North Korea: What Next?

[The_Badger]

North Korea's latest nuclear test earlier today is no longer rhetoric but a serious consideration for the whole international community. Whilst I am not a Trump fan, I feel that Trump and the US military are under great pressure to resolve this before it escalates further.

 

Given that the US, Great Britain and others went to war with Iraq when there was no concrete evidence of weapons of mass destruction - I acknowledge that Iraq still had stockpiles of chemical agents to hand at the time - how do you feel this incident can be resolved given that North Korea has weapons and agents of mass destruction available now?

[Al_U_Card]

Surrender! Give Un the title of World Leader and tell him that you are awaiting instructions.

 

Likely the sound of his head exploding would register more than the power of his nuclear blasts... :lol:

[hrothgar]

I'm having a lot of trouble figuring out what a good solution even looks like let alone how to get to one...

[steve2005]

The North Koreans obviously are not coming to the table no matter what sanctions are imposed. Imposing sanctions is chasing diminishing effects, As is additional sanctions to have a large effect as there is so little left and can't stop all non-compliance.

The only one with enough clout to get North Korea to agree to negotiations is China. If can convince China still North Korea sometimes doesn't even listen to China, so situation very tough.

[kenberg]

The responsibility is enormous.

 

I guess 50 million is a low estimate of how many people died in World War II. The point is that when things go off the tracks an enormous number of people die. Nobody wanted 50 million to die. But they did. The fact that nobody wanted this to happen but still it happened shows what the stakes are.

 

I do not know how to get out of this. For starters, I think everyone should acknowledge what history plainly shows, that enormous tragedy and suffering can happen, far beyond what anyone intended. We always hope to keep this from happening, we do not always succeed. Once that is understood, clearly and forcefully understood, then perhaps a path out can be found. And perhaps it cannot.

[Al_U_Card]

The North Koreans obviously are not coming to the table no matter what sanctions are imposed. Imposing sanctions is chasing diminishing effects, As is additional sanctions to have a large effect as there is so little left and can't stop all non-compliance.

The only one with enough clout to get North Korea to agree to negotiations is China. If can convince China still North Korea sometimes doesn't even listen to China, so situation very tough.

From the Korean "conflict" ( IIRC, a UN police action that was US led) onward, has not NK been a satellite of the PRC? Were China to "ensure order" (read invade) would there be any outrage or resistance by the countries of the world?

So, a reasonable question would be: "Why w(d)ont they?" A convenient buffer and effective deflector of attention, NK's antics are more Chinese puppetry than regional agression.

[mike777]

Possible options include:

 

1) SK and Japan start to prepare to go nuclear in a very loud and open way

2) unification....NK leader is deified and given great respect and honor...not made president...something closer to an honored parent... or father figure for the country....the south adopts a much more socialist/welfare economy..

[hrothgar]

From the Korean "conflict" ( IIRC, a UN police action that was US led) onward, has not NK been a satellite of the PRC? Were China to "ensure order" (read invade) would there be any outrage or resistance by the countries of the world?

So, a reasonable question would be: "Why w(d)ont they?" A convenient buffer and effective deflector of attention, NK's antics are more Chinese puppetry than regional agression.

 

Well lets see...

 

There's the inconvenient little issue that that Koreans and the Chinese hate one another.

You are, of course, aware of the number of wars the two countries have fought down through the centuries...

 

Also, the big issue isn't coming up with some way to destroy North Korea. That's trivial.

 

From the Chinese perspective, the issue is how to do this without have millions of North Korean refuges invade China

From the US perspective, the issue is how to do so without have Seoul and all its inhabitants killed.

 

Last, but not least, its unclear if the Chinese are really all that bent out of shape about this...

This is much more of a distraction to the US than to the Chinese.

Their main goals are

 

1. Avoiding destabilization on their border

2. Avoiding unification of the Korean peninsula

[mike777]

We often hear that China is worried...extremely worried about Koreans flocking across the border in the case of war.

 

I can understand how this would be a headache in the relatively short run but I have my doubts millions of immigrants flooding into China is really that big of a concern....assuming it did happen.

 

If nothing else I would guess that a fear of fallout would be a larger concern?

[hrothgar]

I can understand how this would be a headache in the relatively short run but I have my doubts millions of immigrants flooding into China is really that big of a concern....assuming it did happen.

 

I'm sure that your drug addled ramblings are of enormous comfort to the Chinese government

[Al_U_Card]

North Koreans heading to their (as pointed out) ancestral enemy or toward their kin in the south?

It may well be that NK serves as the "example" of what "old style" commie regimes are like so that the new and improved PRC's capitalist tendencies are seen as a "great leap forward", apologies to Mao.

[Bermy]

North Korea's latest nuclear test earlier today is no longer rhetoric but a serious consideration for the whole international community. Whilst I am not a Trump fan, I feel that Trump and the US military are under great pressure to resolve this before it escalates further.

 

Given that the US, Great Britain and others went to war with Iraq when there was no concrete evidence of weapons of mass destruction - I acknowledge that Iraq still had stockpiles of chemical agents to hand at the time - how do you feel this incident can be resolved given that North Korea has weapons and agents of mass destruction available now?

 

While Im not a politician, nor an American, Im a bridge player so I really hope you have saved your Trump card for something special .

[The_Badger]

I'm having a lot of trouble figuring out what a good solution even looks like let alone how to get to one...

 

And that's precisely why I made this post on the forums. Trump will be damned if he does something, damned if he doesn't. I am not a fan of Tony Blair, the ex-Labour Leader in this country either, but when he was provided with information that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction he had to make a decision about Great Britain joining forces with the US to invade Iraq.

 

Here we have an enormously more difficult scenario, a despot leader with weapons sable-rattling so openly and aggressively, that action - whatever that entails - needs to be taken before it is too late.

 

I, too, have no idea what the best possible solution is to all this. China, despite its size, wealth and influence, seems powerless to rein in North Korea. And the North Korean leader seems so megalomaniacal that anything could happen...and probably will despite our best efforts.

[Zelandakh]

China, despite its size, wealth and influence, seems powerless to rein in North Korea.

It is not a lack of power but of will. On land in that terrain, the Chinese forces are at least the equal of the US - they could have taken the North Koreans out years ago if they had wanted to.

[P_Marlowe]

And that's precisely why I made this post on the forums. Trump will be damned if he does something, damned if he doesn't. I am not a fan of Tony Blair, the ex-Labour Leader in this country either, but when he was provided with information that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction he had to make a decision about Great Britain joining forces with the US to invade Iraq.

 

I am skipping the fact, that the information was fake.

And the result was, is? ISIS is one of the outcomes, and ISIS 2 is around the corner.

 

Lets assume, they go to war. Rememeber we are living in one world, if there is a nuclear blast, there are effects like nuclear rain, that

will affect the US / Europe, independet of the fact, if rockets can reach the US / Europe from North Korean.

Add to this the fact that production in South Korea will be busted. In the long run this may solve the trade deficit of the US with South Korean, and the nuclear winter will counter globale warming, in the short run, production in the US will suffer, where do they get the supply of parts, that come from South Korea.

It is also quite likely that additional wars break out, remeber Pakistan / India, both have nukes, if

there is unrest in China, in India, (there already is unrest in Pakistan), do you think they wont start a war?

 

The simple truth is, that some things can only be contained, and need to be resolved over time, and time means long timeframes decades /

centuries.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Al_U_Card]

The other regional "players" (SK, Japan and Russia) might just decide to act in concert and their actions would necessarily involve the US and China.

OTOH, having a source of fear and conflict plays into the hands of the usual suspects...will we ever learn?

[hrothgar]

FWIW, here is my big fear.

 

There is one relatively simple solution to the North Korea "problem".

 

The US could chose to launch a decapitation strike against the North Korea regime.

 

• Wait for an opportune time when you know where the NK leadership is
  
• "Nuke" that city (there's probably no reason to use an actual nuclear weapon
  
• Follow up by hitting as many NK military sites as possible
  

 

I suspect that the US could completely destroy the North Korea military with no short term risk what-so-ever to the US or Japan.

 

Of course, Seoul would get complete destroyed. And some significant portion of the city's 10 million inhabitants would be killed.

And, long term, this would have a devastating impact on our relations with China.

 

However, this would be a decisive choice.

One that would go down in history.

 

I am worried that the orange gorilla might find it attractive.

 

He's always been good at bankrupting his business parters.

I suspect that he is more than happy to gambled with other people's lives.

[ldrews]

FWIW, here is my big fear.

 

There is one relatively simple solution to the North Korea "problem".

 

The US could chose to launch a decapitation strike against the North Korea regime.

 

• Wait for an opportune time when you know where the NK leadership is
  
• "Nuke" that city (there's probably no reason to use an actual nuclear weapon
  
• Follow up by hitting as many NK military sites as possible
  

 

I suspect that the US could completely destroy the North Korea military with no short term risk what-so-ever to the US or Japan.

 

Of course, Seoul would get complete destroyed. And some significant portion of the city's 10 million inhabitants would be killed.

And, long term, this would have a devastating impact on our relations with China.

 

However, this would be a decisive choice.

One that would go down in history.

 

I am worried that the orange gorilla might find it attractive.

 

He's always been good at bankrupting his business parters.

I suspect that he is more than happy to gambled with other people's lives.

 

Yes, Trump's total disregard for other people's lives was evident in his handling of Hurricane Harvey.

[Al_U_Card]

Hmmmnnn, let's see:

 

We could Trump them (as at present)

 

We could finesse them....en passant.

 

We could initiate a coup, no scissors please, you could poke your eye out!

 

We could execute a squeeze and not the huggable moment kind.

 

We could endplay them by limiting their options.

 

Inevitably, however, the end game is likely to be unpalatable to the kibs...

[hrothgar]

Yes, Trump's total disregard for other people's lives was evident in his handling of Hurricane Harvey.

 

Hitler loved dogs

[kenberg]

As I have often noted, hardly originally, the history of the world is replete with violence, suffering brutality and death at the hands of others. A few observations.

 

American school children are taught, at least I was in the 1940s, to admire Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty or give me death". Or consider Winston Churchill's

"We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"

A very highly regarded speech, and I agree.

 

A common thread is that two possibilities, and only two, are offered. We will succeed, or we will die trying. If two opposing forces each take this view, a lot of people are going to die. If one side takes this view and the other doesn't, the side that does can get away with a lot.

 

There is a great deal of asymmetry. I am happily living my life, my main thought about North Korea is that I wish it would just go away. It won't. What does Kim want? Well, I don't know exactly, but surely it involves much greater power and influence for North Korea. To what extent is he prepared to go to the two options of either success or destruction? A good question, I doubt that anyone knows the answer. It is historical fact that leaders can go that route.

 

We, here in the good old USA, want stability. Of course we do, things are pretty good for us as they are, so let's keep it that way. This seems like the right idea, for us. Kim wants change. He wants more. Usually, giving someone who wants more just a bit more in the hope that this satisfies him doesn't work. We could cite Munich on this, often that is done, or we could ask Native Americans.

 

The fat is definitely in the fire and I do not think it is clear, or even all that likely, that there is a peaceful way out. The consequences will be awful for everyone, not only the direct participants. I hope that we can find a way. Recognizing that failure will be a horror is where we have to start, but it may not suffice.

 

As you can see, I am a bit pessimistic.

[ldrews]

Hitler loved dogs

 

So did St. Anthony, the patron saint of animals.

[Al_U_Card]

Having no oil and no strategic value (SK is already a US "friend"), all that they have left is provocation. Having seen the result of US intervention and subsequent prosperity (SK, Vietnam etc.) perhaps the Glorious Leader is simply looking for a handout? All of the other oppressive dictators have gotten rich and prosperous if they are part of the US sphere of influence and maybe he just wants his slice of the pie? . The Chinese have not been much of a help so far...

[The_Badger]

North Korea Population Growth

 

The famine of the 1990s is likely to have had a severe bearing on life expectancy in the country - not so much because of deaths at the time but because of the effect of malnutrition that follows people through the rest of their lives. In 2009, the CIA World Factbook claimed that the national average stood at 63.8 years which, in global terms is pretty poor roughly comparable to former Soviet countries in Central Asia such as Turkmenistan (also fabled for its repressive government) and Kazakhstan.

Add in an infant mortality rate that is 12.5 times higher than that of its neighbour South Korea and the overall picture is actually pretty grim. The Government is certainly conscious that North Korea is outmatched by the population of South Korea, its southern neighbour and great rival, and has launched a number of drives to boost the total population. So far those drives have had limited effect the current growth rate according to US estimates is around 0.5% per annum, which makes North Korea one of the slowest growing countries in the world.

 

Maybe these statistics (taken from worldpopulationreview.com) explain to some extent the bellicose posturing of Kim Jong-un. The country is practically "dying on its feet" compared to South Korea. To admit that communism has failed would be beneath him, perhaps. And the only way 'to prove' this isn't so is to take on the world's largest capitalist country in a rhetorical dogfight.

[hrothgar]

So did St. Anthony, the patron saint of animals.

 

Sorry once again. (I keep forgetting that I need to write at a third grade level when hectoring you)

 

Lets try this again

 

Hilter was a bad man

He killed many many innocent people.

 

But Hitler sometimes did things that were not bad.

We can not not point to a single good act and say "Hitler Trump is a good person".

 

And that is what your post did.