with Nuclear attacks is going to hold allies over the long term.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Is there any possibility China will takeover security of the peninsula with the withdrawal of U.S forces and start what will be a slow and gradual 20-30 year process that will end with reunification.

It does have it perils and Korea does not have a favorable view of China. I am just not sure the U.S willingness to have many others die so we do not face the problems that other face dealing with Nuclear attacks is going to hold allies over the long term.

That'd largely be up to South Korea. There is a reasonable path that would indicate China becoming the guard for South Korea, though it'd be a long process. China and SK are fairly good economic bedfellows now, and there have been some overtures in that respect. The real thing that would have to happen is a willingness of SK to kick out the US - and a willingness of the US to withdraw. Japan wouldn't be happy about that, mind you. 

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Is there any possibility China will takeover security of the peninsula with the withdrawal of U.S forces and start what will be a slow and gradual 20-30 year process that will end with reunification.

That'd be a great way to piss off both South Korea and Japan, two pretty important allies.  Withdrawing our forces and ceding our role to the Chinese is not politically feasible for a US president.

[Rhom]

6 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Is there any possibility China will takeover security of the peninsula with the withdrawal of U.S forces and start what will be a slow and gradual 20-30 year process that will end with reunification.

It does have it perils and Korea does not have a favorable view of China. I am just not sure the U.S willingness to have many others die so we do not face the problems that other face dealing with Nuclear attacks is going to hold allies over the long term.

There is no path here that involves the US pulling soldiers out of South Korea.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Rhom said:

There is no path here that involves the US pulling soldiers out of South Korea.

Trump said as recently as January that he'd like to pull out of South Korea unless they started paying more of their fair share, and the newly elected SK president told him to go fuck himself. So...yeah. Who knows what is possible?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Jesus boys one at a time. :-P 

Annex was the wrong word to use, but it will work as a defacto annexation. The DPRK's goal is to find a way to remove the United States' military presence from South Korea, join South Korea in a confederation (and South Korea is not entirely opposed to this) and slowly take over South Korea through various means and eventually reunite the two countries as one with the Kim Regime in control. Kim-Il-Sung talked about this as far back as the 60's, and I see no reason to believe that the Kim Regime has given up on this goal.

8 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

First, trying to find a diplomatic solution is not "doing nothing."  I do not know what that solution is, and finding one is incredibly difficult (which is one of two reasons I've avoided this thread), but there is precedent for North Korea backing off when confronted with a unified international community.

It's been a while since I took IR levels one and two, but IIRC, this is Constructivism, which I found to be one of  the weaker schools of thought. And in regards to North Korea, yes they back down to a unified international community, but they always get something in return, and if no solution can be found as they slowly but surely build up their nuclear stockpile, yes, it does amount to doing nothing.

And the solution is easy, though incredibly complicated to execute. It's China. China could end this all in a short amount of time, but from their perspective, it's still not in their interest to do so. The rest of the world has to find a way to change that. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, Rhom said:

There is no path here that involves the US pulling soldiers out of South Korea.

Sure there is. If North Korea ever reaches a point where mutually assured destruction with the U.S. is possible, they can attempt to demand that the troops be withdrawn.