North Korea declares War on South Korea

[Beet]

The Seoul capital area alone has a population of 26 million. Only 55 million were killed in all of World War II.

[Beet]

BEIJING — A well-known editor of an influential Communist Party journal said Monday that he had been suspended after writing an article for a British newspaper saying that China should abandon its ally North Korea.

North Korea, he argued, did not view its relationship with China through the same lens of “friendship sealed in blood” that came from Chinese soldiers’ fighting and dying in the Korean War against the United States. “North Korea does not feel like this at all toward its neighbor,” he wrote.

And in a response to the Chinese policy of urging North Korea to overhaul its economy, Mr. Deng wrote: “Once the door of reform opened, the regime could be overthrown. Why should China maintain relations with a regime and a country that will face failure sooner or later?”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/world/asia/chinese-suspend-editor-who-questioned-north-korea-alliance.html?ref=asia

Of course, the reasoning seems backward here... there's no reason to think that economic reform would lead to the regime being overthrown, especially when the same arguments were made about China 30 years ago. But if economic reform doesn't occur, North Korea will certainly be a failed state, and in that case one wonders how much the top leadership in China would really consider abandoning North Korea.

[Beet]

I see parallels between this and the July crisis (1914). No one really expects anything serious, but once the rhetoric and military mobilization reach a certain point, it becomes harder and harder to climb down. It is really impossible to imagine what is going on internally inside North Korea, what the top leadership is thinking. A war would certainly lead to the death of all of them.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Beet]

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

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.

Exactly. The US media treats North Korea as some sort of minstrel show instead of the tragic fascist regime headed by a crazed lunatic with access to nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, which is what it is. We need to understand this regime, what drives it, and develop a clear strategy to respond to it.

[Beet]

North Korea likely has nuclear weapons that can be delivered by ballistic weapons, according to a classified report by the Defense Intelligence Agency.

According to the report, “DIA assesses with moderate confidence the North currently has nuclear weapons capable of delivery by ballistic missiles however the reliability will be low.” That line was read aloud by Rep. Doug Lamborn, a Republican from Colorado, on Thursday during a House Armed Services Committee hearing. Lamborn was questioning Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who seemed taken aback and declined to answer the question, saying, “I haven’t seen it and you said it’s not publicly released, so I choose not to comment on it.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/11/pentagon-report-says-north-korea-likely-has-nukes.html

The US can exploit Pyongyang and Kim Jong-un's pride by shelving the nuclear issue for now, engaging in talks, and offering substantial aid and investments that boost North Korea's economy and helps its people 'help themselves.' This can break the cycle of threats and blackmail.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2013/0410/Obama-must-throw-North-Korea-a-curve-ball-a-helping-US-hand

[Beet]

We cannot REWARD a dictator threatening to nuke our homeland!

What message does that send to another nutjob... it tells them to acquire weapons of mass destruction and come to the brink of using them on us or our allies to get what they want... to suggest so is madness!!!

What about president Kennedy's decision to remove missiles from Turkey and Italy, and to publicly renounce any future in invasion of Cuba, to resolve the Cuban missile crisis?

[Beet]

The US can exploit Pyongyang and Kim Jong-un's pride by shelving the nuclear issue for now, engaging in talks, and offering substantial aid and investments that boost North Korea's economy and helps its people 'help themselves.' This can break the cycle of threats and blackmail.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2013/0410/Obama-must-throw-North-Korea-a-curve-ball-a-helping-US-hand

No, that would be phenomenally stupid. It's what Clinton did and then, surprise! In 2002 the North Korean nuclear program they'd begun during "sunshine" was revealed. The regime is happy to take aid from other countries, but it will never take any promises to disarm seriously.

Oh come on, that's a Republican talking point. The North had started a uranium enrichment program under the sunshine policy. While undoubtedly a violation of the Agreed Framework, the US was also in violation of the AF by that point. Also, it takes much longer to enrich uranium to the point of a nuclear bomb than it did the Yongbyon plutonium plant that North Korea shut down in the 1990s in response to the AF. As wikipedia said, "The Agreed Framework was successful in freezing North Korean plutonium production in Yongbyon plutonium complex for eight years From 1994 to December 2002." Also,  the AF was successful in keeping North Korea in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty until January 2003, by which time the U.S. had renounced the AF.

Any way you look at it, North Korea was more cooperative under the AF than it has ever been since.

[Beet]

We cannot REWARD a dictator threatening to nuke our homeland!

What message does that send to another nutjob... it tells them to acquire weapons of mass destruction and come to the brink of using them on us or our allies to get what they want... to suggest so is madness!!!

What about president Kennedy's decision to remove missiles from Turkey and Italy, and to publicly renounce any future in invasion of Cuba, to resolve the Cuban missile crisis?

We blockaded Cuba and demanded they remove their missiles... it was equitable- we didn't send a gift to Moscow with a pretty bow on top

And we'll demand they restore the peace treaty with South Korea, reduce their threat posture, shut down Yongbyon, and restart the Kaesong facilities.

[Beet]

Why does it matter if North Kores "has a victory"? What matters should be the millions of lives at stake if North Korea actually does something violent. That should be a higher priority than saving face.

[Beet]

Benj, you're just parroting the guy in the video Mikado posted; as I said above, I saw the video already and agree with it. That's why I don't think demanding that North Korea end it's nuclear program right now should be a prerequisite to talks. This is not about Kim portraying the US as an enemy, the content of North Koreas propaganda is not why this crisis is worrying. In fact, the precise need to give Kim a legitimating cause besides belligerence is why we should negotiate. The Norths justification for being will never be solely economics, but that doesn't mean that making North Korea richer wouldn't help them. The regime would like to be able to make the argument 'we can develop economically and remain the " pure race" at the same time.'

[Beet]

Benj, you're just parroting the guy in the video Mikado posted; as I said above, I saw the video already and agree with it. That's why I don't think demanding that North Korea end it's nuclear program right now should be a prerequisite to talks. This is not about Kim portraying the US as an enemy, the content of North Koreas propaganda is not why this crisis is worrying. In fact, the precise need to give Kim a legitimating cause besides belligerence is why we should negotiate. The Norths justification for being will never be solely economics, but that doesn't mean that making North Korea richer wouldn't help them. The regime would like to be able to make the argument 'we can develop economically and remain the " pure race" at the same time.'

Why not giving them all the gold in Fort Knox or all Pacific islands if they ask them?
That willingness to surrender to terrorists is disgusting.

I'd give them all the gold in the world if it would prevent a nuclear war from breaking out. Show me a terrorist with his hand on the nuclear trigger, and I'll negotiate with him any day.

[Beet]

Look, if the North Koreans are at a point where trade is expanding and their economy is doing better, the regime will start to take credit for it and it will become a *part* of the regime's propaganda machine. Never the sole part, but an ever increasingly important part. And then, North Korea will be less of a danger, because by threatening to cut off such trade, we'll have more leverage on them.

A comparison can be made to China. In the 1950s, Mao Zedong shocked a conference of international communists (including Nikita Khruschev) by suggesting that a nuclear war would be a good thing even if half the world's population was wiped out, because it would precipitate a communist revolution. Serious or not, it was indicative of the fact that China had very little to lose then by going to war. It was dirt poor and isolated. The regime's legitimacy was based off ideology and anti-Westernism, just as the North's is today. You won't see Xi Jinping suggesting such a thing today because, a war would collapse China's economy, which is what the regime's legitimacy is based on. Even a Cold War with the US would do the same thing. Thanks to China's economic opening up, the US now has leverage over China whereas it did not in the 1950s.

[Beet]

Benj, you're just parroting the guy in the video Mikado posted; as I said above, I saw the video already and agree with it. That's why I don't think demanding that North Korea end it's nuclear program right now should be a prerequisite to talks. This is not about Kim portraying the US as an enemy, the content of North Koreas propaganda is not why this crisis is worrying. In fact, the precise need to give Kim a legitimating cause besides belligerence is why we should negotiate. The Norths justification for being will never be solely economics, but that doesn't mean that making North Korea richer wouldn't help them. The regime would like to be able to make the argument 'we can develop economically and remain the " pure race" at the same time.'

Haven't watched the video, so I'm glad we agree. But it's not really about portraying the US as the enemy. It's about being heavily militarized in a way that convinces the people they're actually protecting them. That involves nuclear weapons programs and other militarization. They won't give that up for money.

Which is exactly why it shouldn't be a prerequisite for direct talks or trade, which is what the hawks are demanding. North Korea can be nudged in the right direction, but it'll take time. However, we owe it to the seriousness of the situation to make the strongest effort possible, which is a major effort and more than Bush or Obama have been doing. Particularly Obama.

[Beet]

Benj, you're just parroting the guy in the video Mikado posted; as I said above, I saw the video already and agree with it. That's why I don't think demanding that North Korea end it's nuclear program right now should be a prerequisite to talks. This is not about Kim portraying the US as an enemy, the content of North Koreas propaganda is not why this crisis is worrying. In fact, the precise need to give Kim a legitimating cause besides belligerence is why we should negotiate. The Norths justification for being will never be solely economics, but that doesn't mean that making North Korea richer wouldn't help them. The regime would like to be able to make the argument 'we can develop economically and remain the " pure race" at the same time.'

Why not giving them all the gold in Fort Knox or all Pacific islands if they ask them?
That willingness to surrender to terrorists is disgusting.

I'd give them all the gold in the world if it would prevent a nuclear war from breaking out. Show me a terrorist with his hand on the nuclear trigger, and I'll negotiate with him any day.

That just encourages more terrorists.

[Beet]

I uhh really don't relish the idea of nuclear war (understatement I know), but if I'm reading some of the posts correctly...what's the point of these sanctions if we're just going to fold? A pretty bad bluff?

Sanctions are pointless, man. How long have sanctions been in place against North Korea? Iran? Cuba? Tell me one case where sanctions were the decisive factor in turning an evil dictatorship with the ability to get nuclear weapons into giving up those weapons. Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gadhafi, and probably soon Bashar Assad... these guys aren't stupid. They know having nukes helps protect them.

If a country is determined to get nukes, and it has the capability, then there are two options. A) We can bomb the sh!t of them. See: Israel, Iraq 1982. B) They're going to get them! Sanctions aren't going to do jack. We should have bombed the sh!t out of North Korea maybe 15 years ago (maybe), but now it's too late. What else are we going to do but accept their nuclear program? Invade? I don't see any other choice.

[Beet]

I don't see how anyone can do anything other than assume that absent military action, the regime will survive and will one day have ICBMs clearly capable of hitting the U.S.

That said, I have read some pretty dire descriptions of what an Allied strike on North Korea could entail, in terms of the North's ability to do damage to South Korea. And that was several years ago, when the North's nuclear capabilities weren't really strong enough to be factored in. A president who makes a decision to strike North Korea, even if he is 100% confident in our ability to take out the North's nuclear strike capability before it is able to use it, has to know that he may be signing the death warrant of thousands of South Koreans. A strike on North Korea should have been seriously considered years ago, but I really wonder whether the window has already closed. But I'd like to hear an informed analysis. That guy seanobr was pretty knowledgeable, but he doesn't seem to be around any more.

[Beet]

South Korea is way less worried than you are, Beet.

A lot of South Koreans live in a bubble. They think North Korea is another world. It's not even real to them. They should be pretty damned worried.

Here's a good article from 2005, when the North was a lot less powerful and belligerent than today.http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/07/north-korea-the-war-game/304029/
Read that and tell me you're not worried.

[Beet]

The South Koreans honestly make me sicker than anyone in this whole sad charade except for the North Koreans. It's their own damned country, and they've allowed this problem to fester for decades while (according to what I've read/heard anyway) coming up with airheaded excuses for the North's behavior. They've become a fat, complacent pig, who has been sitting next to a wolf for 50 years and because nothing's happened in 50 years, fat complacent pig has forgotten it's a wolf right next to her. Fat complacent pig didn't realize wolf as just waiting for pig to become fat and complacent enough, before eating her. Fat complacent pig would rather sent Psy to the U.S. to insult American troops, like a teenager lashing out at her parents who are the only ones holding the wolf at bay.