North Korea Mega Thread

[Daniel909012]

Anyway, I don't really see Kim as a "wild card" in this scenario; what he is going to do is so predictable it can basically be summed up in one sentence. With no change in outside policy, he is going to continue to do missile and all sorts of tests just as he has for the past five years but he will not use them offensively. If we want him to do less we need to engage him in direct talks.

The North Koreans, United States, and China were all at the ASEAN summit yesterday. The Chinese Foreign Minister and North Koreans held talks. Tillerson didn't. Why? We continue to adhere to this notion that we won't talk with the North Koreans, even at lower levels, unless they first agree to abandon their entire nuclear program. This flies against the concept of "face", which is extremely important in Korean culture. Kim has at this point invested so much in his nuclear and missile programs (which started at the end of his father's regime), that unilaterally giving it up now would be nothing but a climbdown so humiliating that he would risk losing respect and control over his own regime. Hence he's being forced into two very bad options-- either continue his tests, and risk war, thus losing his power, or back down, and risk losing so much respect that his regime loses legitimacy or he's overthrown in a coup. Only through talks, e.g. diplomacy, can he be given a real out and there be two-sided mutual deescalation over time, which could eventually lead to his abandoning his nuclear program. It's absurd how the administration keeps saying "all options are on the table," but the only option that could lead to a real solution without war--diplomacy-- isn't really on the table. It's time to put all options on the table for real.

You have therefore
decided to adopt a weak and losing position. There will be peace in our time', said Chamberlain when he returned from his meeting with Hitler in Munich in 1938. as a
nation compared to other nations we are a mass of cowards.

[Daniel909012]

Anyway, I don't really see Kim as a "wild card" in this scenario; what he is going to do is so predictable it can basically be summed up in one sentence. With no change in outside policy, he is going to continue to do missile and all sorts of tests just as he has for the past five years but he will not use them offensively. If we want him to do less we need to engage him in direct talks.

The North Koreans, United States, and China were all at the ASEAN summit yesterday. The Chinese Foreign Minister and North Koreans held talks. Tillerson didn't. Why? We continue to adhere to this notion that we won't talk with the North Koreans, even at lower levels, unless they first agree to abandon their entire nuclear program. This flies against the concept of "face", which is extremely important in Korean culture. Kim has at this point invested so much in his nuclear and missile programs (which started at the end of his father's regime), that unilaterally giving it up now would be nothing but a climbdown so humiliating that he would risk losing respect and control over his own regime. Hence he's being forced into two very bad options-- either continue his tests, and risk war, thus losing his power, or back down, and risk losing so much respect that his regime loses legitimacy or he's overthrown in a coup. Only through talks, e.g. diplomacy, can he be given a real out and there be two-sided mutual deescalation over time, which could eventually lead to his abandoning his nuclear program. It's absurd how the administration keeps saying "all options are on the table," but the only option that could lead to a real solution without war--diplomacy-- isn't really on the table. It's time to put all options on the table for real.

You have therefore
decided to adopt a weak and losing position. There will be peace in our time', said Chamberlain when he returned from his meeting with Hitler in Munich in 1938. as a
nation compared to other nations we are a mass of cowards.

Okay, if North Korea snuffs out a sovereign country within 6 months of such talks beginning, I would admit I'm wrong.

Beet, why do you assume that face is a uniquely East Asian concept. At this stage, there is absolutely nothing to be gained from even low-level talks with the North Koreans that cannot be gained from China and North Korea having a serious talk. Not only that but nothing can be gained without Chinese involvement. Now, if the Chinese can manage to produce something more tangible than direct talks with North Korea, it would then be time to reconsider.

But are the Chinese putting their full effort into talks? They have only peripheral interest in North Korea's weapons programs, as, for better or worse, they don't feel threatened by them. From their point of view, they're doing us a favor, and not all domestic factions inside China support this. We're going to have to watch them closely to see if the latest round of sanctions are enforced.

One immediate gain we could have with direct talks, is that it would increase trust. Even talks that clearly outline each side's position could get us a better idea of the North's goals than just reading propaganda statements. After all, it's not just the level of arms that constitutes the North Korean threat. Six other countries have even greater nuclear and missile capabilities, but we aren't worried about them. The nonexistent level of relations and communication, and trust, between the two sides is a part of the threat to. If we can reduce those, we can reduce the threat.

Bill clinton made a deal and the Korean rats broke it! "if you want peace, prepare for war"

[Daniel909012]

When I said Kim was a "wild card," I didn't mean in the sense that his intent and motivations are completely unpredictable and like a roll of the dice.  What I meant is that Kim is sorta in the driver's seat in the current situation- it is in every other party's interest (including NK, for that matter) to maintain the status quo, and their actions will start from that premise; i.e. not rocking the boat and just letting things continue as they are, perhaps even indefinitely.  If there is a person that sparks this tinderbox, it will be Kim.

Well, a "wild card" doesn't means someone who's in the driver's seat. At the risk of being pedantic, Harper Collins says defines "wild card" as: "If you refer to someone or something as a wild card in a particular situation, you mean that they cause uncertainty because you do not know how they will behave." I merely pointed out that we do know how Kim will behave, assuming no change in policy on our part. So if your meaning is that, then you are incorrect.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see how this makes him a "wild card". First of all, as I pointed out, the term "wild card" means we don't know how he will behave, but without change in our own policy, we have a very good idea of how he will behave, so the phrase is simply incorrect. Second, as you admitted already, we don't even know what our own red-line is. We haven't decided. The ultimate outcome of this decision is unknown. So it seems that the true wild card is not Kim Jong Un, but the United States. It's the United States' behavior that is unpredictable, and it's the United States' signals that are contradictory.

If a war starts, it won't just be because of a "miscalculation," it'll also be because someone started it. As we agreed, it's not going to be North Korea, so it's going to be us. In that sense, we, not North Korea, are in the driver's seat when it comes to the war question. In many ways, that's good news, because it means nuclear war can be avoided if we make a choice that is entirely within our own power. All it takes is the will to make that choice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And they now have ICBMs, as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The U.S. agreed to suspend joint exercises in 1994-1996. If we were willing to agree to it then, why not now? As for a withdrawal of our position in SK, numerous publications already have people advocating for it. The U.S. has no strategic interest in what goes on in the Korean peninsula outside the North Korean issue, so there is no reason for troops to be there if North Korea is no longer a threat. The South Koreans may not want us there, either.

Given that we're talking about potential nuclear war, the real insanity at the heart of this question is why some Americans think that thousands, if not millions of people dying in nuclear incineration or getting blown apart by artillery shells is somehow better than, say, temporarily pausing a set of military drills. If anything, it's the proposals for war that should be more of a "non-starter."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Muammar Gadhafi ruled Libya for 40 years... then one day, there was a domestic uprising against his rule, NATO intervened on the side of the rebels, and he was dragged out of a hole in the desert, beaten, and sodomized on a bayonet, all on public tape. This made a deep impression even on Vladimir Putin, who is in charge of nearly 2,000 strategically operational nuclear warheads. That is what Kim Jong Un would be risking for himself if he went the "Deng Xiaoping" route, and he knows that. He believes, with reason, that he has to guarantee his own security and that of his state, before turning his full attention to economic development.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are many diplomatic proposals that have been out there for years, such as offering security guarantees, signing a peace treaty, lifting sanctions, and so on.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is no war going on, and not a single bullet has been fired, so how can we already have crossed the point of no return? The idea that the point of no return for WW1 was before 1914 simply ignores the fact that political decisions were made in 1914 to start the war, and had those decisions not been made -- for instance, Nicholas not ordering a general mobilization -- the war could have been averted. War is not inevitable. It is the result, every step of the way, of conscious choices by free actors, and those actors have to take responsibility for those choices.

Coward and weak like obama 8 years without doing anything, Bill agreed and was of no use, war or humiliation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/08/07/a-majority-of-americans-favor-deploying-u-s-troops-if-north-korea-attacks-south-korea-poll-finds/?utm_term=.dfe85ce430da

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/07/north-korea-ready-to-teach-us-severe-lesson-says-un-abused-its-authority.html

[Daniel909012]

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/346030-graham-trump-doesnt-need-congresss-approval-for-north-korea-strike

[Daniel909012]

His statement thanking Russia for dismissing US diplomats seems bizarre and could be used as evidence that he is unfit to be POTUS as per the 25th amendment.

It may have only been a sick joke, but who really knows?

Did you say the same thing with Bill Clinton?
Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia, Kosovo

[Daniel909012]

A clear victory for trump, let's face it, he achieved more than obama in 8 years, fire is attacked with fire and fury

[Daniel909012]

This country and the present administration is full of cowards, I would like Macarthur. Macarthur would destroy that country. We have to attack now.

[Daniel909012]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(source)

So, uh, China?

Does anyone in China believe Trump is actually calling the shots in his administration? Or that he's capable of following through on anything?

I'll also point out that for all Trump's whining that diplomacy doesn't work, he has never actually engaged in any.

Diplomacy is rubbish, only an idiot does not see it after the failure of Obama and Bill