North Korea Mega Thread

[HisGrace]

They wouldn't strike Guam itself, but the statement said they would consider hitting the waters around Guam as a warning. That's also a crucial distinction that's not being made in a lot of the reporting. The point is we're currently in a cycle of escalation and it's something that has to be broken.

Yep, basically NK threatened to fire a warning shot and Trump responded by threatening to full on nuke them. Not too smart.

Maybe I'm in denial, but I personally don't think Kim is actually dumb enough to launch a first strike unless we scare him and make him think that we're about to invade or nuke them. They're just trying to get attention to get a visit from US diplomats, aid, or a reduction in sanctions. Don't reward them by giving them what they want and don't say stupid stuff like Trump's been doing that just might goad them into trying something.

[HisGrace]

I'm pretty sure no one actually wants the United States to get nuked. That's the whole point of criticizing Trump's approach to the situation so far. He's made the odds of nuclear war higher than they would be with a more level headed person at the helm. Not going into denial and acting like everything's being handled just fine doesn't mean you want a war to break out.

[HisGrace]

I'm pretty sure no one actually wants the United States to get nuked. That's the whole point of criticizing Trump's approach to the situation so far. He's made the odds of nuclear war higher than they would be with a more level headed person at the helm. Not going into denial and acting like everything's being handled just fine doesn't mean you want a war to break out.

I've highlighted the crux of the immediate issue. 

You say the problem is Trump's approach.  Is that really true?  Trump has conveyed to the North Koreans that there will be real consequences that will occur if they keep making nuclear threats toward the US.  Is there a consequence to not responding, kicking the can down the road some more, that is preferable?

I'm normally a can-kicker myself, but North Korea's nuclear program has expanded exponentially since Trump took office.  Or, maybe, it had expanded faster than we anticipated for years and now is the time for the "big reveal".  And this Nutty Buddy over in North Korea that runs the show seems OK with pointing out that his missiles may hit Guam, or Alaska, or whatever.  Kim Jong Un does not appear to be moved by rational appeals.  It's not entirely unreasonable to me to think that scaring the living crap out of this guy, if it can be done, is the only way to bring him to any point approaching reasonableness.

Well, like I said in my first post, I don't think NK is going to actually launch a first strike unless they think they're preempting us. Reiterating that we'll respond with overwhelming force if they attack us or our allies, upping sanctions, and continuing the military drills is a good enough response. Threatening an attack against them just in response to statements from Kim or them firing warning shots is the kind of thing that could start a war no one wants.

[HisGrace]

So not wanting nuclear war means you hate America?

Literally no one said that.  If we went to war, God forbid, and you don't support America in that war, then that is standing against America.

Seriously people, this isn't a hard concept.

                                                                                                                                               But literally no one said they'd support North Korea in a war against America either, all they said is that this war shouldn't happen. You then said these people hate america. Seriously, this is the exact same rhetoric that was used in 2003.

Yep, especially funny considering how the Trump crowd made Clinton's support of the war such a big issue. The lack of self awareness is showing.

[HisGrace]

Depending on the result of the war with North Korea, we will need to negotiate with China regarding government to take the place of the former North Korean regime if they are wiped out. Due to their objection to a reunified Korea by the U.S., China will likely want to install a provisional government while the U.S. would seize the remaining weapons and protect South Korea's sovereignty.  

I know this is morbid to think about, but if we actually did launch enough nukes to "wipe out" NK, it would just be an unlivable wasteland, right? So there wouldn't really need to be a "government" there. It would probably clear up eventually (although nukes have never been uses in that kind of concentration before so you can't say that would happen) and something would have to happen with that land. I'd be fine with letting China have it if they were insistent on it.

If you just mean overthrowing the government, letting the Chinese keep NK as a separate state and having them set up their own government would be a good way to avoid the endgame so to speak. SK wouldn't be happy about that at all, though.  

[HisGrace]

I'm pretty sure no one actually wants the United States to get nuked. That's the whole point of criticizing Trump's approach to the situation so far. He's made the odds of nuclear war higher than they would be with a more level headed person at the helm. Not going into denial and acting like everything's being handled just fine doesn't mean you want a war to break out.

I've highlighted the crux of the immediate issue.  

You say the problem is Trump's approach.  Is that really true?  Trump has conveyed to the North Koreans that there will be real consequences that will occur if they keep making nuclear threats toward the US.  Is there a consequence to not responding, kicking the can down the road some more, that is preferable?

Or, perhaps, we could do the truly revolutionary, and try talking to them? North Korea isn't run by the sanest group in the world, but they are rational enough to recognize their self-interest lies in avoiding a nuclear confrontation with the United States while also safeguarding itself from the fate of other non-nuclear enemies of America, e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya. They have very legitimate reasons to hate us, considering what we did to them during the Korean War, into which we asserted ourselves without any threat to our nation. That war resulted in the death of 600,000 North Korean civilians, 406,000 North Korean soldiers, while the US dropped 635,000 tons of bombs, 32,557 tons of napalm, and virtually annihilated their infrastructure with every substantial building in the country destroyed, the majority of cities and villages mere rubble, and was so severe it forced factories, schools, hospitals, and so on underground, and compelled them to dig mud huts and tunnels underground for housing.

The Communist regime that followed the war helped to solidify its power over the demolished nation by scapegoating the United States and fear-mongering about our desire to recreate the destruction wrought upon them during the Korean War. Since the North Koreans were already traumatized, isolated from the West, and forced to rebuild a broken country, they were susceptible to such propaganda, which aided in empowering the regime to continue despite its intolerable cruelty, extreme poverty, and total isolation. Without the American bogeyman, which we helped and continue to help them create, they may have collapsed already. Instead, with every threat or rumor of threat by the United States, the North Korean propaganda machine can gin up fervent nationalism among its populace, which serves the regime's interests. The best thing we could've done, aside from staying out of the Korean War, was ignore them and let the regime implode. But now, we're giving them exactly what they want.

A reignition of conflict on the Korean Peninsula would almost certainly result in civilian casualties at levels unseen since the Vietnam War. It could also result in the first use of an atomic weapon on civilians since WWII. Seoul, a city of 9,914,381 people and metro of 25,600,000, could come under immediate, sustained, and extraordinary assault. Countless artillery and warheads will be launched into major civilian centers throughout the Korean Peninsula and, possibly, into Japan as well. Considering North Korea has threatened Guam, that may even be a target. American military bases in the region house tens of thousands of American troops, placing them in immediate danger. A tactical nuclear strike in the region, if successful, could not only result in instant death for tens of thousands via incineration, but severe physical injury, psychological trauma, and long-term consequences resulting from cancer causing pollutants, which could be spread throughout the fallout zone. When North Korea falls, which it would from the war, then who knows what they may do with their nuclear material or into whose hands it may fall. Add to that a massive wave of refugees will break the Chinese border, attempting to escape the unrelenting aerial, sea, and eventual land bombardment, triggering a humanitarian crisis that would rival, if not dwarf, that of Syria and Iraq.

There are alternatives to such a nightmarish war scenario. We should not only entertain, but pursue those aggressively, so that we may avert such a crisis. Only if North Korea attacks us first or we discover a legitimate active plan to attack American territory, bases, or allies, should we engage in a military confrontation. Anyone who says otherwise is completely devaluing the lives of millions of Koreans and tens of thousands of American soldiers, and for what?

I agree with everything but the last sentence. Are you willing to risk allowing major U.S. cities to becoming susceptible to a nuclear attack? Be sitting ducks and wait for North Korea to act? Doubtful in my mind, and the President knows this.

And so I refer you back to the first sentence in my post. We should try talking to them. Not via China as our intermediary, but call the North Koreans and arrange a meeting between our leadership teams (including South Korea's). Sit down and hammer this out. North Korean leadership does not want to lose its grip on power, nor will it surrender its nuclear capabilities; the United States has ensured that due to our regime change in non-nuclear enemy states. But we both want to avoid a nuclear war, so the smartest plan is to treat North Korea with a modicum of respect; don't give them everything they want, but give them enough to ensure that they back away from the cliff. As in all relationships (whether interpersonal or geopolitical), dialogue must be maintained.

That is a credible argument, however, the time for dialogue has passed. North Korea does not have a stable leader who is willing to negotiate. President Moon Jae-in has explicitly expressed interest in talking with Kim Jong Un regarding this situation and even mentioned peaceful reunification, which I believe is the right move but it has proven unsuccessful.

The only other solution would be to accept them as a nuclear power, but even then how can we be sure that they won't attack us? I think it is a very risky proposition IMO.

I willingly accept to hear any opposing solutions and opinions.

NK knows we could completely wipe them out if they went nuclear. I think they're just trying to scare us into negotiating with them and give them concessions, which is why I'd oppose any meetings with them at this point. Giving in would just encourage them to behave similarly whenever they want something. "Accepting them as a nuclear power" is probably closest to my viewpoint although I don't think we should have relations with them until they improve as a country and after a certain period of good behavior.

[HisGrace]

Sound dialogue is not possible with such a guy bereft of reason and only absolute force can work with him."

Funny, sounds like the exact same thing we say about them. Maybe if the two sides stop assuming the other is insane we can avoid a war.

[HisGrace]

North Korea once again threatened to fire missiles at Guam, this time they threatened to fire 4 near Guam.

Are they suicidal?

Yes and they literally do not give a f about international law or threats by the US to retaliate. NK is the Leeroy Jenkins of nation states.

If they were suicidal, they'd just fire at Guam with no warning. The repeated warnings and specific details given about the plans suggest they want us to know what it is if/when it happens. As for why Guam... they seem very threatened by the live-fire exercises of the two B1-B bombers, which were deployed in July. Typically our position is that military exercises are defensive, but these have been simulating the destruction of enemy missile launchers and underground facilities, which could equally be defensive or offensive.

If we try to show a little empathy, or you know humanity, the North Koreans are doing the same thing we are. There was no direct threat to nuke Guam. They said they were making a plan to conduct demonstration strikes near Guam. That's damn aggressive saber-rattling, but it's also not that much different from the US saying we have a plan to destroy the North Korea military. We need to stop the escalation before someone unwittingly panics the other side.

^pretty much what I've been trying to say in both the North Korea threads condescend into a nice paragraph and why Trump's approach is a bad idea.

[HisGrace]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If he's trying to get America nuked he should just keep on doing what he's doing.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/10/politics/trump-north-korea/index.html

[HisGrace]

Justin Trudeau has now achieved more success in dealing with North Korea than Donald Trump.

How many people have had less success dealing with North Korea than Donald Trump?

[HisGrace]

https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews.com/world/2017/08/11/china-pledges-neutrality-unless-us-strikes-north-korea-first.amp.html

China pledges neutrality if North Korea attacks U.S., will get involved if there is a preemptive strike.

Came here to post that. All the more reason not to preempt.

[HisGrace]

If what you're saying is true, then Trump is Dr. Strangelove levels of hawkishness. There has been no nuclear war in 72 years, and he gets in and in this case, starts one in less than a year. Of course jfern and half the people who were hysterical about bombing Syria have nothing to say. They were worried about Hillary Clinton starting wars.

Hillary once said that Trump was too friendly with North Korea. I guess he took her advice and became more of a hawk.

http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-too-friendly-north-korea-465617

Don't see in the article where she said "Nuke North Korea".

[HisGrace]

NK has been threatening crazy sh*t for years and never done any of it. The only reason this escalated into a crisis is because Trump ran his mouth like an idiot.

[HisGrace]

"Talking is not the answer"

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump  7 hours ago
 The U.S. has been talking to North Korea, and paying them extortion money, for 25 years. Talking is not the answer!

Uhhh, we don't recognize them or have any kind of diplomatic relations with them. That doesn't constitute two countries "talking" to each other. The president does not understand international relations even on the level of what you'd learn in an intro IR college class full of 18 and 19 year olds.

[HisGrace]

China would go to war to stop a unification of Korea from South to North. They continue to make that very clear and have obviously done it before. One of the many reason a first strike against the North is unacceptable.

[HisGrace]

Growing push to expel NK from the UN https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPJTeOPojOQ

Also, NK likens Trump's UN speech to "the sound of a dog barking" http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/21/politics/north-korea-donald-trump-united-nations/index.html

Kicking them out of the UN won't solve anything and will probably only make things worse.

And LOL, I think that's a broken clock moment for NK. Although I think it may be insulting to dogs.

[HisGrace]

Tillerson says the US is in direct communication with NK but still predicates any meaningful talks with them on their denuclearization. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/30/world/asia/us-north-korea-tillerson.html

That will never happen. It all seems last ditch effort to me.

Looks like you were right.



Tillerson has failed to stop the Twit-in-Chief, who is so stupid/demented that he doesn't understand that Korea had three different leaders in the last twenty-five years.

(Republicans, Turmp and his actions are your responbsibility. Both because you voted for him, and because you refuse to remove him even when the evidence of gross mental incapability is staring you in the face.)

Hopefully the generals who are calling the shots in the so-called Trump administration will distract President Spoiled Brat with some pretty pictures or a Trump Is Amazing storybook and prevent war.

If he's going to attack NK, just do it and don't talk about it on Twitter for weeks in advance. I seriously doubt any kind of attack is being planned. He's just running his mouth and squandering what little credibility he has left for no reason.

There's really no big difference between how he and Kim are handling this situation. It's pretty telling where we've reached the point that you can say that about a US president. They're just tossing theatrical, empty threats back and forth, although at least in the case of Kim it kind of makes sense given the position his country is in.

[HisGrace]

Trump: "Only one thing will work!"

Hopefully he's referring to more tweeting and  not the bomb.

[HisGrace]

The Joint Chiefs say that NK can only have its nuclear weapons program disarmed through a ground invasion.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41878123

Don't know if this is bad news as it makes Trump more likely to preemptively strike, or if it sends the message that we should only get involved if we're going to go 100% and not just using airstrikes and risking NK reprisal.