North Korea launches rocket

[K. A. Pital]

Unlimited appeasement is just stupid, as well as expensive

Not unlimited. You're not giving them territory. Regimes which are isolationist, as opposed to expansionist, like say Saudi Arabia and Qatar who actively seek to spread islamism, are far less dangerous to "appease".

You are also completely ignoring the fact that they loose the stimuli all the same if we simply give them no aid no matter what they do

Yeah, they do. That's also a solution.

But now that that's done, they don't have a lot of options to go further without a lot more money to import the huge amounts of fertilizer they used to get from the USSR.

Give them high yield cultivars and fertilizer. Make them dependent and allow them to establish a non-sustainable dependency on your shipments. Then see what happens with the elite.

I thought you favor non interference in international relations anyway?

Yep. In fact, your option two is also acceptable. I might find it less humanitarian in intent, but in any case these options are acceptable solutions.

Though it would work perfectly well in terms of crippling the NK rocket program to shoot down anything they fire that's bigger then a SCUD-D. If you think NOrth Korea would use nuclear weapons after the US or ROK did this, then you'd have to be completely insane to think they should get a drop of aid. You also should stop acting like complaints on North Korean rocket launches started a week ago, this is completely false.

The fact that everybody whines every time DPRK or Iran launch a rocket is well-known. I simply do not find it important at all. Neither do I think that the DPRK would "nuke you" the moment you shoot down their rockets. However, you have to a real moron to think that this will "cripple" their rocket program. You will have no clue of how their rockets perform if you shoot 'em down, and the DPRK will be quite angry with that, too. They will try to make more rockets and make them more reliable with small-scale tests of equipment and then store them in loads to actually build up a deterrent which you'd have no clue about (neither a clue on how many of the rockets would fly, where and how precise they are). So essentially, you're proposing alienating DPRK for no reason other than to shoot down a few rockets and demonstrate that you can be a massive dick.

That's called "sensible policy"? Shooting down test rocket firings? Really? That's far from the non-interference you just told me about.

[Sea Skimmer]

Not unlimited. You're not giving them territory. Regimes which are isolationist, as opposed to expansionist, like say Saudi Arabia and Qatar who actively seek to spread islamism, are far less dangerous to "appease".

Except they do want territory and have shown they will violently and repeatedly attempt to assert the claim along the Northern Limit Line. This is one of the largest reasons why a peace treaty is impossible at the moment. Meanwhile that infamous hardened hovercraft base is still being built. It might be nothing special, even though they have no other one, most people think its intended to allow them to at least credibly threaten an invasion of those islands. And why not launch one... they got away free with every other provocation.

Give them high yield cultivars and fertilizer. Make them dependent and allow them to establish a non-sustainable dependency on your shipments. Then see what happens with the elite.

They prosper and send more workers to work on rocket and nuclear plants instead of building those gravity canal systems? I can't see why they'd do otherwise when the aid they got in the 1990s and 2000s led into a couple nuclear weapons tests.

The fact that everybody whines every time DPRK or Iran launch a rocket is well-known. I simply do not find it important at all. Neither do I think that the DPRK would "nuke you" the moment you shoot down their rockets.

You find some odd things unimportant.

However, you have to a real moron to think that this will "cripple" their rocket program. You will have no clue of how their rockets perform if you shoot 'em down, and the DPRK will be quite angry with that, too. They will try to make more rockets and make them more reliable with small-scale tests of equipment and then store them in loads to actually build up a deterrent which you'd have no clue about (neither a clue on how many of the rockets would fly, where and how precise they are). So essentially, you're proposing alienating DPRK for no reason other than to shoot down a few rockets and demonstrate that you can be a massive dick.

That is a nonsensical view. If they can't test them they'll never know they work because they won't and they don't already have functional long range design. Small scale tests can never replicate full on launch conditions. NASA may have made the Saturn V work without test failures, but this was by spending 1% of the US GDP on massive repeated full scale testing of each stage, building countless launches of other rockets with orbital capabilities, and other then that project you aren't going to find much in the way of examples of successful no test designs. All the more so from a nation with limited resources. As well, no need exists to prevent them from ever having missiles, it would be good enough to delay them ten or fifteen years until much more capable ABM systems are operational.

The North Koreans alienate themselves, nobody needs to help them with that. They do it intentionally because reform is a direct and mortal threat to the regime. They might liberalize the economy a little bit, they'll never ever change politically or militarily until everything falls apart. For all the work they've done at solving the food problem, partly, this doesn't exactly solve the problem that everything else in the entire country is steadily decaying. Its pretty asbrud though that you have a problem with the US or ROK being a dick when we are talking about a country which relies on concentration camps for stability, sank an ROK warship which would have led to war in almost any other situation, and then openly proclaimed that it shelled an ROK held island just to prove it could.

That's called "sensible policy"? Shooting down test rocket firings? Really? That's far from the non-interference you just told me about.

It was merely in response to your false claim that only an invasion could stop them. Course, retaliation should have been launched for the earlier attacks anyway.

[K. A. Pital]

Except they do want territory and have shown they will violently and repeatedly attempt to assert the claim along the Northern Limit Line.

Like I said, if there is a territorial claim, don't act on it anyhow and that's it.

They prosper and send more workers to work on rocket and nuclear plants instead of building those gravity canal systems?

Once you prosper, a great deal of the necessity to confront and try extortion is gone.

That is a nonsensical view. If they can't test them they'll never know they work because they won't and they don't already have functional long range design. Small scale tests can never replicate full on launch conditions. NASA may have made the Saturn V work without test failures, but this was by spending 1% of the US GDP on massive repeated full scale testing of each stage, building countless launches of other rockets with orbital capabilities, and other then that project you aren't going to find much in the way of examples of successful no test designs. All the more so from a nation with limited resources. As well, no need exists to prevent them from ever having missiles, it would be good enough to delay them ten or fifteen years until much more capable ABM systems are operational.

The North Koreans alienate themselves, nobody needs to help them with that. They do it intentionally because reform is a direct and mortal threat to the regime. They might liberalize the economy a little bit, they'll never ever change politically or militarily until everything falls apart. For all the work they've done at solving the food problem, partly, this doesn't exactly solve the problem that everything else in the entire country is steadily decaying. Its pretty asbrud though that you have a problem with the US or ROK being a dick when we are talking about a country which relies on concentration camps for stability, sank an ROK warship which would have led to war in almost any other situation, and then openly proclaimed that it shelled an ROK held island just to prove it could.

I have higher standards for nations which claim to have a higher standard than the DPRK. That's quite simple.

They might liberalize the economy a little bit, they'll never ever change politically or militarily until everything falls apart.

Even if they remain a dictatorship, if their economic situation improves, that's less suffering for the people of DPRK, right? I mean, the improvement of the economic situation in the USSR of the 1960s and China in the 1980s doesn't really imply a political change and yet the people's life standard improved.

Of course, if the goal is not to allow the DPRK to improve and thereby remove the very need to maintain such a hard regime, but instead score points in some other goal system, then my points are not valid. After all, they center around improving the situation for the DPRK.

It was merely in response to your false claim that only an invasion could stop them.

If you keep shooting down their rockets, that will delay their program, but not stop it. That is, of course, if you ever shoot them down. So far nobody did, to my knowledge.

[Sea Skimmer]

Even if they remain a dictatorship, if their economic situation improves, that's less suffering for the people of DPRK, right?

You would hope so, but if the railroad system collapses everything collapses and that seems to be the way they are heading. What is supposed to happen, a whole new North Korea is manufactured in Pusan and shipped north?

I mean, the improvement of the economic situation in the USSR of the 1960s and China in the 1980s doesn't really imply a political change and yet the people's life standard improved.

Going from an absolute dictator to rule by a politburo that changes leaders before they die of old age is a significant change to me. Its certainly much better for the functioning of the nation. Plus China in the 1960s was heading for political collapse at times, even if what would have risen afterwards would have still been communist.

Of course, if the goal is not to allow the DPRK to improve and thereby remove the very need to maintain such a hard regime, but instead score points in some other goal system, then my points are not valid. After all, they center around improving the situation for the DPRK.

I’d like to see North Korea’s people not starving; but you know its not like it’s the only place in the world that could use more foreign aid in the first place. Pouring aid into North Korea while allowing it to build up its most powerful weapons system makes no sense, its the most expensive situation possible and just increases the ability of North Korea to violently act out, while our ability to verify what aid is even used for is limited. That whole South Korean sunshine policy was aimed at reaching out to the North in numerous ways while asking little in return. Not just aid programs but actual development, supposedly some of this was because the owners of Samsung were actually trying to bribe North Korea into allowing family members to leave the country so it was very much open bribery like you propose. What did it get them? Biggest attacks since the 1960s which were in many ways actually the biggest attacks since the Korean War.

If you keep shooting down their rockets, that will delay their program, but not stop it. That is, of course, if you ever shoot them down. So far nobody did, to my knowledge.

None has been shot down, so far. Japan however has said they will shoot down any future test that goes over Japan, as North Korea’s 1990s tests did. This is actually a significant problem for North Korea because it cuts off a large fraction of possible test trajectories.

It was being rumored several years ago that the US had threatened to shoot down any future North Korean test, but I think this was all rumor, no fact. If the North Koreans actually start regular tests, rather then one off displays that might change.

[TimothyC]

Well, it seems China isn't happy with the DPRK:

'China halts repatriation of defectors'

By Kim Young-jin

China has apparently suspended its repatriation of North Korean defectors in response to Pyongyang’s failed rocket launch, a Japanese newspaper reported Wednesday.

The report by Yomiuri Shimbun quoted a Chinese official as saying the long-held policy had been overturned because Pyongyang failed to consult with Beijing over the launch.

Beijing, a key ally of the impoverished North, has long argued that it does not consider North Korean defectors refugees but rather illegal economic migrants. Human rights groups say those who are repatriated to the North are subject to harsh punishment including torture and even death.

The North raised international ire last week with the launch, which it said was to put a satellite into orbit but the international community regarded as a ballistic missile test.

On Monday, China backed a U.N. Security Council (UNSC) statement deploring the North’s launch. Seoul officials said Beijing, a permanent member of the council and Pyongyang’s closest ally, cooperated more quickly than expected, signaling its apparent displeasure over the act.

Beijing, which has often been criticized for protecting its provocative neighbor, has hinted at a tougher stand on Pyongyang in recent weeks.

Earlier this month, it allowed a group of five North Korean defectors, including one family, to travel to the South after hiding for years at a South Korean consulate in China, in an apparent bid to ratchet up pressure on Pyongyang.

During the 2012 Seoul Nuclear Security Summit in March, President Hu Jintao urged the North to refrain from the launch and instead concentrate on improving living conditions for its people instead.

Over 23,000 defectors have been granted citizenship in the South.

The repatriation issue grabbed headlines earlier this year on the back of grassroots campaigning to save a group of some 30 North Koreans who were caught by Chinese authorities as they attempted to flee their Stalinist homeland.

Analysts say Beijing repatriates North Koreans despite international pressure due to concerns about the prospect of an increasing flow of refugees across its border as well as its ties with Pyongyang.