What happened to North Korea?

Post Reply
fountainhall

Re: What happened to North Korea?

Post by fountainhall »

One point of clarification. When I mentioned Cuba, I was clear in referring not to North Korea and the USA but to China and the USA. The Cuban crisis was in essence the fear of Russian nukes being based so close to mainland USA. The US didn’t like that. Similarly China does not want the USA defending a unified Korea with the possibility of US nukes being based there so close to their own mainland. The Chinese leadership sees Asia as its patch. It wants US nukes nowhere nearby. There is a definite parallel.

Where the parallel goes off course is the fact that the US knew exactly where the missiles were located in Cuba. Taking them out would have been a piece of cake. Everyone agrees North Korea being mostly mountainous and massively larger – and, crucially, having had decades of experience preparing for what is happening today, is a totally different can of worms. There is no possibility that a first strike could wipe out anything like all the North’s missile sites and its command and control systems. And if Kim believes the US is out to destroy his country, he will fight back with everything at his disposal. The endgame will have begun – and its outcome does not bear thinking about.
Gaybutton wrote:I believe the USA, even if it has to act unilaterally, needs to do the same thing - if nothing else works, put a stop to North Korea before their nuclear war capability becomes operational.
I am sure many agree. But Munich was a bit like the Cuban crisis – in the sense that it involved two countries that are geographically extremely close. Does no one actually consider the billions who live in the Asian continent? Or the millions/tens of millions of Asians who would be murdered in such a conflagration, the more so when the number of American deaths would be a mere fraction of that?

I also agree Kim has no desire to do anything that would result either in his murder or the end of his country.

So Kim and the US administration have to sit down together, however unpalatable that sounds. The assumption in most posts so far is that will not work because it did not work before. Fair point. But as is well known, the circumstances then were very different. No doubt Kim 1 and Kim 2's ulterior motive was to stall so the country would get to the point they are at today. Where is the damage in at least starting direct talks? Isn’t that what has happened with Iran? And didn’t that produce a 6-party agreement that the Europeans at least are now capitalizing on, no matter how pissed off Trump is with it?
User avatar
Gaybutton
Posts: 21458
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:21 am
Location: Thailand
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 1306 times

Re: What happened to North Korea?

Post by Gaybutton »

fountainhall wrote:There is no possibility that a first strike could wipe out anything like all the North’s missile sites and its command and control systems.
How do you know?

I also don't believe casualty figures would be high at all except for North Koreans.

Again, I'll stress that I would be opposed to military force if it cannot be virtually guaranteed that the North Korean capability of retaliation could be prevented.

I still think the handwriting is on the wall that sooner or later it will come to military action. If that is going to happen, it needs to happen while North Korea can retaliate only with conventional weapons - before they can retaliate with nuclear weapons.

Once North Korea has nuclear strike capability, that's when it becomes too late to stop them. And then, what's to stop them from building up a major nuclear arsenal.

No thanks.

I am not among those who want to have to resort to military action, but I am also not among those who can accept North Korea having nuclear attack capability and the rest of us have to learn to live with it. No other nuclear capable countries are threatening the USA with a nuclear attack, but North Korea is constantly making such threats. Maybe it's nothing but bluster, but I wouldn't want to have to take that chance.

Both Kim and Trump are so unpredictable, it's anybody's guess what will happen and when.
fountainhall

Re: What happened to North Korea?

Post by fountainhall »

Gaybutton wrote:
fountainhall wrote:There is no possibility that a first strike could wipe out anything like all the North’s missile sites and its command and control systems.
How do you know?
The simple answer is: I don't! But we are all in a monstrous guessing game. No one can prove or disprove much. All we can do is speculate.

I suggest you take a look at the detailed geography of North Korea. This is no Iraq. Apart from the masses of fixed missile positions facing the South, Kim will certainly have thousands of missiles (although not the ballistic variety) on many mobile launchers hidden in tunnels throughout much of the country. Every military expert I have read or heard recently on news programmes agrees it is impossible to know where they all are located. Can you name anyone - apart from Trump - who has claimed that a first strike would totally neutralise Kim? It could wipe out much of his firepower, but short of bombing the entire country in one strike - a total impossibility - much will still be left. And in the face of a massive first strike, Kim would certainly fire off what was left. He'd have no alternative.

The other question is: if the US decides to use massive force or even nukes against North Korea, what will its ally China do?
User avatar
Gaybutton
Posts: 21458
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:21 am
Location: Thailand
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 1306 times

Re: What happened to North Korea?

Post by Gaybutton »

fountainhall wrote:The other question is: if the US decides to use massive force or even nukes against North Korea, what will its ally China do?
I believe China would do the same thing they've been doing - nothing. They would probably vehemently protest, perhaps cut many ties, but I don't foresee China going to a hot war with the USA over North Korea.

If it comes to that, this time I hope I'm right.

Things are heating up on both sides. The ominous thing is the USA ambassador to the UN is saying, "The time for talk is over." In my opinion, that's even more handwriting on the wall. Does that mean the USA is now unwilling to negotiate with North Korea even if North Korea expresses willingness to sit down for talks?

If this situation continues to heat up, where will things be six months or a year from now? I don't like what my crystal ball is telling me - and that's why I'm so hawkish about destroy them before they can destroy us - and not give a damn whether China or Russia likes it or not.

See: http://us.cnn.com/2017/07/31/asia/north ... index.html
RichLB
Posts: 1217
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 4:13 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 88 times

Re: What happened to North Korea?

Post by RichLB »

Time for one of my stupid questions. What is it the North Koreans want? It's hard to figure out what kind of negotiations could take place unless there's some understanding of what their end game is.
User avatar
Gaybutton
Posts: 21458
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:21 am
Location: Thailand
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 1306 times

Re: What happened to North Korea?

Post by Gaybutton »

RichLB wrote:What is it the North Koreans want?
After North Korea Missile Test, What Does Kim Jong Un Really Want?

by Alexander Smith, NBC News

Jul 5 2017

LONDON — Between issuing fiery threats to immolate the United States and being ridiculed in various Hollywood films, North Korea is often caricatured as irrational and ridiculous.

But for all its apocalyptic bluster, the country's pursuit of a nuclear weapons program — including its first intercontinental ballistic missile launch Tuesday — is based on what it believes are a rational set of goals.

The most important of these is self-preservation. The country says it wants a nuclear bomb because it saw what happened when Iraq and Libya surrendered their weapons of mass destruction: their regimes were toppled by Western-backed interventions. It wants to stop others, namely the administration of President Donald Trump, from toppling its totalitarian regime.

"They learned their lesson from Libya and Iraq that the sure-fire way to prevent an attack is to have weapons of mass destruction, rather than just bragging about it," said John Nilsson-Wright, a senior research fellow at Chatham House, a London-based think tank.

In January of last year, North Korea acknowledged that Iraq and Libya were a principal reason for the ramped-up arms program.

"History proves that powerful nuclear deterrence serves as the strongest treasured sword for frustrating outsiders' aggression," according to an editorial by the official KCNA news agency. "The Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq and the [Muammar] Gaddafi regime in Libya could not escape the fate of destruction after being deprived of their foundations for nuclear development and giving up nuclear programs of their own accord."

Meanwhile, the regime knows that Trump's team has not ruled out a military response to the North Korean problem. In a departure from President Barack Obama's policy of strategic patience, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson revealed in March that military action was "on the table."

If the threat of a regional conflict confined to Northeast Asia would not be enough to deter a U.S. attack, then the possibility of North Korea striking the West Coast of the United States might be.

In this sense, developing an intercontinental ballistic missile "is a predictable and rational step for North Korea's military programs," according to Andrea Berger, a senior research associate at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, in California.

"Pyongyang believes that holding continental U.S. targets at risk is essential for deterring the United States from initiating regime change, or from joining a conflict that starts in other ways," she said.

Trump and his team have struck a more combative tone than the Obama White House, with Tillerson saying in March that the past 20 years of diplomatic efforts had "failed."

If, in seeking self-preservation through a nuclear deterrent, North Korea ended up provoking a bullish White House into toppling its regime, its actions might look less wise.

But some experts, such as Nilsson-Wright, believe that "North Korea has called Trump's bluff."

He believes that, after the U.S. weighs the heavy casualties that would result, war is unlikely.

"I would be surprised if Trump is really thinking about military action," he said. "His advisers will be telling him that a conflict would wreak havoc across the peninsula."

North Korea, he added, has "probably handled things in a way that's not so much a miscalculation but a calculated cost-and-benefit analysis."

Another reason North Korea might want to build up its nuclear and missile programs is self-preservation from within.

Since its formation following World War II, North Korea has been ruled by the Kim dynasty. Its current ruler, Kim Jong Un, is the grandson of the country's founder, Kim Il Sung.

His primary goal is that "the Kim dynasty must endure," according to Cristina Varriale, a research analyst at the Royal United Services Institute, a London-based think tank.

The state-enforced ideology of the Kim dynasty is called "Juche," a blend of Marxism and ultra-nationalism with a focus on self-reliance of the state.

"One of their main goals is the continuation of their Juche policy," Varriale said.

Kim Jong Un appears to rule the country with an iron fist, clamping down on every aspect of public life and overseeing a regime that is accused of being the world's worst human rights abuser.

But he enjoys less unfettered devotion from the public than his father, Kim Jong Il, or his grandfather, according to Nilsson-Wright at Chatham House.

"So by promising to keep the country safe, and then developing these weapons, he is trying to demonstrate he can deliver on his promises," he said.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/north ... nt-n779636
fountainhall

Re: What happened to North Korea?

Post by fountainhall »

NBC wrote: LONDON —If, in seeking self-preservation through a nuclear deterrent, North Korea ended up provoking a bullish White House into toppling its regime, its actions might look less wise.

But some experts, such as Nilsson-Wright, believe that "North Korea has called Trump's bluff."

He believes that, after the U.S. weighs the heavy casualties that would result, war is unlikely.

"I would be surprised if Trump is really thinking about military action," he said. "His advisers will be telling him that a conflict would wreak havoc across the peninsula."

North Korea, he added, has "probably handled things in a way that's not so much a miscalculation but a calculated cost-and-benefit analysis."
I for one agree with this analysis. Kim 3 is after self-preservation. He sees that with a nuke or two he's more likely to guarantee that than without one. Kim looks like an idiot and behaves rather like one. But he's probably more a cool, calculating monster. He wants a deterrent as an assurance that his hermit kingdom is going to survive with hm at the top.
firecat69

Re: What happened to North Korea?

Post by firecat69 »

Here is an interesting read which we all should remember S Korea should have the most to say in this argument. Plus anyone who would make the argument that N Korea has not been to War in 60 years , thus not much to worry about should revisit the statistics of the number of people killed in the Korean War. I have no doubt they have a military force that would overrun S Korea and kill millions in a matter of days. Dopes like Pence who give speeches about the paltry 30,000 troops we have , needs to realize they are a symbol only and would be dead in 24 hours of the start of a new non nuclear war.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/ana ... ous-peace/
Jun

Re: What happened to North Korea?

Post by Jun »

fountainhall wrote:Kim 3 is after self-preservation. He sees that with a nuke or two he's more likely to guarantee that than without one. Kim looks like an idiot and behaves rather like one. But he's probably more a cool, calculating monster. He wants a deterrent as an assurance that his hermit kingdom is going to survive with hm at the top.
Timing missile tests for maximum provocation and making all sorts of threats makes no sense to me.
It would be much more sensible to say it's all for self defence & there will be no first use. Quietly test the odd missile when the US is occupied on some other issue.
fountainhall

Re: What happened to North Korea?

Post by fountainhall »

Jun wrote:Timing missile tests for maximum provocation and making all sorts of threats makes no sense to me.
It would be much more sensible to say it's all for self defence & there will be no first use. Quietly test the odd missile when the US is occupied on some other issue.
I believe it makes total sense. No point in making threats unless the USA and the world are perfectly well aware of what that threat is. Kim knows the USA is not going to use force - yet! So for the time being he can rattle his sabres at will. It enhances his bargaining power.
Post Reply