WTF Are the North Koreans Smoking Now?

[Terralthra]

Indeed, the Wikipedia article on the 2003 invasion has a well-sourced section on how the Iraqi government attempted to engage in diplomacy and concessions to avoid war:

In December 2002, a representative of the head of Iraqi Intelligence,the General Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, contacted former Central Intelligence Agency Counterterrorism Department head Vincent Cannistraro stating that Hussein "knew there was a campaign to link him to 11 September and prove he had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs)." Cannistraro further added that "the Iraqis were prepared to satisfy these concerns. I reported the conversation to senior levels of the state department and I was told to stand aside and they would handle it." Cannistraro stated that the offers made were all "killed" by the George W. Bush administration because they allowed Hussein to remain in power, an outcome viewed as unacceptable. It has been suggested that Saddam Hussein was prepared to go into exile if allowed to keep $1 billion USD.

Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak's national security advisor, Osama El-Baz, sent a message to the U.S. State Department that the Iraqis wanted to discuss the accusations that the country had weapons of mass destruction and ties with al-Qaeda. Iraq also attempted to reach the U.S. through the Syrian, French, German, and Russian intelligence services.

In January 2003, Lebanese-American Imad Hage met with Michael Maloof of the U.S. Department of Defense's Office of Special Plans. Hage, a resident of Beirut, had been recruited by the department to assist in the War on Terror. He reported that Mohammed Nassif, a close aide to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, had expressed frustrations about the difficulties of Syria contacting the United States, and had attempted to use him as an intermediary. Maloof arranged for Hage to meet with civilian Richard Perle, then head of the Defense Policy Board.

In January 2003, Hage met with the chief of Iraqi intelligence's foreign operations, Hassan al-Obeidi. Obeidi told Hage that Baghdad did not understand why they were being targeted, and that they had no WMDs. He then made the offer for Washington to send in 2000 FBI agents to confirm this. He additionally offered petroleum concessions, but stopped short of having Hussein give up power, instead suggesting that elections could be held in two years. Later, Obeidi suggested that Hage travel to Baghdad for talks; he accepted.

Later that month, Hage met with General Habbush and Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz. He was offered top priority to U.S. firms in oil and mining rights, UN-supervised elections, U.S. inspections (with up to 5,000 inspectors), to have al-Qaeda agent Abdul Rahman Yasin (in Iraqi custody since 1994) handed over as a sign of good faith, and to give "full support for any U.S. plan" in the Arab-Israeli peace process. They also wished to meet with high-ranking U.S. officials. On 19 February, Hage faxed Maloof his report of the trip. Maloof reports having brought the proposal to Jamie Duran. The Pentagon denies that either Wolfowitz or Rumsfeld, Duran's bosses, were aware of the plan.

On 21 February, Maloof informed Duran in an email that Richard Perle wished to meet with Hage and the Iraqis if the Pentagon would clear it. Duran responded "Mike, working this. Keep this close hold." On 7 March, Perle met with Hage in Knightsbridge, and stated that he wanted to pursue the matter further with people in Washington (both have acknowledged the meeting). A few days later, he informed Hage that Washington refused to let him meet with Habbush to discuss the offer (Hage stated that Perle's response was "that the consensus in Washington was it was a no-go"). Perle told The Times, "The message was 'Tell them that we will see them in Baghdad.' "

Particularly telling is the Iraqi offer to support any US plan in the Arab-Israeli conflict. What that indicates to me is that the Iraqi government was so perplexed at the accusations of WMD and abetting the 9/11 attacks that they thought all of the talk of invasion was really to try and extort some other political concessions. Almost like some in this thread are saying: that NK's nuclear threats are just posturing for further concessions and political grist for the NK media mill?

[CaptHawkeye]

Hawkeye, that's the whole conversation you're referring to right there. It does not mean what you think it means. I get that you're mad over the Iraq War, but how about we both agree that chemical-imbalance posting is a bad idea?

Everything I said that you highlighted makes perfect sense. If you don't understand what i'm getting at too god damn bad.

OK. How, exactly do North Korea's circumstances justify threatening to massacre their neighbors every couple of years and unilaterally assert that ceasefires are over? Why does this justification not apply to the USSR?

Massacres every year? Pleeeeease. You have a penchant for the dramatic but only when it's over foreigners. Americans do this same exact shit, and it's one excuse after another. It'd be one thing if you were at least surprised to learn many nations despise America. But you pretty clearly know they do, and just don't care.

If you don't have an answer for that question, then cut the posturing. You're making a fool of yourself.

I am have noted your dishonest, condescending, apologetic attitude and I will remember your behavior in this thread in any future arguments we have.

The false belief that Hussein had WMD was critical to Bush's entire strategy. If Hussein pulled that out from under him, I think the Bush administration would have wound up flailing around like a Three Stooges routine, not just shrugging and carrying on. But obviously you have super-secret recordings of Darth Cheney making other plans...

You just don't understand just how far reaching the Bush Administration's power was, and how determined Cheney and Bush were to make war with Iraq. Their have been mountains of books and testimonies written about the elaborate system of cronyism and lies Bush and Cheney built. If you really think that a lack of WMDs would have stopped a course of action this machine was committed to make, sucks for you. I remember when I was that naive about politics.

As for the rest of your (now incorrect) drivel about Hussein's decision making, not interested. It's distracting, it's wrong, and I just don't care about the grand strategy ruminations of a guy on the internet.

Even granting that the invasion was wrong, which I've agreed with pretty much since it happened, that still makes you sound like a moron. What will you do for an encore, die fighting the police to stop them from searching your house for shit you know isn't there?

Ah I see, "We were obviously wrong, but fuck anyone who says we were wrong."

Which Americans? Where? Me? Broomstick? Who the fuck are you talking about?

Like I said, i'm not spoon feeding you this. Your consistent belittling I will remember.

Or are these the imaginary Murca-freedom-idiots who live in your head?

I'm talking to one right now.

As far as I can tell, most Americans are largely laughing the whole thing off; in my area we're a lot more worried about the sequester than we are about a North Korean missile landing on us. Despite the fact that both of those things are pointed straight at us, if you believe the news.

The issue is that "most" Americans are not who our leaders listen too. They listen to the vocal. Yet again you are substituting your own misunderstandings of the American political system with accusations that I just don't know what i'm talking about.

You think I'm "changing the subject." That's not the problem. The problem is that I am not bound to treat your delusions and sheer fucking contempt as though they were facts and reality.

Yeah we're just supposed to treat your (clearly wrong) delusions as reality.

This kind of ignorant, irreesponsible approach to nuclear strategy is exactly why everyone in the civilized world with any brains has been worrying about nuclear proliferation for the past fifty or sixty years. The more nuclear powers there are, and the more marginal and loopy the states that have them*, the more risk there is that hundreds of thousands of people will die in flames. If you don't grasp why people think this is a bad thing, please start reading books on the subject and leave us alone until the ignorance passes.

Annnnnd cue tough-guy posturing. Pssst, they figured out 100 years ago that brinksmanship is not how adults should do politics. But I guess "making the tough decisions" just makes you feel empowered right? God I hope no one in Washington is dumb enough to listen to you.

*By this standard, Stalinist Russia was not loopy. Tyrannical yes, killing millions of people yes, invading and occupying several countries against their will, even more than Bush-era US, yes. Loopy? No. Stalinist Russia having nukes was actually not such a bad thing. Maoist China having nukes could have been bad- remember the Cultural Revolution- except Mao sobered up when he realized what the weapons were capable of. I really hope the North Korean government follows Mao's example.

I didn't think you could sum up your misunderstandings of international politics so acutely. But then you think anyone who doesn't like MAD is a horrible person. Even worse, you're not the only person on this board who feels that way.

[Alkaloid]

Tell you what ziggy, go back, read what I actually wrote, rather than what you and Jester would like to think I wrote, then come back to me.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well, let's see Alkaloid, if you insist on being a dishonest little shit, let's just review what you said in the post I replied to:

Well lets be honest here, because I didn't say the US government, I said Americans on the internet. Unless that all of a sudden includes the POTUS or the joint chiefs of staff or any reasonably highly ranked diplomat, I'm pretty sure the doesn't mean 'the US government is panty clutching.'

So here you are claiming rather plainly that Americans on the internet are, as you say "panty clutching." How else should I interpret this statement?

As for how I think the behaviour demonstrated by the stoic, freedom loving Americans I normally find scattered around the internet could be described as 'panty clutching,'

And you repeat it again, here. How else should I interpret this statement?

well, I fail to see how the infinitesimally small increase in the chance of any American dying from a North Korean nuclear strike, even if we are super generous and say they have 6 nuclear armed ICBMs capable of hitting any part of the US ready to go right now, justifies the sheer mass of Americans I've seen demanding 'more knowledgeable' people than themselves (spoiler: these people are not at all knowledgeable) to <snip>

(Emphasis mine)

Here you are further elaborating on your point, and again you make the claim that Americans are overreacting. You certainly seem to think it is a significant proportion of Americans, or at least a very large number, due to your use of "sheer mass." How else should I interpret this statement?

But hey, if say, Coffee should threaten to fly around the world and punch me in the dick any time in the near future I'll be sure to remember that frantically phoning the police and demanding to know how they will protect me from this fist toting madman, while flinging pictures of my carrion bird of choice, emblazoned with witty phrases indicating how muscular I am, and how willing I am to murder his entire family in order to pre-empt this dick punching is not a massive over reaction.

So here you are making an analogy. It is, again, plainly stated and obvious what the implication is. You think it would be an overreaction for you to react in such a way to something as innocuous as a threat from Coffee. Therefore, you think that this "sheer mass" of "panty-clutching" Americans are overreacting to the relatively innocuous threat posed by the North Korean government. How else should I interpret this statement?

Is there any other way to interpret these statements without reading your mind? No?

So it is pretty obvious that you think that there is a large and powerful American knee-jerk response to this. To which I responded with my previous post (and, in fact, my only post in this thread). In case you misunderstood what MY point was, it is that you need to justify your claim that Americans are, by and large, overreacting to this issue.

I have not seen anybody overreact to this. Either in real life or on the Internet. The news stories about this have been fairly cursory, and the commentary measured. I don't see any posts in this thread that I would interpret as an overreaction, from Americans or otherwise. Note that this is completely anecdotal: I haven't personally experienced this, so I am assuming it isn't happening. However, it would be insincere of me to then make sweeping generalization about a "sheer mass"of Americans because I haven't made careful efforts to make sure that my personal experience is representative of anything meaningful.

Do you get the point yet? Either justify your statement that some large group of Americans are overreacting to this, or admit that your post served no purpose other than a generic LOL AMERICANS SUCK troll.

[Mr. Coffee]

Wait, why am I being used as a international politics analogy? I am puzzled by this..

[Broomstick]

You're much more powerful than you realize, Mr. Coffee?

No, really, you were used as an analogy in a prior post, that's all.

[Mr. Coffee]

You're much more powerful than you realize, Mr. Coffee?

No, really, you were used as an analogy in a prior post, that's all.

I suppose I could make a better analogy, but I'll he damned if I can figure out how shaving my balls could tie into US/DPRK relations.

[mr friendly guy]

So because North Korea routinely makes death threats and then doesn't carry them out, that makes their death threats tolerable?

Not in itself. However, in terms of believability its much less than when the US threatens to use military force. If people have to live with the US threat (keep in mind this is the nation that uses drone strikes on its own citizens and whose president has a kill list without judicial review) then what is all the angst against NK? There seems to be a fear culture permeating America. This doesn't seem to permeate the rest of the Anglosphere, which is why some of us non Americans find you guys going ape shit very strange.

[CaptHawkeye]

Despite all the bragging that America isn't like how it was during the Bush years, I don't see any improvement. Jester's attitude is fascinating to me, it's revealing that Americans possess virtually no perspective on the world outside their own borders. Not a single foreign friend of mine is more concerned about Kim's threats than America's reaction to those threats. America is rarely on the receiving end of its own foreign policy fuck ups, so everyone here just quickly forgot how much Iraq and the Cold War poisoned the well. Many think electing Obama entitled us to forgiveness, but his foreign policy approach is just as right-wing as Bush's was.

[Guardsman Bass]

As an American, I can't imagine either the North Korean government starting a guaranteed suicidal conflict, or the US willingly starting the messy conflict and expensive post-war reconstruction it would entail - and no, this isn't Bush and Iraq back in 2002. So I don't see what the big deal is - it's just the North Koreans stirring up shit in response to sanctions, and seeing how far they can push it without actually starting a war.

[Simon_Jester]

As for how I think the behaviour demonstrated by the stoic, freedom loving Americans I normally find scattered around the internet could be described as 'panty clutching,' well, I fail to see how the infinitesimally small increase in the chance of any American dying from a North Korean nuclear strike, even if we are super generous and say they have 6 nuclear armed ICBMs capable of hitting any part of the US ready to go right now, justifies the sheer mass of Americans I've seen demanding 'more knowledgeable' people than themselves (spoiler: these people are not at all knowledgeable) to tell them what a nuclear war with North Korea would be like, or reassure them by telling them how big and capable the US military is, or how incompetent everyone born in North Korea has been since the beginning of time. I especially don't see how it's justifiable when the people most likely to be nuked by the North Koreans, South Koreans, largely just shrugged their shoulders and said well it's North Korea, they do this from time to time.

Since I was totally unaware that such people were doing anything anywhere, I hope you'll excuse me if I thought you were talking about someone whose activities I were aware of. I.e. my own, or the US government.

Sorry about the confusion.

Indeed the entire public discussion at the time was around the WMDs and where they were and if they existed, because people took the US statements as actual statements. Few realised at that time just how dishonest they were, and how thin a pretext the lies formed. I remember at that time that many already believed no WMDs existed, and many people would say that Iraq should be invaded regardless. It was a complex time, and Powells disgrace in the UN (and the result of the invasion) is really a tragic signpost to confirmation bias and bullshit. Oh well, only a few thousand Americans (and a few million Iraqis) suffered. No big deal.

And yeah, idiots like Simple Simmo have had that reality erased. And people say there's no new fascism.

[blink]

I had quite clearly remembered there were no WMD. I had entirely forgotten Saddam throwing open his doors, and not just the US but quite a number of other nations deciding to invade anyway. Under the circumstances, I rather agree that I deserve to be smarmed at.

Have been against the war from the beginning- but I had, again, honestly forgotten that Saddam started letting inspectors back in again. I am entirely wrong. Consider all my statements on the matter retracted and dumb, although you were probably already doing so.

Particularly telling is the Iraqi offer to support any US plan in the Arab-Israeli conflict. What that indicates to me is that the Iraqi government was so perplexed at the accusations of WMD and abetting the 9/11 attacks that they thought all of the talk of invasion was really to try and extort some other political concessions. Almost like some in this thread are saying: that NK's nuclear threats are just posturing for further concessions and political grist for the NK media mill?

This is not encouraging. Since the US actually did mean to invade Iraq, the posturing invasion-talk was very much at face value.

We can (like Saddam Hussein) try to convince ourselves that the person threatening us doesn't really mean it, and is doing it as some kind of indirect posturing gambit. But with his example firmly in mind, we might not want to bet everything on that conviction. Certainly I wouldn't want to if I were a South Korean, and I have a few dear friends who are.

OK. How, exactly do North Korea's circumstances justify threatening to massacre their neighbors every couple of years and unilaterally assert that ceasefires are over? Why does this justification not apply to the USSR?

Massacres every year? Pleeeeease. You have a penchant for the dramatic but only when it's over foreigners. Americans do this same exact shit, and it's one excuse after another. It'd be one thing if you were at least surprised to learn many nations despise America. But you pretty clearly know they do, and just don't care.

Threats.

The US does not threaten to burn someone's capital to the ground every few years. No, seriously, they don't. The US does all manner of other horrible things it ought not do, but it doesn't have this habit of trying to intimidate Canada every three years by threatening to burn down Toronto.

Trying to redirect the blame for this, so that it mutates from "North Korea is waving its nukes around and acting like a bunch of twitchy morons" to "the US is evil because [litany of American crimes]" will not change the reality. This is why nuclear proliferation is bad, and would be bad even if the US had never existed.

If you don't have an answer for that question, then cut the posturing. You're making a fool of yourself.

I am have noted your dishonest, condescending, apologetic attitude and I will remember your behavior in this thread in any future arguments we have.

As far as I can tell, you're using "the answer is obvious, but you are too stupid-arrogant and I don't like your attitude" as an excuse to not answer questions. I thought that was against the rules here.

This kind of ignorant, irreesponsible approach to nuclear strategy is exactly why everyone in the civilized world with any brains has been worrying about nuclear proliferation for the past fifty or sixty years. The more nuclear powers there are, and the more marginal and loopy the states that have them*, the more risk there is that hundreds of thousands of people will die in flames. If you don't grasp why people think this is a bad thing, please start reading books on the subject and leave us alone until the ignorance passes.

Annnnnd cue tough-guy posturing. Pssst, they figured out 100 years ago that brinksmanship is not how adults should do politics. But I guess "making the tough decisions" just makes you feel empowered right? God I hope no one in Washington is dumb enough to listen to you.

I was wrong about some really important points in our last post, but this is just more chemical-imbalance posting.

Brinksmanship is exactly how not to do politics, that's my point. Brinksmanship is when you push a crisis situation as hard as you can until it is just short of blowing up in your face, in hopes that the other side will back down. What the North Koreans are doing right now is the best textbook case of brinksmanship in years: they are making extremely blatant, ambiguous threats, rattling the saber as hard as it can be rattled. So far we don't know what they want, but they sure want something badly.

As always, the problem with brinksmanship is what happens if someone calls your bluff one time too many, or mistakes your final serious warning for another slightly more intense bluff. But somehow, you look at my criticism of North Korean brinksmanship and translate it into a refutation of my own position. What's going on?


Now, you seem to have decided I think this means "we should attack North Korea." Otherwise, your comments about me doing tough-guy posturing make no sense at all. I don't.

But for everyone who ever said "the North Koreans just want to be secure, and they need the bomb for that..." this is the problem. This is the other side of that coin, that Asia's new nuclear power insists on going through at least one stupidly dangerous round of brinksmanship before they sober up enough to not be as big a danger to themselves as they are to a foreign enemy.

The US damn near blew up half the world this way in the Cuban Missile Crisis, with full Soviet cooperation in bringing things to the edge. Fortunately both powers learned their lessons, and nothing North Korea can do will make them that dangerous.

*By this standard, Stalinist Russia was not loopy. Tyrannical yes, killing millions of people yes, invading and occupying several countries against their will, even more than Bush-era US, yes. Loopy? No. Stalinist Russia having nukes was actually not such a bad thing. Maoist China having nukes could have been bad- remember the Cultural Revolution- except Mao sobered up when he realized what the weapons were capable of. I really hope the North Korean government follows Mao's example.

I didn't think you could sum up your misunderstandings of international politics so acutely. But then you think anyone who doesn't like MAD is a horrible person. Even worse, you're not the only person on this board who feels that way.

Raving, gibbering nonsense.

MAD is terrible and dangerous. I'd much rather have mutually assured impenetrable ABM networks, with nuclear weapons held in reserve as a tactical countermeasure against invasion. Or something of that order. But in reality, whether I like MAD or not it's a factor in play. That's why countries like Iran and North Korea (and soon, Japan and South Korea and probably Saudi Arabia) want nuclear bombs in the first place: the deterrent effect. And yet, MAD is still bad.

But while MAD is bad, nuclear war is even worse. Anything that makes nuclear war more likely is an incredibly bad idea unless it's got one hell of a conventional payoff. And one of the minimum conditions for avoiding nuclear war is that you NOT place any nuclear-armed enemy in a position where they might reasonably think they must attack you or die.

Iran is counting on this- so that no one will interfere with them once they have the bomb. North Korea is counting on it. So why does North Korea forget that basic observation when it comes time to make his own neighbors nervous?

So because North Korea routinely makes death threats and then doesn't carry them out, that makes their death threats tolerable?

Not in itself. However, in terms of believability its much less than when the US threatens to use military force. If people have to live with the US threat (keep in mind this is the nation that uses drone strikes on its own citizens and whose president has a kill list without judicial review) then what is all the angst against NK? There seems to be a fear culture permeating America. This doesn't seem to permeate the rest of the Anglosphere, which is why some of us non Americans find you guys going ape shit very strange.

What North Korean death threats lack in credibility they make up for in sheer indiscriminate bloodthirstiness.

The US has this presidential kill list, but you will note that the drone campaign does not fly over any country who's explicitly trying to chase it out. Nor is it in any danger of killing nearly as many people as a nuclear attack on Seoul would kill.

Now, if the US made a regular habit of ending sentences with "or else we will use B-1s to carpet-bomb your city to dust!" the exchange of threats would be more credible. And if the US did that to randomly chosen countries which had not attacked it in decades, and did so every few years... yes, the US would be acting in a grotesque and ridiculous way. And you wouldn't have to be from a 'fear culture' to complain about it.

Despite all the bragging that America isn't like how it was during the Bush years, I don't see any improvement. Jester's attitude is fascinating to me, it's revealing that Americans possess virtually no perspective on the world outside their own borders. Not a single foreign friend of mine is more concerned about Kim's threats than America's reaction to those threats.

That's probably because they actually think the US is likely to do anything violent about this, which means they're delusional. It isn't happening; anyone who is so blind to American internal politics that they expect some kind of bizarre preemptive attack on North Korea right about now isn't qualified to hold an opinion.

Fully generic lists of the Litany of American Crimes will not change that.

[CaptHawkeye]

As an American, I can't imagine either the North Korean government starting a guaranteed suicidal conflict, or the US willingly starting the messy conflict and expensive post-war reconstruction it would entail - and no, this isn't Bush and Iraq back in 2002. So I don't see what the big deal is - it's just the North Koreans stirring up shit in response to sanctions, and seeing how far they can push it without actually starting a war.

I think it was brought up earlier in the thread, but more than likely this is just a way for Kim Jong Un to cut back on the military's budget. By blustering about the awesomeness of their probably not-at-all awesome nuclear program (relative to potential opponents) they're politically passing the buck of national defense away from their conventional forces to their smaller and cheaper nuclear force. Which finally gives them an out for cutting back the size of their military without appearing to be weakening or giving ground to the west.

As far as I can tell, you're using "the answer is obvious, but you are too stupid-arrogant and I don't like your attitude" as an excuse to not answer questions.

Condescending and lying now. I will most definitely be scrolling by your posts from now on.

I thought that was against the rules here.

You're pathetic.

That's probably because they actually think the US is likely to do anything violent about this, which means they're delusional. It isn't happening; anyone who is so blind to American internal politics that they expect some kind of bizarre preemptive attack on North Korea right about now isn't qualified to hold an opinion.

You're also insane.

[mr friendly guy]

What North Korean death threats lack in credibility they make up for in sheer indiscriminate bloodthirstiness.

The US has this presidential kill list, but you will note that the drone campaign does not fly over any country who's explicitly trying to chase it out. Nor is it in any danger of killing nearly as many people as a nuclear attack on Seoul would kill.

Now, if the US made a regular habit of ending sentences with "or else we will use B-1s to carpet-bomb your city to dust!" the exchange of threats would be more credible. And if the US did that to randomly chosen countries which had not attacked it in decades, and did so every few years... yes, the US would be acting in a grotesque and ridiculous way. And you wouldn't have to be from a 'fear culture' to complain about it.

Mate, if you find someone making threats more scarier than the people who have actually carried out their respective threats, then I don't think anything I could say will help you. Except maybe this.

[Prannon]

I think it was brought up earlier in the thread, but more than likely this is just a way for Kim Jong Un to cut back on the military's budget. By blustering about the awesomeness of their probably not-at-all awesome nuclear program (relative to potential opponents) they're politically passing the buck of national defense away from their conventional forces to their smaller and cheaper nuclear force. Which finally gives them an out for cutting back the size of their military without appearing to be weakening or giving ground to the west.

This is the most sense that anyone has made of North Korea's actions in this thread, or in the news for that matter. The Norks' actions are almost always about saving face in some regard or another, irresponsible and stupid though it may appear.

[Thanas]

Threats.

The US does not threaten to burn someone's capital to the ground every few years. No, seriously, they don't. The US does all manner of other horrible things it ought not do, but it doesn't have this habit of trying to intimidate Canada every three years by threatening to burn down Toronto.

No, instead it threatens and carries out invasions of those it deems evil.

Seriously, you don't get why people think the nation that invades two countries (one on lies and foolish aggression to boot) and then destabilized the entire region is more threatening to the rest of the world than the crazy poor guy who randomly kills a few people each year and then yells about how big and strong he is while his military is starving?

[Simon_Jester]

Thing is, this isn't even about "who's worse," except in the minds of the people who refuse to even have a conversation about North Korea because they're too busy chanting the Litany of American Crimes. "Who's worse" is a whole different argument that should stand or fall on its own merits.

At the moment, the brute fact is that North Korea routinely threatens to obliterate cities containing millions of people. That's something no nuclear power does. This is not about the US, people. It's a routine thing that all the other nuclear powers have gotten the hang of: you don't make casual nuclear threats because it's too provocative.

Why is it so important that we try to interrupt and counteract that observation with "but the US is worse! North Korea is just blustering!" This reeks of tribalism to me.

[Mr. Coffee]

At the moment, the brute fact is that North Korea routinely threatens to obliterate cities containing millions of people. That's something no nuclear power does. This is not about the US, people. It's a routine thing that all the other nuclear powers have gotten the hang of: you don't make casual nuclear threats because it's too provocative.

Wait, didn't us and the Russians spend most of the cold war pretty much doing exactly that?

[Simon_Jester]

What, casual nuclear threats?

No; in fact, either power would usually freak out entirely if the other one decided to make a nuclear threat. There was nothing casual about the Cuban Missile Crisis, for example.

It's not like there were official US government publications that announced we were at war with the USSR and Moscow was to be made into a sea of fire.

[Broomstick]

Well, Reagan did make that one comment in very poor taste... but that was towards the end of the Cold War. Not that that in any way excuses it, but by that point there were so many communication lines and controls in place the risk of that comment starting something Very Bad Indeed was small. Thank goodness.

Nuclear war is just one of those things I don't find funny.

[Lord Revan]

At the moment, the brute fact is that North Korea routinely threatens to obliterate cities containing millions of people. That's something no nuclear power does. This is not about the US, people. It's a routine thing that all the other nuclear powers have gotten the hang of: you don't make casual nuclear threats because it's too provocative.

Wait, didn't us and the Russians spend most of the cold war pretty much doing exactly that?

I hate to break it to you, but as others have pointed out the Cold War was a totally different animal, during cold war both sides were "we're not gonna start a nuclear war but we will end it" which is one of the reasons it stayed in a stalemate neither side was willing to start armageddon, what North Korea is doing on the otherhand is threating to start nuclear war WITHOUT OBVIOUS PROVOCATION which is totally different, they're essentially saying "if I don't get what I want I'll start a nuclear war".

Since people seem to be unable to look past their rage-boners for the USA to consider this objectivly, I ask this would you be so fanatically defending North Korea if they threatened Russia or China (aka Nuclear powers with little to no connection to USA).

[mr friendly guy]

Thing is, this isn't even about "who's worse," except in the minds of the people who refuse to even have a conversation about North Korea because they're too busy chanting the Litany of American Crimes. "Who's worse" is a whole different argument that should stand or fall on its own merits.

Things don't happen in a vacuum. If we are willing to live with a country which is worse, its hard to justify (except by gross hypocrisy) to get much worked up over a country which is less threatening. Now no one said, we shouldn't make plans to counter a NK threat, only that in the scale of things its less than other existing factions.

At the moment, the brute fact is that North Korea routinely threatens to obliterate cities containing millions of people. That's something no nuclear power does. This is not about the US, people. It's a routine thing that all the other nuclear powers have gotten the hang of: you don't make casual nuclear threats because it's too provocative.

Saying its not about the US, allows a blatant double standard to be applied. If we are going to judge the likelihood and severity of a threat, we should be able to compare to other existing threats. By saying its not about the US, you automatically prevent that comparison. If NK's threat was bad on its own merits, then you should have no fear of comparison. A comparison with the US is especially apt since its a diplomatic conflict between the US and North Korea.

Why is it so important that we try to interrupt and counteract that observation with "but the US is worse! North Korea is just blustering!" This reeks of tribalism to me.

The secret is out. Stark, Alkaloid and myself are not Australians. We are North Koreans. I guess Thanas is one too.
Look at yourself with this claim of tribalism. The fear is strong here.

[Simon_Jester]

Wait, didn't us and the Russians spend most of the cold war pretty much doing exactly that?

I hate to break it to you, but as others have pointed out the Cold War was a totally different animal, during cold war both sides were "we're not gonna start a nuclear war but we will end it" which is one of the reasons it stayed in a stalemate neither side was willing to start armageddon, what North Korea is doing on the otherhand is threating to start nuclear war WITHOUT OBVIOUS PROVOCATION which is totally different, they're essentially saying "if I don't get what I want I'll start a nuclear war".

Give Coffee a break, he's not being dumb here. He's not wrong, he just isn't using the word 'threaten' the way I mean 'threaten.'

The Russians used their nukes the way a Republican would talk about Second Amendment protection of your house: it gives you a weapon and scares away intruders. North Korea is using their nukes the way an armed robber would use that same weapon: taking it out and using the threat of their Saturday night special to intimidate people into giving them money and stuff.

Since people seem to be unable to look past their rage-boners for the USA to consider this objectivly, I ask this would you be so fanatically defending North Korea if they threatened Russia or China (aka Nuclear powers with little to no connection to USA).

Better yet: Japan. Japan has its problems but it's been basically a peaceful country for sixty years, and has not engaged in imperialism or torture or anything like that since the '40s. And they are very definitely within North Korean missile range.

What are they supposed to do, get their own nukes and replicate the India-Pakistani MAD scenario?

Thing is, this isn't even about "who's worse," except in the minds of the people who refuse to even have a conversation about North Korea because they're too busy chanting the Litany of American Crimes. "Who's worse" is a whole different argument that should stand or fall on its own merits.

Things don't happen in a vacuum. If we are willing to live with a country which is worse, its hard to justify (except by gross hypocrisy) to get much worked up over a country which is less threatening. Now no one said, we shouldn't make plans to counter a NK threat, only that in the scale of things its less than other existing factions.

I'm really curious about how you're defining 'worse,' because you're comparing a country with slave labor camps for thousands of political dissidents to one that doesn't have them.

But besides that, you're also ignoring changes in strategic reality. The US hasn't started any new wars in about ten years, for several very good reasons. No new ones are in the cards, vague chest-beating about Iran aside. The only thing that's going on now that we can really argue is wrong is the drone war, and the drone war proceeds with the tacit consent of the national governments in the area we're fighting over.

[We know this because Predator drones are stupidly easy to shoot down]

At the moment, the brute fact is that North Korea routinely threatens to obliterate cities containing millions of people. That's something no nuclear power does. This is not about the US, people. It's a routine thing that all the other nuclear powers have gotten the hang of: you don't make casual nuclear threats because it's too provocative.

Saying its not about the US, allows a blatant double standard to be applied. If we are going to judge the likelihood and severity of a threat, we should be able to compare to other existing threats. By saying its not about the US, you automatically prevent that comparison. If NK's threat was bad on its own merits, then you should have no fear of comparison.

Frankly, I don't.

The problem is that few people right now seem willing to make intellectually honest comparisons between US "if we think you are in Al Qaeda the drones we base in your country will blow you up" and North Korea "we think nuclear war hoaxes are a good way to pass the time, so we'll tell you we're going to turn millions of your people into a sea of fire for giggles." These are very different kinds of 'threat' that mean different things to the people they're pointed at.

Without that basic honesty, the US-NK comparison is a ridiculous distraction and waste of time.

Why is it so important that we try to interrupt and counteract that observation with "but the US is worse! North Korea is just blustering!" This reeks of tribalism to me.

The secret is out. Stark, Alkaloid and myself are not Australians. We are North Koreans. I guess Thanas is one too.
Look at yourself with this claim of tribalism. The fear is strong here.

No, in this case the problem is that you're identifying with a "global civilization" tribe that looks down on the "America" tribe. When your despised enemies have a problem, you'd rather talk about how despicable they are than look realistically at the problem.

I'm sorry, was that not obvious enough?

[Thanas]

But besides that, you're also ignoring changes in strategic reality. The US hasn't started any new wars in about ten years, for several very good reasons. No new ones are in the cards, vague chest-beating about Iran aside.

I hear the two wars are still ongoing (though the US has privatized one). That being said, congratulations on not invading another country in ten years. Took a great effort, I am sure.

To be honest, Simon, few if any outside the US think the US has in any way changed its approach to foreign policy. And while I can't fault them for wanting to be concerned, I also notice that the Pentagon is not demanding an upgrade to missile defence and that there is no evidence that NK can hit California or even that it has a working ICBM. This seems like an overreaction.

[Alkaloid]

I was actually hoping you would go back to my first comment Zig, the one where I pretty much said I was only referring to the Americans I had seen on the internet, and how some of them seem terrified of North Korea, but simultaneously all aquiver with anticipation at the prospect of watching the US grind North Korea into the dirt. The sheer mass comment id because, frankly, I've seen a lot more than 3 people on a lot more than one forum, even before I begin to add up the number of 'likes' in the various likeable social media whatsits, but haven't seen a single South Korean or Japanese person express any more than the usual Í live closer to North Korea than anybody thinks is ideal' concern. Admittedly I don't spend a lot of time on sites devoted to South Korean or Japanese national interests, but I don't spend a lot of time on sites devoted to US national interests either.

The problem is that few people right now seem willing to make intellectually honest comparisons between US "if we think you are in Al Qaeda the drones we base in your country will blow you up" and North Korea "we think nuclear war hoaxes are a good way to pass the time, so we'll tell you we're going to turn millions of your people into a sea of fire for giggles." These are very different kinds of 'threat' that mean different things to the people they're pointed at.

Except the north Koreans have been threatening on and off to blow up parts of South Korea for the last 60 odd years, nothing too serious has happened yet, why should it all of a sudden happen now?

WITHOUT OBVIOUS PROVOCATION

The Russians used their nukes the way a Republican would talk about Second Amendment protection of your house: it gives you a weapon and scares away intruders. North Korea is using their nukes the way an armed robber would use that same weapon: taking it out and using the threat of their Saturday night special to intimidate people into giving them money and stuff.

Not really, this is more like a guy you have locked in his house, built a massive fence around his yard and have armed guards there to kill him if he tries to leave and stop stuff you don't approve of being delivered to his house getting his hands on a gun and threatening you through the fence with it. He's been provoked for years, now he just has a bit more leverage and a bit more capacity to hurt you from where he is. Yeah, you might have reasons for it and yeah, he might be a dick, that doesn't mean you aren't provoking him.

Wait, why am I being used as a international politics analogy? I am puzzled by this..

Well, you have a history of threatening to punch folks in the dick. North Korea has a history of threatening to blow something up. I consider the likelihood of either threat being executed internationally to be approximately the same. Sorry to pull you into this cluster fuck though, in hindsight it was a dick move.

[Broomstick]

And while I can't fault them for wanting to be concerned, I also notice that the Pentagon is not demanding an upgrade to missile defence and that there is no evidence that NK can hit California or even that it has a working ICBM. This seems like an overreaction.

The US is supplying additional anti-missile units to South Korea and Japan, which are the areas at most risk from North Korea. China has criticized the US for this, saying that it just heightens the tension and risks an arms race in the region. The US stance is that while it is unlikely that the North Koreans are going to start something they do have weapons and thus it's possible that at some point the North Koreans might launch something, so anti-missile tech is only prudent. I can certainly understand China preferring the status quo to a future with potentially more instability given this is all taking place right on their doorstep. If the shit hit the fan tomorrow many more Chinese would suffer than would Americans so it's only natural China prefers no escalation whatsoever. It seems that the governments involved don't lend much credibility to threats against the US mainland but do see a threat to North Korea's neighbors. I do notice the US isn't telling its citizens to get the hell out of South Korea, which I would expect if they truly thought a shooting war was going to resume between the two Koreas. I realize that to outsiders it appears that not much has changed but right now the US public really does not want another war and short of someone actually blowing up part of the US I don't see one happening during the current administration's term.

At most, North Korea could hit Hawaii or parts of Alaska - right now. However, both of those places are just as much the US as California or New York and I believe having a bomb drop on them would provoke an all-out war with the US whether I agree with the US response or not. US public opinion would instantly flip to attack mode if that occurred and I'm pretty sure everyone in this thread would prefer the US not get into another war. The North Koreans are working to improve their missile technology so the concern is that in the future they will have greater capability and be able to reach more targets.

Additionally, this is leading other nations to consider acquiring nuclear bomb technology themselves. Should we applaud South Korea or Japan building their own nuclear bombs if they choose to do that? In that case, it would not be due to a threat from the US but rather a threat from North Korea. Is it really to the benefit of the world to start an arms race in that area?

I'll be the first to admit I don't understand the North Korean government. While some of the things they do have a sort of consistency and logic they are just so different to my culture I find them baffling on an emotional level. Of course, part of the game is to condemn Americans for being ignorant, then shitting on them when they ask questions in an attempt to reduce that ignorance.

I do appreciate those in this thread who have actually tried to discuss the questions I and others have had. I thought the point that building up their nuclear capability allows them to reduce their convention military was particularly insightful, as maintaining such a large army must certainly be a strain on North Korean resources. I don't think the DPRK starves their population for laffs and yucks, I think the people starve because the DPRK simply doesn't have the resources to supply them with a truly adequate diet. I don't think North Korea is unlighted at night because it amuses the elite, I think the nation simply doesn't have the resources to provide power 24/7. If more nukes/less soldiers means there is more to give to the common person then for North Korea this may be all to the good and their next generation may grow up with less starvation and physical stunting. That actually makes a lot of sense, and takes their actions out of the "crazy nutball" category. I may not agree with their methods but the suggested goals - greater security and more resources for other things like adequate food for the general population - make all the sense in the world. I don't like the notion of supplying a nation like the DPRK with aid but if the reason they're sticking needles into everyone's feet is because they're starving and desperate then keeping them from getting hungry enough to start shit makes some sense. And yes, I'm fully aware that the DPRK elite eat very well, but I also assume they're smart enough to realize that it's in their own self interest to keep things from getting so shitty that the population decides there is nothing more to lose and starts an uprising. As bad as things are, millions of starving, desperate North Koreans streaming over the international borders has the potential to be much worse even if bullets and bombs aren't involved. I may not think building nuclear bombs is a good way to get the resources a nation needs but in that context it at least makes sense, and if military belligerence has worked well for them in the past than their continuing it also makes sense.

I guess, if that's the case, then a good question to ask is how to convince North Korea there are other ways to obtain what they need besides threatening to blow people up. I have no clue how the global community would go about that.

There are a lot of other things I don't understand about North Korea but what's the point in even asking when the only reaction will be "America sucks, you suck, go fuck off"? Way to foster understanding, guys.