The Department of State II: Electric Boogaloo

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I have to say, I am getting very worried by the lack of comment by the White House on the North Korea issue. We have 13 nuclear missiles here, which means the fate of the world is at stake. This is above and beyond "non-intervention", this is about the lives of not only those in Asia, but if we see those nuclear missles heading here, ourselves. I have a couple of possible solutions that I would've loved to present to the NSC, but since it's abolition, I would enjoy presenting them to yourself and the President at the nearest hour, if accepted.

I look forward to a peaceful resolution to the matter.

That is fine, but regardless as stated in the GM report my official and security based stance is "not getting involved", although if you want to pick another side and create another inevitable crisis you can be my guest.

With all due respect, Mr. President, we are involved; whether the administration wishes it or no, the present state of instability on the Korean Peninsula effects the prosperity of Atlasians at home and the security of our allies abroad. Already, the absence of any foreseeable resolution to the crisis gripping the region has had a catastrophic effect on my region's economy, increasing unemployment by 0.7% in the last two weeks alone (the GM has confirmed to me, by private correspondence, that the economic situation is directly attributable to the instability of the DPRK). "Non-involvement" is a fiction; the choice is not between intervention and isolation, but between acting and being acted upon.

In real life, I am a conscientious objector. I want peace and distrust interventionism as much as anyone, but just waiting for the situation to resolve itself (forgive me if that's not what you intend, but that's the impression I got from your post) is not an effective strategy to achieve those ends. When I served as Secretary of State, I too was forced to confront the chaos and instability that accompanies the fall of governments (in my case, it was the August 2016 coup against the government of Paflagonia, and the hostage crisis that ensued); it is possible to peacefully and prudently restore stability in situations such as these, but doing so requires action. Anything less endangers our economy, our security, and our relationship with the rest of the world.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Prime Minister Truman, I am not going to choose a side in the conflict. Secretary of State TedBessell and I are contacting China and South Korea to make sure we continue to be in communication, but we aren't going to escalate tensions on the Korean Peninsula or make an even worse enemy if we choose the wrong side, that would be the worst possible option.

Well, of course not. I never proposed anything of the sort; in fact, I'm a little worried that you felt the need even to say this (I would hope no-one in the administration is advocating for this approach). The main object here is not the internal politics of North Korea, but the security of our allies in the region and the stability of the East Asian market. To that end, there ought be no question in the minds of our allies that we would come to their aid in the event that the DPRK should make war against them.

I'm glad to hear the lines of communication to Beijing and Seoul remain open; I trust efforts will be made to calm Tokyo as well. Speaking as the former Secretary of State and erstwhile president of the republic, I am ever willing to do anything I can to bring about the swift and peaceful stabilization of the region, should the administration so desire it.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

there is no reason for us to act in a substantial way (IE non-diplomatically)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds as if you're implying diplomacy does not constitute a "substantial" foreign policy - which makes me think we're operating off two very different definitions of the term. Is there an actual plan in place (beyond "not getting involved"), or are we flying by the seat of our pants here?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Just read Reply #25 and you will see what the plan is.

Not really, no. I understand that the administration is communicating with China and South Korea; it is not clear to me if we are attempting to resolve the crisis, or simply watching and waiting. I apologize if I'm badgering you, I just find the whole situation interesting and I'm curious.