North Korea declares War on South Korea

[Beet]

Test fire ballistic missiles or fire ballistic missiles at real targets?

I have come to the conclusion that the West should simply cave to North Korea and accept it's nuclear program. The reality is that once they have acquired nuclear powers, they really can black mail you. It would have been nice for the North Korean regime to have fallen, but the short-sighted (IMO) Chinese regime continued to back the "we don't want refugees" line for too long. Caving to North Korea means heightened military presence in northeast Asia, but it's better than a nuclear war breaking out.

Oh, please. If you're that concerned, we should be launching an all-out attack right now to stop the progress of their nuclear program. The reality is that North Korea probably doesn't even have real nuclear weapons, and certainly doesn't have the ability to launch them at Seoul, let alone the US.

Wait, North Korea doesn't have nuclear weapons? Based on what? Link?

If we had the ability to launch an all-out attack to destroy their nuclear program, we absolutely should. The problem is, do we have the ability? An attempt to do this without succeeding could have the very consequence of bringing about the event it was intended to forestall in the first place. But if we have 100% certainty, go ahead.

It is time to recognize that the Bush-Obama policy on North Korea has failed. It is time to turn to engagement. An ideal model would be the 1994 Agreed Framework, which was working until Congressional Republicans, and then the Bush administration, scuppered it. Give Kim Jong Un a way to get out of this situation without war while saving face, and save potentially millions of lives.

[The Mikado]

On what terms?  The last thing the North Korean regime wants is engagement that involves them disarming or disbanding their nuclear program.  Kim's painted himself into a corner on this one: the program is the sign of North Korea's continuing defiance to US Imperialism.  Striking a deal with us to disband the program in return for aid is not just tantamount to surrender, it is literally surrender, and one the regime's domestic image would struggle to survive.

PS: still strongly recommend this video, relinked for the new page.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/292562-1

[Benj]

Test fire ballistic missiles or fire ballistic missiles at real targets?

I have come to the conclusion that the West should simply cave to North Korea and accept it's nuclear program. The reality is that once they have acquired nuclear powers, they really can black mail you. It would have been nice for the North Korean regime to have fallen, but the short-sighted (IMO) Chinese regime continued to back the "we don't want refugees" line for too long. Caving to North Korea means heightened military presence in northeast Asia, but it's better than a nuclear war breaking out.

Oh, please. If you're that concerned, we should be launching an all-out attack right now to stop the progress of their nuclear program. The reality is that North Korea probably doesn't even have real nuclear weapons, and certainly doesn't have the ability to launch them at Seoul, let alone the US.

Wait, North Korea doesn't have nuclear weapons? Based on what? Link?

If we had the ability to launch an all-out attack to destroy their nuclear program, we absolutely should. The problem is, do we have the ability? An attempt to do this without succeeding could have the very consequence of bringing about the event it was intended to forestall in the first place. But if we have 100% certainty, go ahead.

It is time to recognize that the Bush-Obama policy on North Korea has failed. It is time to turn to engagement. An ideal model would be the 1994 Agreed Framework, which was working until Congressional Republicans, and then the Bush administration, scuppered it. Give Kim Jong Un a way to get out of this situation without war while saving face, and save potentially millions of lives.

No, engagement made things worse, not better. It gave the North Koreans time to develop their military and recover from a period of near-collapse. Clinton had the absolute worst policy towards North Korea of any US President. And you miss the point: North Korea is just not interested in changing its policies, and nothing the US gives away will change that. If it could, things would have changed dramatically in the 1990s when we tried appeasement the first time. They didn't; if anything, North Korea became more belligerent because the regime had to emphasize that the US was still the enemy to the public.

As far as nuclear weapons are concerned, North Korea has made some blasts that leave nuclear residue before. It is not at all clear that they have anything capable of producing nuclear fallout now. Indeed, they probably do not; it would be far more characteristic of North Korea to continuously use whatever nuclear material they have to rattle the saber. Even if they do, whether that object is actually a "bomb" in a sense that you or I would recognize is also debatable at best. Much more likely it is simply a pile of nuclear material. Finally, North Korea has never demonstrated any ability to actually launch whatever nuclear mess it has at anything. While short-range conventional missiles can certainly cross the border and reach Seoul, nuclear weapons can't be launched on such missiles, and North Korea has only failed miserably in all of its attempts to launch missiles actually capable of delivering nuclear payloads.

[Beet]

On what terms?  The last thing the North Korean regime wants is engagement that involves them disarming or disbanding their nuclear program.  Kim's painted himself into a corner on this one: the program is the sign of North Korea's continuing defiance to US Imperialism.  Striking a deal with us to disband the program in return for aid is not just tantamount to surrender, it is literally surrender, and one the regime's domestic image would struggle to survive.

PS: still strongly recommend this video, relinked for the new page.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/292562-1

Right, I said in my first post that the we have really no choice but to accept North Korea's nuclear program in the medium term. Mentioning the Agreed Framework muddied that; obviously it can't be replicated exactly. But moves should be made immediately towards something that both North Korea and the US can paint as a victory, but would be more favorable to North Korea than what has been on the table over the past 10 years. Other things North Korea could offer are reversing some of the steps it has taken in recent months, moving troops back from the border, etc.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then why not start the evacuation of Seoul today? I still hold out hope that those millions of people can be saved.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I hope you are right. Of course, I asked you for links, and you haven't provided any, and even if are right, "probably" is skating on thin ice when it comes to nuclear war. "Probably" is good enough when I'm betting my chips in poker, it's not good enough when we're talking nuclear missiles. Also, even if you are right, that still leaves the question, that the North Koreans are making technological progress and if they don't have the ability today, then they will have the ability tomorrow. Looking at the cost-benefit analysis in totality, is launching a strike today less risky than a move towards engagement? Make the case for a strike, if you think engagement is not the right choice.

You've made a lot of assertions about engagement without providing much support. During the "sunshine policy" era was the golden age of North Korean relations. Families were being reunited after decades. There was talk of joint economic projects. A lot of progress was made. North Korea had suspended their plutonium program. Ever since then, things have turned for the worse. After the Agreed Framework was abandoned, North Korea promptly restarted their plutonium program. As a result, they were able to test nuclear weapons in 2006. Ever since then, they have become ever more powerful and ever more belligerent. Is this the policy you call a success? If ignoring North Korea, avoiding engagement, and treating all their threats as bluster to be ignored, is a good policy, why has it gotten us to this point? If it is a good policy, when will the so called fruits of this policy be seen? Tomorrow? Next month? How long do we have to wait?

[Benj]

You're right. Ignoring the regime was also wrong, though you are grossly overplaying the positives of the sunshine policy and ignoring the negatives. The correct solution is the one that's happening right now: Calling North Korea's bluff through counteraggression. North Korea's internal stability is entirely dependent on the ability to force the US to back down. If the US doesn't back down, North Korea overarms itself to the point of state collapse.

I will also point out that it would be very, very difficult for the North Korean regime to survive an attack on the South, politically. One of the central pieces of North Korean propaganda is that the South Koreans all want to live under the protection of the Kim family but cannot because their leaders routinely betray them to the United States. Killing thousands of South Koreans would fly directly in the face of that propaganda. I suppose, if the regime somehow survived, they could say the US actually carried out the attack, but that would be a very difficult piece of propaganda to pull off when South Korean and (maybe more importantly) Chinese radio and TV channels, widely available in much of North Korea, would be reporting otherwise.

[Beet]

You're right. Ignoring the regime was also wrong, though you are grossly overplaying the positives of the sunshine policy and ignoring the negatives. The correct solution is the one that's happening right now: Calling North Korea's bluff through counteraggression. North Korea's internal stability is entirely dependent on the ability to force the US to back down. If the US doesn't back down, North Korea overarms itself to the point of state collapse.

The only issue with this is that we've been calling North Korea's bluff for years, and it's only caused further escalation. The negatives of this are that it could result, in some point, in a miscalculation with catastrophic consequences.

What exactly, are the negatives of the sunshine policy? That North Korea survives as a regime and continues to develop its weapons capabilities? Sure, but that is exactly what has been happening under the "call your bluff" scenario. I see no evidence the regime is heading towards collapse. Basing policy on hoping for regime collapse is very risky, IMO.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

It would be absolutely unacceptable for Kim to be able to legitimately threaten to attack the continental United States... even his current threats have my mind blown as to why we haven't unleashed Hell on the North Korean regime

Tolerance of this rogue nuclear nation is not an option...

[Benj]

You're right. Ignoring the regime was also wrong, though you are grossly overplaying the positives of the sunshine policy and ignoring the negatives. The correct solution is the one that's happening right now: Calling North Korea's bluff through counteraggression. North Korea's internal stability is entirely dependent on the ability to force the US to back down. If the US doesn't back down, North Korea overarms itself to the point of state collapse.

The only issue with this is that we've been calling North Korea's bluff for years, and it's only caused further escalation. The negatives of this are that it could result, in some point, in a miscalculation with catastrophic consequences.

What exactly, are the negatives of the sunshine policy? That North Korea survives as a regime and continues to develop its weapons capabilities? Sure, but that is exactly what has been happening under the "call your bluff" scenario. I see no evidence the regime is heading towards collapse. Basing policy on hoping for regime collapse is very risky, IMO.

Well, you're only giving it about a month of calling North Korea's bluff, and certainly their military capacity has not increased in that time.

What evidence do we have that the regime is heading towards collapse? The very fact that they're ramping up right now. Not that I think things will collapse in the next few months or even years necessarily. But they might, which is much better than can be said for any other strategy.

[Beet]

Uh, I just said we've been calling their bluff for years. The Agreed Framework was nearly 20 years ago. Ever since the "Axis of Evil" speech the US has not agreed to trade economic aid for disarmament. Our policy has been mostly sticks-- increased sanctions in responses to bomb tests or missiles launches. Sanctions were just tightened a few months ago in response to the North's nuclear test last year. The U.S. has just conducted fresh rounds of military exercises before this latest crisis started. Other than that, we have been doing "strategic patience", ignoring North Korea's threats as blackmail. This has been the conventional wisdom in the U.S. since the collapse of the Agreed Framework in 2002. It is not something that just started a month ago.

And it has gotten us to this point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I listened to this guy and he seems to have some worthwhile ideas but I think they should be spelled out more. If China really does have the ability to pull the plug on North Korea, then we should certainly be leaning harder on them. If the South Koreans displayed more anti-North sentiment, that might also damage the regime's propaganda.

[Mr. Morden]

Regarding the question of whether North Korea has nuclear weapons, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the seismic measurements made by the USGS of the previous North Korea nuke tests suggested that if it wasn't an actual earthquake (highly unlikely) then it would have to be some kind of nuclear detonation.  However, all that indicates is that they have nuclear bombs that they can explode underground.  Do they actually have bombs that are small enough for them to transport, to deliver to South Korea or some other target?  No evidence of that, AFAIK.

[Eraserhead]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/10/world/asia/south-korean-leader-seeks-to-end-vicious-cycle-with-north.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[Beet]

It would be absolutely unacceptable for Kim to be able to legitimately threaten to attack the continental United States... even his current threats have my mind blown as to why we haven't unleashed Hell on the North Korean regime

Because they have the ability to inflict massive damage. This isn't Iraq or Libya.

But you're right that even their threats are unacceptable. A rational regime does not even talk about the things they're talking about. How could they threaten to kill millions of people? Where does the justification for that even begin? That's why we need to be taking the danger seriously, here, and not just make jokes.

[Dereich]

Wow, I never knew what a total defeatist looked like. Beet the reason for the threats is because they expect the United States and South Korea to act exactly like you want them too. Their main goal is self-preservation and nothing would help the persevere more than caving in to them. Even if the US DID want to do what you'd have them do, Park's reputation would be shot if she ever agreed to it. Its important that the US and South Korea maintain a united front on this.

[Beet]

Yeah, if you're going to blackmail us with nuclear threats then I'm fine with "caving." Astonishing as it may seem, there are things worse than giving into blackmail. Like mushroom clouds over populated areas.

It's not worth the risk that you're wrong. We can't be looking back on this in a year and say that if the Obama administration had just made a high level overture, tens of thousands of people, perhaps millions, would still be alive.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Yeah, if you're going to blackmail us with nuclear threats then I'm fine with "caving." Astonishing as it may seem, there are things worse than giving into blackmail. Like mushroom clouds over populated areas.

It's not worth the risk that you're wrong. We can't be looking back on this in a year and say that if the Obama administration had just made a high level overture, tens of thousands of people, perhaps millions, would still be alive.

I respect your motivation but do not believe Kim would see us caving as anything other then justifying his behavior... then we repeat this whole dance in five years when he can indeed strike our West Coast

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Did North Korea remember to undeclare war on South Korea before they declared war on them? I mean, you can't have two declarations of war on the same country.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

The eagle born by freedom won, yet held in precarious station, set upon defense and steeled his will, to guard and protect his new nation. So he resolved, defiant of all who would challenge his right to be free with a "swift-sailing vessel and ten carriage guns" to hunt the world's oceans and seas. Born to go into harm's way - come all! Ye Hell or high waters be damned! No lightning, no thunder, no hurricane gale, can stand in the face of his wrath. Be he beneath his enemy's feet or by clouds where their gaze can not go, when Leviathan rise, every last man shall shake to the core of his soul...

Now, fear the deep and the teeth of the killin’ machine, with a need to bleed you anywhere you be, best believe, I’m in the zone to be, from my Yin to my Yang to my Yang Tze. Put a grin on my chin, come to me, ‘cuz I’ll win, I’m one-of-a-kind and I’ll bring death to the place you’re about to be: another river of blood runnin’ under my feet. Forged in a fire lit long ago, stand next to me, you’ll never stand alone. I’m last to leave, but the first to go, Lord, "underway's" the only "way" I know. I feed on the fear of the devil inside of the enemy faces in my sights: aim with the hand, shoot with the mind, kill with a heart like arctic ice

I am Leviathan, "death" is my call,
I am a warrior and this is my song

I bask in the glow of the rising war, lay waste to the ground of an enemy shore, wade through the blood spilled on the floor, and if another one stands I’ll kill some more. Bullet in the breech and a fire in me, like a cigarette thrown to gasoline, if death don’t bring you fear then death ain't comin' from the deep. Come to the nightmare, come to me, way down in the dark  where the devil be, in the maw with the jaws and the razor teeth, where the brimstone burns and the angel weeps. Call to the gods if I cross your path and my silhouette hangs in the aftermath; hope is a moment now long past, the shadow of death is the one I cast.

I am Leviathan, "death" is my call,
I am a warrior and this is my song
My breath is fire, and my eyes are the dawn,
I am a warrior and this is my song

Now I live lean and I mean to inflict the grief, and the least of me's still out of your reach. The killing machine’s gonna do the deed, until the river runs dry and my last breath leaves. Chin in the air with a head held high, I’ll stand in the path of the enemy line. Feel no fear, know my pride: for God and Country I’ll end your life.

I am Leviathan, "death" is my call,
I am a warrior and this is my song
My breath is fire, and my eyes are the dawn,

[Middle-aged Europe]

^^

You drunk?

[DINGO Joe]

^^

You drunk?

I believe he's preparing for a one-man invasion of NK.

[Silent Hunter]

The UN Secretary General's concern over this is quite understandable - he is from South Korea.

[The Mikado]

Did North Korea remember to undeclare war on South Korea before they declared war on them? I mean, you can't have two declarations of war on the same country.

What they announced was that the armistice was no longer in effect.

[DINGO Joe]

Did North Korea remember to undeclare war on South Korea before they declared war on them? I mean, you can't have two declarations of war on the same country.

What they announced was that the armistice was no longer in effect.

But that's the 6th or 7th time they've said that without ever actually admitting the armistice exists.  Wacky NK is wacky.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

^^

You drunk?

I believe he's preparing for a one-man invasion of NK.

There are a good many of us looking for a chance to return to Asia in fatigues... if only they'd let us...

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Lets just remember, we are talking about a country that found a magical Unicorn lair.

[Benj]

Lets just remember, we are talking about a country that found a magical Unicorn lair.

That was a story completely fabricated by the Western media.

What the North Koreans claimed to have found were the ruins of an ancient fortress supposedly belonging to a probably-mythical early Korean monarch.* The fortress is called in Korean tradition "the Lair of the Kirin" because the kirin was the symbol of said probably-mythical monarch. In Korean traditional history, the fortress was pretty much exactly on the site of the modern city of Pyongyang. Kirin are eastern mythic beasts (found in Chinese, Korean and Japanese mythology) similar to unicorns (horned horses). However, no one in North Korea thought they'd actually found a place where kirin lived, only a fortress associated with a ruler whose symbol was the kirin.

*Only mythical in the sense that he probably did not exist, much like many of the early Japanese and Chinese emperors in official histories. As far as I know, no mystical powers or anything are ascribed to him.

Of course, the Western media proved their usual incompetence and desire to ridicule North Korea and didn't even try to understand what was going on, then peddled their ignorance to a blithely unaware public.