War Drums: North Korea edition

[Maithanet]

3 minutes 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.

Meh, leaders making big threats and not following them up seems to be all the rage these days. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Maithanet said:

Meh, leaders making big threats and not following them up seems to be all the rage these days. 

Yeah, there is that.

[Seli]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

What do you mean by survive the peace?  Like, any war with NK would cause a humanitarian crisis and would inevitably lead to whatever SK government being voted out of office?  Or something more drastic?

...

Winning, leading to either reunification or open borders. And then integration into society of people who grew up in the North Korean system.

[Kalbear]

2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

Meh, leaders making big threats and not following them up seems to be all the rage these days. 

This is why it's important to be able to do something so that both sides can save face.

If the US can negotiate something with NK so that they avoid the launch, the US can say they successfully de-escalated, and the NK can say they got something so they're choosing not to do it. 

That Trump does not know how to de-escalate and only knows how to escalate makes me believe that this is impossible to achieve. But with rational state department and executive branch leadership, this is what I'd expect. This is what NK is expecting.

[Swordfish]

3 hours ago, Maithanet said:

What do you mean by survive the peace?  Like, any war with NK would cause a humanitarian crisis and would inevitably lead to whatever SK government being voted out of office?  Or something more drastic?

Launching a missile at a US military base in a US territory?  That's gonna lead to a huge military counterstrike, and it would probably escalate from that point to open war. 

I think the Un regime would have everything to lose and nothing to gain from such a move.  So no, I do not think they will do that.  It would provide the perfect pretext for the US to institute regime change.  China would be super super pissed if NK did this. 

How would that be a 'pretext'?  That seems like a totally supportable reason on it's own merits.

[Maithanet]

5 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

How would that be a 'pretext'?  That seems like a totally supportable reason on it's own merits.

Some reaction would certainly be warranted.  Full on regime change would be a bit strong IMO, but it's still a better justification than most wars we get into. 

[Swordfish]

6 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Some reaction would certainly be warranted.  Full on regime change would be a bit strong IMO, but it's still a better justification than most wars we get into. 

OK.  I guess we will have to agree to disagree about that.  

What, then, in your opinion, would be the actual reason?

[Maithanet]

5 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

OK.  I guess we will have to agree to disagree about that.  

What, then, in your opinion, would be the actual reason?

The US has wanted to get rid of the Kim regime since the 50s.  There have been provocations in the past, and typically South Korea (but sometimes the US as well) has worked to ease tensions and avoid things escalating into a shooting war.  I do not think this administration is particularly interested in de-escalation, and if given some excuse, whether large (such as a hypothetical bombing of Guam) or small (like the ax murder incident), will escalate towards war with the intention of showing strength and getting rid of the North Korea problem once and for all. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

That Trump does not know how to de-escalate and only knows how to escalate makes me believe that this is impossible to achieve. But with rational state department and executive branch leadership, this is what I'd expect. This is what NK is expecting.

And on that note, cue Trump saying that his fire and fury comments weren't tough enough......

[Free Northman Reborn]

At what point in a hot war do the North Koreans realize that further acts of "punishment" on South Korea, Japan and the like are futile in that it will only bring even more "fire and fury" raining down on them by the US? I reckon the North Korean threats are largely empty, and that after the US has wiped out the first line of North Koreas archaic armed forces, including obliterating whatever headquarters they have in Pyonyang and elsewhere, mass surrender and even mutiny will ensue in the North Korean ranks.

Trying to keep lashing out vengefully to drop a few more bombs on some South Korean town is pretty fuitle when shock and awe has anihilated the North Korean military's backbone and top leadership structures from the skies above.

Kim can no longer rule through fear if he is hiding in some hole like Saddam did towards the end of the Gulf War. I don't think this war will last as long as the pessimists try to claim. And it will remove the North Korean nuclear threat for good.

Anyway, not an ideal situation at all, but in my mind preferable to a North Korea with 10 or 20 nuclear warheads on ICBM's, which could be the situation in 10 years time.

[Kalbear]

32 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

At what point in a hot war do the North Koreans realize that further acts of "punishment" on South Korea, Japan and the like are futile in that it will only bring even more "fire and fury" raining down on them by the US? I reckon the North Korean threats are largely empty, and that after the US has wiped out the first line of North Koreas archaic armed forces, including obliterating whatever headquarters they have in Pyonyang and elsewhere, mass surrender and even mutiny will ensue in the North Korean ranks.

A war between NK and SK (and the US) would last either a very small amount of time or an incredibly long time depending on China's reaction. Assuming China abandons NK (which isn't a great assumption), a hot war wouldn't last long. NK doesn't care about making people believe that the war will last a while; what it cares about is making it very, very clear that a war would result in massive casualties and damage. 

32 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Trying to keep lashing out vengefully to drop a few more bombs on some South Korean town is pretty fuitle when shock and awe has anihilated the North Korean military's backbone and top leadership structures from the skies above.

Again, not their goal in the least. 

32 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Kim can no longer rule through fear if he is hiding in some hole like Saddam did towards the end of the Gulf War. I don't think this war will last as long as the pessimists try to claim. And it will remove the North Korean nuclear threat for good.

Pessimists don't think the war will last long. Pessimists think that the rebuilding of NK and SK and the restabilization of that region after a war that could cause massive damage to SK, China and Japan will take potentially decades as well as cost millions of lives. The war itself is not really that scary. 

32 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Anyway, not an ideal situation at all, but in my mind preferable to a North Korea with 10 or 20 nuclear warheads on ICBM's, which could be the situation in 10 years time.

In 10-20 years time we can also potentially see a regime change depending on how successful illicit trade and economy directions go. That was far more successful in getting Eastern Europe to be free, as an example. What the leadership of NK want is guarantees that they aren't going to be killed and can live their lives in wealth and prosperity; if you can give them that, they'll probably fold pretty fast.

[IheartIheartTesla]

A humanitarian crisis (to quote our beloved leader) the likes of which this world has not seen, where 25 million hungry people start migrating southward where food is plentiful, rioting in the street, mental health problems because of the sudden shock of being exposed to the outside world, other unanticipated stuff....it just sounds terrible all round.

[Free Northman Reborn]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

A war between NK and SK (and the US) would last either a very small amount of time or an incredibly long time depending on China's reaction. Assuming China abandons NK (which isn't a great assumption), a hot war wouldn't last long. NK doesn't care about making people believe that the war will last a while; what it cares about is making it very, very clear that a war would result in massive casualties and damage. 

Again, not their goal in the least. 

Pessimists don't think the war will last long. Pessimists think that the rebuilding of NK and SK and the restabilization of that region after a war that could cause massive damage to SK, China and Japan will take potentially decades as well as cost millions of lives. The war itself is not really that scary. 

In 10-20 years time we can also potentially see a regime change depending on how successful illicit trade and economy directions go. That was far more successful in getting Eastern Europe to be free, as an example. What the leadership of NK want is guarantees that they aren't going to be killed and can live their lives in wealth and prosperity; if you can give them that, they'll probably fold pretty fast.

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.

[DMC]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

If the US can negotiate something with NK so that they avoid the launch, the US can say they successfully de-escalated, and the NK can say they got something so they're choosing not to do it. 

Right, this is what I was trying to articulate upthread.  The recent increased sanctions imposed by a unified international community and aggressive military exercise by the US-ROK has in the past been successful in curbing North Korea belligerence, or at least bringing them to the table.  The sanctions clearly are not going to work to such effect this time:

Quote

While Pyongyang may suffer economically, analysts say the country's nuclear program will likely be the last thing cut, a conclusion supported by North Korea's public statements on the matter.

"We will, under no circumstances, put the nukes and ballistic rockets on the negotiating table," North Korea Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho said this week, adding that Pyongyang's "possession of nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles is a legitimate option for self-defence in the face of a clear and real nuclear threat posed by the US."

The only way to get them to the table is to completely cripple the DPRK economically.  The problem is only China can do this, and doing so is not in their interest, which is maintaining the status quo (as is Russia's):

Quote

"Despite Washington's hopes, China won't solve the North Korea problem, regardless of how often the Trump administration insists that it can or must," Jennifer Lind, associate professor of government at Dartmouth College, wrote for CNN this week.

"China worries most about political stability on the Korean peninsula. The Chinese fear that serious economic pressure would risk causing Kim Jong Un's regime to collapse, which could unleash chaos on the peninsula, and usher in a variety of long-term problems."

Now there are options to both further increase sanctions and increase pressure on China to get on board, but the latter presents very dicey risks in disturbing Sino-American relations.  None of this, it should be noted, is Trump's fault.  This was an inevitability once the North Korea demonstrated its nuclear capabilities (although the speed with which they have done so certainly was not anticipated by experts).  The only thing you can lay at the Trump's administration's feet even indirectly in this regard is the DPRK likely ramped up its aggressive testing and saber-rattling to see how the new president would respond.  Moreover, Nikki Haley's ability to ensure China is on board with the new sanctions (at least for the time being) is laudable.  

However, the problem with Trump trying to out-crazy the Un regime in threats and fantasy-epic language is it plays right into their hands:

Quote

Threatening war or military action against North Korea … works more towards the advantage of North Korea, not our advantage. After all, it’s a totalitarian regime—it uses threats from the U.S. to consolidate control within the country. It represses its people. The more that North Korea can create the perception of an outside threat, the more it can control the internal domestic situation. That gives the regime more power internally, which it can use externally.

Further, Trump's heightened rhetoric pisses off China - at the exact time they're actually quite pissed at North Korea for once - and undermines our leadership role with traditional allies.

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

A humanitarian crisis (to quote our beloved leader) the likes of which this world has not seen, where 25 million hungry people start migrating southward where food is plentiful, rioting in the street, mental health problems because of the sudden shock of being exposed to the outside world, other unanticipated stuff....it just sounds terrible all round.

Will they be that much worse off than under the current regime?

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

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.

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.

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 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.

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.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 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.

[DMC]

6 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.

It's....extraordinarily ludicrous that the pre-emptive strike argument is being employed again within eight months of a new GOP president.

[Free Northman Reborn]

6 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

It's....extraordinarily ludicrous that the pre-emptive strike argument is being employed again within eight months of a new GOP president.

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.