WTF Are the North Koreans Smoking Now?

[Simon_Jester]

It's not like the Koreans – even the South Koreans – have ever had a lot of warm and fuzzy feelings towards us. The US has been blamed on both sides of the border for splitting the nation. The South Koreans tolerate the US and find its presence useful for defense, they don't necessarily like the US.

On a side note, I'm not really clear on why the South Koreans need the US to protect them. They've had like half a century to get ready, they have a big army with modern weapons and an economy light years ahead of the North's. One would think they could take care of themselves at this point.

They could.

Having US firepower supporting them means less dead South Koreans, though. Hence the desire for support.

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

I think, (I'm not sure, but I think) we're there due to treaty obligations, and pulling out would require amending said treaties. I have no idea how easy or difficult that would be.

[Ralin]

They could.

Having US firepower supporting them means less dead South Koreans, though. Hence the desire for support.

And not having US troops stationed in their country would mean they don't have to worry as much about America Fuck Yeah waving his dick around and setting something off.

The term "trade-off" comes to mind.

[ChaserGrey]

They could.

Having US firepower supporting them means less dead South Koreans, though. Hence the desire for support.

And not having US troops stationed in their country would mean they don't have to worry as much about America Fuck Yeah waving his dick around and setting something off.

The term "trade-off" comes to mind.

Yep. And in 60 years of armistice, not once has the South Korean government asked US troops to leave. There's been a lot of back and forth over their legal status, and there's a lot of anti-Americanism on the streets, but all of the recent (and by that I mean last decade or so) drawdowns in US Forces Korea have been American initiated. In a couple cases the ROK used political capital to try to stop some of the withdrawals.

Looks to me like they've decided the tradeoff's worth it. I'm starting to wonder if it still is for the US.

[DarkArk]

And not having US troops stationed in their country would mean they don't have to worry as much about America Fuck Yeah waving his dick around and setting something off.

Outside of a crisis where things are already escalated and the US is making a show of force, when has the US ever antagonized North Korea? Has the early Bush years tainted people's perception of American foreign policy that much?

they have a big army with modern weapons and an economy light years ahead of the North's.

Both of those things are because of their relations with the US, especially their military.

Generally nations don't tell the superpower they're allied with and are treaty-bound to defend them to get lost. Having relations like that are important. Especially when you are in a crisis with a nation that has nukes and you don't. If North Korea does nuke the South, the RoK doesn't have a nuclear response of their own, they need the US for that. Having a nuclear umbrella without having to directly pay for it would be enough of a reason to continue having US troops on their soil.

Looks to me like they've decided the tradeoff's worth it. I'm starting to wonder if it still is for the US.

Considering they contribute a key part in containing China, are an essential part of our Far East military alliances, and are a good trading partner, yes I would say so. Also they're the only major East Asian economy the US has a free trade agreement with.

[Broomstick]

On what do you base the notion that China wouldn't protest an American take-over of North Korea? From what I've seen in the English-translations of Chinese press that idea has certainly be raised but the kicker is that China really doesn't want a US presence of any sort right on their border. They might accept it as the lessor of two evils. Working out an agreement both parties would be comfortable with would be tricky at best.

Remember that time when the Korean War was over and the United Nations had control of the peninsula, and this American decided it'd be sweet to piss off the Chinese? Good times.

Yes, 60 years ago when the economy of the north was actually better than that of the south. The situation has changed. IF war breaks out the Kim regime will not survive. What's the alternative? China taking over? Does China want 23 million malnourished people living in a place where, after the lights went out, the transmission grid was scavenged so the copper could be traded for food so that would need to be rebuilt just to start? Should it be made some sort of UN protectorate? Maybe you'd like your own fiefdom, Stark?

When the current government in Pyongyang falls what will be left when the dust settles is a basket case of a country that will require billions in aid. Who wants that?

It's like an entire country has Stockholm Syndrome!

That is probably a good analogy.

On what do you base this 'analogy'?

The people have been convinced to venerate and praise, almost worship, the very cabal that oppresses them.

[Broomstick]

Has the early Bush years tainted people's perception of American foreign policy that much?

Yes, it has, and I wish more Americans would wake up and realize just how much damage that spoiled little fucker did to our nation.

[Thanas]

Obama is not doing much to help that perception either.

[CaptHawkeye]

You know it didn't even start with Bush, he was just particularly egregious. The rest of the world has been paying the bill for the Cold War since it started in the late 40s. It's going to take a lot more than 1 or 2 or even 10 administrations before the many billions of people our policies have hurt are either dead or just burry the hatchet. Recent conflicts are serving only to extend that period of time where we can expect to have enemies over much of the world.

[The Xeelee]

Let's be honest has anyone really enjoyed American foreign policy ever? I mean asides from when they were forced in to the world wars.

[mr friendly guy]

Yes, 60 years ago when the economy of the north was actually better than that of the south. The situation has changed. IF war breaks out the Kim regime will not survive. What's the alternative? China taking over? Does China want 23 million malnourished people living in a place where, after the lights went out, the transmission grid was scavenged so the copper could be traded for food so that would need to be rebuilt just to start? Should it be made some sort of UN protectorate? Maybe you'd like your own fiefdom, Stark?
.

If I had to make a proposal, the other option is that NK gets split between SK and China with US troops withdrawing back to south of the 38 parallel. If SK starts advancing into NK, China would most probably want something as a buffer zone. Plus direct access of the Sea of Japan in its own right is also attractive. From their perspective, SK will be busy rebuilding Seoul and assimilating part of NK, and won't be in the best shape to act to contain them.

[Simon_Jester]

They could.
Having US firepower supporting them means less dead South Koreans, though. Hence the desire for support.

And not having US troops stationed in their country would mean they don't have to worry as much about America Fuck Yeah waving his dick around and setting something off.
The term "trade-off" comes to mind.

Why do they have to worry? I mean, I know we can kind of take for granted that the US just arbitrarily provokes wars for no reason, but I keep hearing the logic that no one wants a war therefore the North Koreans are just posturing and won't fight. If that's really true, then all the US counter-posturing in the world won't make a bit of difference.

Or maybe the North Koreans have limits... but if South Korea can put up with the North shelling islands and killing people, and sinking ships and killing more people, then surely North Korea can put up with having a B-2 fly somewhere in their vicinity. Otherwise the double standard is just too disgusting, and the South can't have any real confidence in the North's desire to avoid war anyway.

As Chaser noted, the South has never asked us to leave. I wonder whether they're more worried about the extra firepower or about some hypothetical provocative US 'dick-waving?'

And not having US troops stationed in their country would mean they don't have to worry as much about America Fuck Yeah waving his dick around and setting something off.

Outside of a crisis where things are already escalated and the US is making a show of force, when has the US ever antagonized North Korea? Has the early Bush years tainted people's perception of American foreign policy that much?

In a word, yes.

All nations are now Iraq and Afghanistan, only the US launches wars of aggression, and you can crank up a double standard as high as you like- when the North Koreans kill people it's "just posturing" and shouldn't change anyone's policy, but when the US flies a plane near them it's "escalation" and the US needs to have a long sober look at its policies.

Looks to me like they've decided the tradeoff's worth it. I'm starting to wonder if it still is for the US.

Considering they contribute a key part in containing China, are an essential part of our Far East military alliances, and are a good trading partner, yes I would say so. Also they're the only major East Asian economy the US has a free trade agreement with.

It's debatable whether the US should even be trying to contain China, any more than Victorian Britain tried to 'contain' France. You can't really contain a true peer competitor; we only got away with containing the USSR because our economy was several times the size of theirs and they were just barely keeping up military parity by overclocking their domestic economy.

[The Xeelee]

The fact that America has used nukes on people before doesn't help either.

[Simon_Jester]

What I'd like to ask, Xeelee:

Either come up with a better plan for getting Japan to surrender in 1945, or do not try to base your arguments on subjects of which you are ignorant.

[The Xeelee]

Did I condemn it? Did I claim there wasn't a better option? No so why don't you shut the fuck up. I said that when it comes to nukes, people fear America as they have used them before, and wanted to nuke china during the Korean war. The Soviet Union always believed that America would launch first (well from 1947 to 1980 odd anyway).

I didn't even say this fear is rational because even if the North were to launch a nuclear strike (unlikely) there is no reason they would retaliate using conventional weaponry as opposed to nuclear.

[CaptHawkeye]

What I'd like to ask, Xeelee:

Either come up with a better plan for getting Japan to surrender in 1945, or do not try to base your arguments on subjects of which you are ignorant.

He's not talking about the strategic necessity of the nukes. You just think he is because yet again you're desperate to find an exploitable hole in everyone's arguments that just isn't there!

[DarkArk]

Let's be honest has anyone really enjoyed American foreign policy ever?

Has anyone "enjoyed" the foreign policies of superpowers ever? In some ways people do because overwhelming power brings periods of political and economic stability overall, but it seems to me superpowers have always been this way in one form or another.

The fact that America has used nukes on people before doesn't help either.

But how is that relevant? Do foreign leaders really think that the US is more likely to use nukes than other nuclear powers because of 1945, regardless that the situation is nothing like that time period now?

The Soviet Union always believed that America would launch first

Which was due to the strategic reality that NATO didn't have another way of stopping a Soviet ground offensive, which the Soviets were keenly aware of. Not because the US is somehow more nuke happy. The Soviets also didn't have an immediate retaliation policy if NATO used tactical nukes only on military targets.

[Flagg]

Let's be honest has anyone really enjoyed American foreign policy ever? I mean asides from when they were forced in to the world wars.

East Germany, Israel, South Korea... I'm sure there are a few I'm forgetting, but that's about it.

[Thanas]

All nations are now Iraq and Afghanistan, only the US launches wars of aggression, and you can crank up a double standard as high as you like- when the North Koreans kill people it's "just posturing" and shouldn't change anyone's policy, but when the US flies a plane near them it's "escalation" and the US needs to have a long sober look at its policies.

What a lovely strawman you have concocted here.

[Stark]

Or maybe the North Koreans have limits... but if South Korea can put up with the North shelling islands and killing people, and sinking ships and killing more people, then surely North Korea can put up with having a B-2 fly somewhere in their vicinity. Otherwise the double standard is just too disgusting, and the South can't have any real confidence in the North's desire to avoid war anyway.

Man, you're not even trying to understand the situation. It's kind of priceless.

A situation I'm more familiar with (and have even more at stake in than you) is the Taiwan strait situation, where there were lots of gunboat diplomacy for decades. At any time either of them could have been like you and said ENOUGH IS ENOUGH THOSE 17 PEOPLE MEAN WE NEED A WAR and it would have been horrific and terrible. But because both sides understood their situation, the feelings within each country were changing, and literally nobody wants the US showing up and nuking everyone, they waited out their process. What was once a super hotspot of irreconcilable differences is now an economic bridge of interconnected commitments and concerns instead.

So yeah, maybe foreigners saying 'they killed a few of your guys once so start a big war where way more of your guys will die' isn't really what the South Koreans want. The whole joke of threatening to destroy a nation because they might want a nuclear deterrant and then flying nuclear stealth bombers near them wasn't just the hypocrisy and strongman tactics that escalated tensions in a way EVEN THE US ADMITTED WAS STUPID, its that it shows nukes are really sweet things to have. Bad idea when you want someone to NOT want them, right, Simple Simon?

Thanas, are you saying that the more powerful actor has more influence and thus more responsibility? You could even say that if the actions of a nation actually confound their requirements, that action was foolish or bad.

[Simon_Jester]

Man, you're not even trying to understand the situation. It's kind of priceless.

A situation I'm more familiar with (and have even more at stake in than you) is the Taiwan strait situation, where there were lots of gunboat diplomacy for decades. At any time either of them could have been like you and said ENOUGH IS ENOUGH THOSE 17 PEOPLE MEAN WE NEED A WAR and it would have been horrific and terrible.

You may have a brilliant grasp of the situation, but it doesn't look like you're trying to understand the words you're responding to.

South Korea can laugh off North Koreans shelling their land and killing people, or torpedoing their ships and killing people. That is their choice. It is often a wise choice, although it's always grating because it means murdering dicks go unpunished. It's still better than a war, which means thousands times more murders on both sides.

But IF we expect South Korea to be very mature about avoiding war, so that they will ignore attacks on their land and ships that actually kill people, shouldn't we expect North Korea to laugh off a plane flying somewhere in the neighborhood of their airspace? Why are we worried about North Korea flipping out over that and calling it 'escalation?'

If North Korea is going to react badly to such a minor thing, which harms no one, then doesn't that undermine the argument that they're a rational actor who wouldn't want to fight a war? And that therefore won't fight a war no matter what they're saying right now?

Either "escalation" is a meaningless concept, or it has to work both ways. If it works both ways we can criticize each country for acts that put another in more fear. If it only works one way it's meaningless, because you're assuming that 'we' (South Korea, the US, whatever) are rational and can react logically to provocations, while 'they' (the USSR, North Korea, whatever) are not rational and will react emotionally to provocations.

Either both sides' fear-based reactions have enough legitimacy to be taken seriously, or neither side's does.

[PeZook]

Simon, it's not "just a plane". It's a stealth bomber (ie. capable of attacking without being detected) with the ability to carry a nuclear payload. You yourself pointed out that people will get a bit jumpy when you threaten to use nukes on them, because nukes blow up entire cities in seconds so the cost/benefit of ignoring the threat is changed.

So yes, it's possible for "flying a plane" to be a greater escalation than shelling people, when that plane can carry enough ordnance to wipe out your country.

Plus of course the shelling happened way before ; The current crisis is going from words, not shots being fired.

[cosmicalstorm]

If Russia was flying formations of nuclear bombers up and down the Californian coastline I imagine the US reaction would be ferocious.

[Simon_Jester]

Simon, it's not "just a plane". It's a stealth bomber (ie. capable of attacking without being detected) with the ability to carry a nuclear payload. You yourself pointed out that people will get a bit jumpy when you threaten to use nukes on them, because nukes blow up entire cities in seconds so the cost/benefit of ignoring the threat is changed.

So yes, it's possible for "flying a plane" to be a greater escalation than shelling people, when that plane can carry enough ordnance to wipe out your country.

Plus of course the shelling happened way before ; The current crisis is going from words, not shots being fired.

As far as I know, practically every plane in the US military is capable of delivering a nuclear payload, except cargo planes, tankers, and trainers.

I do see your point, it's not completely clear-cut, but... honestly, the US bases the B-2s out of Missouri. They can fly anywhere. Everyone with Wikipedia access knows this already. This doesn't demonstrate any capability the North didn't already know we have, unless (again) the North is so illogical or dim that we can't expect them to react rationally in a crisis.

Are the North Koreans that illogical or dim? NO. Which is the point, more on that later.


On the other hand, we can refute the idea that the B-2 overflights are NOT escalation. We can say that they are escalation. We can say "this is dangerous escalation, this habit of putting nuclear delivery systems close to a rival to scare them." It certainly was dangerous (and dumb) escalation when the US plunked down Jupiter missiles in Italy and Turkey, and the Russians plunked down FROGs in Cuba.

I accept that. I really do.

But if we're going to accept that, we need to be consistent and say that it is also dangerous (and dumb) escalation when North Korea jumps up and down shouting "I KILL YOU!" on media broadcasts, or lobs missile tests past someone's head, both of which have happened within the past several months under the reign of the new Supreme Leader of North Korea.


The North Koreans are not fools. And they still have a right to react badly when someone threatens them. But by the same token, South Korea has a right to react badly when someone threatens them, especially if the threat is far more explicit, or is accompanied by murders.

It is fine and good to condemn irresponsible escalation. What is poisonous is to assume that only one side should be condemned for irresponsible escalation, especially when one side has a legacy of killing people to make its point on the peninsula and the other does not.

[fgalkin]

But if we're going to accept that, we need to be consistent and say that it is also dangerous (and dumb) escalation when North Korea jumps up and down shouting "I KILL YOU!" on media broadcasts, or lobs missile tests past someone's head, both of which have happened within the past several months under the reign of the new Supreme Leader of North Korea.

If this has been done consistently, then how can it be escalation?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin