WTF Are the North Koreans Smoking Now?

[chitoryu12]

And now they're moving missiles.

SEOUL, April 4 (Reuters) - North Korea has moved what appears to be a mid-range Musudan missile to its east coast, South Korea's Yonhap news agency said on Thursday, quoting multiple government sources privy to intelligence from U.S. and South Korean authorities.

It was not clear if the missile was mounted with a warhead or whether the North was planning to fire it or was just putting it on display as a show of force, one South Korean government source was quoted as saying.

"South Korean and U.S. intelligence authorities have obtained indications the North has moved an object that appears to be a mid-range missile to the east coast," the source said.

The Musudan missile is believed to have a range of 3,000 km (1,875 miles) or more, which would put all of South Korea and Japan in range and possibly also the U.S. territory of Guam in the Pacific Ocean. North Korea is not believed to have tested these mid-range missiles, according to most independent experts

[gigabytelord]

I have a very quick question.

It seems that the DPRK have shut down all northbound traffic to the Kaesong Industrial Complex, and have stated that if anyone wants to leave then they should do so before April 10th.

What's so important about April 10th? Is that a holiday? The end of some sort of contract? Or could they be planning on doing something drastic?

[Broomstick]

Could it be as simple as "we give you one week to get out"?

[Dartzap]

I was under the impression it was due to the managers usually doing four shifts in a row, so another week would probably mean that everyone will be out at the time they should be.

[gigabytelord]

Could it be as simple as "we give you one week to get out"?

I have no idea, I hope it's something that simple. I figured I'd ask and see what everyone said.

[The Xeelee]

At least the BBC has finally talked about the fact that many South Koreans aren't worried.

[Alkaloid]

Personally, I think we ultimately may not have a choice. The North Koreans have built bombs, and I think they're going to keep doing it under pretty much any conditions except all-out war. The idea that embargoing Kim's cognac will convince him to give up on the whole thing seems a bit far-fetched to me. So that leaves accepting the North Korean nuclear arsenal, getting them to voluntarily give it up (yeah, right) or taking it away by force. And for a bunch of reasons discussed on the thread already, I just don't think the third option is going to be on the table. In an ideal world there could be negotiations about what concessions the international community might get from the North Koreans in return for recognizing their nuclear program, but I don't see that happening anytime soon considering the official response seems to be "Silence! I kill you!"

And the problem with number 2 is that there are large segments of the west that simply won't accept it. There are even a few people in this thread who have started throwing around the word appeasement, and no one has even mentioned anything more specific than perhaps not just pointing a gun at them and screaming threats. Not that appeasement wouldn't be an accurate word to describe, say, easing economic sanctions in exchange for not building more bombs, but in this context it's clearly meant to imply caving to Hitler, so...

[Broomstick]

It has been mentioned in the American media that the South Koreans aren't worried. I want to clear up any notion that this is somehow being overlooked, even if there are individuals in this thread who haven't gotten that message. Regarding the South Koreans and their lack of concern, I think it comes down to these alternatives:

1) There really isn't anything to worry about
2) This state of imminent war has been going on for decades and if they stopped to worry about every incident they'd never get anything actually done, so ignoring this sort of thing has become the norm
3) They've misjudged the situation/denial
4) Even if there was an attack coming there's fuck all the average person could do. Since you can't do anything about it don't let it get in the way of your usual routine
5) Any combination of the above

Meanwhile - contrary to what has been stated upthread, the US media is NOT saying that DPRK missiles could hit the US, although maybe Guam or bits of Alaska. The media has been pretty consistent in saying the missile danger is for South Korea and Japan, not the US mainland. The problem, of course, is that so many Americans have their heads up their ass they haven't a context for the reports. So we get geniuses like EnterpriseSovereign making wildly inaccurate statements.

And speaking of the media, the Chosun Ilbo is reporting that Chinese troops are massing on the northern border of North Korea, but the information is apparently by way of a:

Chinese Troops Mass Along Border with N.Korea

The Chinese Army has been on standby since March for an emergency by massing troops and fighter jets at the border with North Korea, the Washington Times quoted a U.S. government official.

China's official Global Times carried the story prominently on Wednesday.

Chinese warships conducted live-firing drills in the West Sea, where South Korean and U.S. forces were engaged in a joint annual exercise, the daily said.

But Chinese military activities were concentrated in Jilin Province, which shares the longest border with the North. Forces were reportedly ordered to raise the alert status to the highest level on March 19.

"Large groups of soldiers were seen on the streets in Ji'an, a city in Jilin, amid reports that the [Army] had been ordered to combat readiness status," the daily added. "Heavy armored vehicles, including tanks and armored personnel carriers, were reported moving near the Yalu [Apnok] River that separates China from North Korea."

A diplomatic source in Beijing said, "Whenever the crisis deepened on the Korean Peninsula, since the North's second nuclear test in 2009, China has reinforced its troops along the border. Amid escalating threats from North Korea, it's highly likely that Army has moved troops from the Shenyang Military Region," which is in charge of the border.

Reuters has an interesting article on Chinese reactions as well:

China's anger at North Korea overcomes worry over U.S. stealth flights

A show of force by U.S. stealth jets over the Korean Peninsula after talk of war by Pyongyang has caused only minor concern in China, a measure of Beijing's belief that the North is to blame for the tensions and that hostilities are not imminent.

The presence of U.S. forces in places like South Korea and Japan has long worried Beijing, feeding its fears that it is being surrounded and "contained" by Washington and its allies, especially following the U.S. strategic pivot to Asia.

The flying of B-2 and F-22 stealth jets in joint exercises with South Korea, bringing U.S. military might virtually to China's doorstep, has barely generated a response from Beijing except for a generic call for calm and restraint.

Last month's announcement that the United States would strengthen its anti-missile defenses due to the North's threats also elicited only relatively mild criticism from China.

"All these new actions from the U.S. side are not targeted at China," said Ni Lexiong, a military expert at the Shanghai University of Political Science and Law.

"There is no possible threat to China."

Another well-connected Chinese military expert, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of discussing Chinese defense policy, said China believed the U.S. presence in Korea acted as a necessary restraint on troublesome Pyongyang, hence the lack of criticism from Beijing.

Chinese internet sites are resounding with criticism not of the United States but of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, who is derided as "Fatty Kim" or "Fatty The Third", in reference to his father and grandfather, both previous rulers of the pariah state.

Blame is mostly being put on Kim for leading his country to disaster and the region close to war.

"Fatty Kim, while you are playing games, your people are starving to death," wrote one user on the popular Twitter-like microblogging site Sina Weibo, blaming Kim for the chronic food insecurity that years of sanctions and economic mismanagement have bought to North Korea.

But speaking too strongly against North Korea in China can have consequences. South Korea's Chosun Ilbo newspaper said on Monday that an editor at China's Study Times had been suspended for arguing in the Financial Times that China abandon North Korea.

FRENEMY

Russia, China's giant neighbor to the north and west, also appears to be setting aside its rivalry with the United States When it comes to issues with North Korea.

Moscow has warned that heightened military activity on the Korean Peninsula was slipping into a vicious cycle, but senior Russian Foreign Ministry official Grigory Logvinov told the RIA news agency on Saturday: "At least at this point, we see that the statements (of Washington) are rather restrained. The position of the American side is a bit reassuring".

China has long been accustomed to living with its unpredictable "frenemy" neighbor, a country valued as a bulwark against the United States and feared as a source of dangerous instability.

An online survey begun over the weekend by influential Chinese tabloid the Global Times found that more than 80 percent of respondents did not believe the current situation on the Korean Peninsula was serious.

"It's not the first time North Korea has used such strong language. They often say this. I think they are probably playing a game. It's to do with what sort of person Kim Jong-un is, and his young age," said Jia Qingguo, an international relations professor at the elite Peking University.

"I really don't think they will resort to using their weapons. The possibility is very small."

Retired Major General Luo Yuan, one of China's most outspoken military figures, expressed a degree of sympathy with North Korea in a blog last week, writing that the country was only trying to push the international community to properly guarantee its security and wanted normal ties with Washington.

War was unlikely, Luo added.

"Once the joint U.S.-South Korean exercises have finished and with birthday celebrations for (late founder of North Korea) Kim Il-sung imminent, the temperature will gradually cool and get back to the status quo of no war, no unification," he wrote.

Nevertheless, there has been some criticism in China directed at the United States.

One Chinese military expert, Li Jie, who works for a Chinese navy research institution, told the website of Communist Party mouthpiece the People's Daily that the B-2 sortie was actually aimed more at China that North Korea.

"The ultimate strategic aim is to contain and blockade China, to distract China's attention and slow its development. What the U.S. is most worried about is the further development of China's economy and military strength," Li said.

The opinion does not seem widely shared, though deciphering the perceptions of China's military top brass is usually difficult.

The People's Liberation Army has, instead of issuing any statements about the Korean peninsula, has in recent days focused its attention on new orders to restrict the use of military license plates on cars, part of a graft crackdown.

"The Chinese people know how to shadow box and know even better about Sun Zi's Art of War, so it (the military) won't make public that which need not be known," the official China New Service said in a commentary about the Korean tensions.

What I gather from this is that while China isn't concerned the Chinese are taking steps to contain the problem to Korea if hostilities do break out, which just strikes me as prudent on their part. Glancing at the Chinese sources in English, the Chinese seem to be viewing this as an NK/US squabble unlikely to result real shooting and that Corpulent Leader is playing a stupid/hazardous game. There are definite concerns that IF nukes get dropped the proximity to Chinese territory would adversely affect both Chinese citizens and interests, and they would not like a US-allied reunited Korea right on their border with the likelihood of US troops and weapons sitting directly on the US border. It does not sound like China has any desire to engage in Korean War Part 2 and therefore sees it as in its self-interest to do what they can to keep things from boiling over. And Kim's stunts are making some in China question the utility of being allied with the DPRK.

Sounds to me that the consensus is that this is Kim Jung Un being an loud mouth but not really wanting to start a war, but just in case nations are thinking of possible contingency plans. So... everyone is convinced that the DPRK has real weapons with real capabilities but doesn't expect them to be used.

[Ahriman238]

North Korea's overseas apologists dismiss 'propaganda' about torture, repression

Anyone reading North Korea’s state-owned news agency could be forgiven for thinking that North Korea has legions of supporters throughout the world.

“U.S. and Its Allies' Moves to Stifle DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea -- or North Korea] Protested in Britain,” “Independent DPRK Praised by Bangladeshi Organization,” and “Day of Sun to Be Celebrated in Italy” are just three of the numerous headlines on KCNA’s English-language site trumpeting overseas support for Kim Jong Un’s regime.

In response to North Korea's announcement that they will be deploying "small, light" nuclear strikes, the Pentagon has announced it is sending an anti-ballistic missile system to Guam. NBC's Richard Engel reports.

Last month, the United Nations set up an inquiry to investigate “systematic, widespread and grave violations of human rights.”

Amnesty International’s North Korea researcher Rajiv Narayan welcomed the move, adding that “millions of people in North Korea suffer extreme forms of repression" with hundreds of thousands of adults and children "in political prison camps and other forms of detention where forced hard labor, torture and other ill treatment is systemic.”

But Andy Brooks, a 63-year-old British communist, has one word to sum up such reports: “propaganda.”

He complained that “unsubstantiated claims” were “constantly thrown at the DPRK,” referring to North Korea's official name.

“People who visit come back with different stories,” he said.

'Everyone has a job'
Brooks, secretary-general of the U.K.’s New Communist Party, highlighted the recent visit to North Korea by “the American baseball man” – meaning retired basketball star Dennis Rodman.

“He didn’t see any of this and he’s certainly not a communist,” he said.

Brooks, who declined to say how many members his party has, had no doubt when asked if he thought North Koreans had a good life.

“Oh yes. They have free education, everyone has a job. I think everyone has housing and so on. It has, in my view, a very high standard of living,” he said. “One of the proofs of the pudding is the longevity. The average lifespan is 74, 75.”

Brooks said he had made “many trips” to North Korea and had lunch with Kim Jong Il, the late “Supreme Leader,” who he said was a “great communist thinker.”

Kim Jong Il was the son of his predecessor Kim Il Sung and father of his successor Kim Jong Un, but Brooks said he did not regard this passage of power from father to son as hereditary.

“It’s more complicated than that … I think the way to put this, the way I see it, in the DPRK nothing is done except by committees, every decision is collective from the smallest to the highest. The decisions in the DPRK are not the will of one man,” he said.

“It’s a socialist society in which most things are nationalized. It’s under social ownership and they’re trying to develop their part of the country in accordance with the principles they uphold,” he said.

Asked if he’d rather live in the U.S. or North Korea, he said “oh, North Korea, it goes without saying for me, absolutely.”

“You look at the great extremes in the U.S., a country so wealthy, a country that could feed the entire world and there are people starving in the streets,” he said.

However, even fellow communists disown people like Brooks.

Mark Fischer, national organizer of the Communist Party of Great Britain, described pro-North Korean leftists as “a tiny family group of ultra-Stalinist loops -- the political equivalent of what happens when cousins marry.”

Fischer, who said his party had “a few thousand” members, said over the years Stalinists had looked for a country embodied their philosophy and had gradually run out of options.

“These people really are in the Stalinist last-chance saloon,” he said. “They’ve looked to somewhere as the socialist motherland and it’s got … more absurd as time has gone on. They are kind of living fossils.”

Asked to explain how someone could support North Korea, Fischer said “to be honest with you, I think there must be a degree of double-think, Orwellian double-think.”

Seoul-based analyst Daniel Pinkston, of the International Crisis Group, said the North's "apologists" were ignoring its human-rights abuses.

“I see a lot of these people crying about U.S. imperialism, the unfair system … if they are crying out about all this injustice, why don’t they just go join the KPA [the North’s Korean People’s Army]?” he said.

“They sit behind their computers in London or Brazilia or New York and send out these kinds of outrageous comments,” he said.

“Just go, nobody is stopping you, go and live in North Korea.”

So there is international support, sort of, for the DPRK.

[Simon_Jester]

International support- yeah... one guy in each country. Hah.

Personally, I think we ultimately may not have a choice. The North Koreans have built bombs, and I think they're going to keep doing it under pretty much any conditions except all-out war. The idea that embargoing Kim's cognac will convince him to give up on the whole thing seems a bit far-fetched to me. So that leaves accepting the North Korean nuclear arsenal, getting them to voluntarily give it up (yeah, right) or taking it away by force. And for a bunch of reasons discussed on the thread already, I just don't think the third option is going to be on the table. In an ideal world there could be negotiations about what concessions the international community might get from the North Koreans in return for recognizing their nuclear program, but I don't see that happening anytime soon considering the official response seems to be "Silence! I kill you!"

And the problem with number 2 is that there are large segments of the west that simply won't accept it. There are even a few people in this thread who have started throwing around the word appeasement, and no one has even mentioned anything more specific than perhaps not just pointing a gun at them and screaming threats. Not that appeasement wouldn't be an accurate word to describe, say, easing economic sanctions in exchange for not building more bombs, but in this context it's clearly meant to imply caving to Hitler, so...

I think we've got the numbers mixed up. The options he gave were (1) accepting the North Korean nuclear arsenal, (2) getting them to give it up on their own, or (3) taking it away by force.

It sounds like you're talking about (1). Personally, I think we're more likely to see (1) than you think. Americans really don't have a major emotional stake in Korea one way or the other; the last time it made the news in a big way was sixty years ago during the Korean War. So the US can probably shrug and accept the reality of a North Korean nuclear arsenal; arguably it has already done so and it's all over except the posturing.

No one, including the US, has ever really gone to war to stop someone from becoming a nuclear power when they already had The Bomb. Remember that.

The big question mark is how other countries will take (1). The EU, like the US, doesn't have a major stake in the Korean peninsula and is a lot less likely to be targeted by North Korean nuclear weapons than the US. They won't care. Russia, probably likewise. China, South Korea, and Japan all care more intensely.

Personally, I think China will try to pursue other angles of control over North Korea, while Japan and South Korea will growl, realize that there's no bloodless way to get rid of the North Korean arsenal, and think about developing their own nuclear deterrent. Sort of a mirror-image of the likely outcome of Iran getting the bomb in the Middle East: a number of other Middle Eastern nations will now want a nuclear arsenal.

EDIT: These countries might settle for sheltering under the American nuclear deterrent, or they might not. Both countries had a history of doing so during the Cold War when it was the Russians they were worried about. But by the same token, in Europe, Britain and France did not choose to rely on the US deterrent and built up their own smaller nuclear forces. Having a local enemy who might attack them personally, and not just as part of a general World War III, changes the question a bit.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

We've heard from most of the key players in the area, does anyone know what Japan's position is on this matter, especially given the US has military bases in the country?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I'm in favour of recognizing North Korea as a nuclear power and announcing no further sanctions, while at the same time providing dual-key tactical nuclear weapons to be delivered by Japanese and South Korean fighter-bombers. This creates the standard balance of power on the peninsula. Kim Jong-un is a very smart man, Swiss educated, highly rational, and his own statements have essentially allowed it to leak that the objective of the nuclear programme is to allow for economic reforms:

This means that Kim Jong-un is the STEREOTYPICAL rational actor in every single 1960s nuclear war theory text. He's acting like Khrushchev did in the 1950s with the massive drawdown of conventional Soviet forces and for that matter our own President Eisenhower with the Pentomic Division. His objective is to economically reform the country, freeing up the resources to do so with a massive drawdown of the conventional military, while protecting North Korea by the deployment of a nuclear deterrent which lets him reduce his conventional forces under a shield of safety.

The present brinkmanship is simply his effort to secure a recognition of his nuclear arsenal so that he can proceed with his objectives.

Demanding North Korea give up nukes is the worst possible demand, because the more secure their nuclear deterrent now, the better off the country will be and the more chances for reform it will have.

Our allies' concerns can be met with dual-key tactical nuclear weapons to keep them from feeling the need to develop and deploy their own nuclear deterrents.

[Simon_Jester]

The question on my mind is, what does "recognition of the arsenal" look like? What's the difference between us basing our policy on "yeah, North Korea has nukes" and us 'recognizing' North Korea as a nuclear state?

[Captain Seafort]

What's the difference between us basing our policy on "yeah, North Korea has nukes" and us 'recognizing' North Korea as a nuclear state?

Basing national policy on obvious facts is a no-brainer. Officially recognising NK as a Nuclear Weapons State would require amending the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and opening up a couple of cans of worms about a million times its size called India and Pakistan. The idea is fucking insane.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

What's the difference between us basing our policy on "yeah, North Korea has nukes" and us 'recognizing' North Korea as a nuclear state?

Basing national policy on obvious facts is a no-brainer. Officially recognising NK as a Nuclear Weapons State would require amending the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and opening up a couple of cans of worms about a million times its size called India and Pakistan. The idea is fucking insane.

Huh? We already passed a law in the US making it legal for us to break the NPT in regard to India, and nothing bad happened. Proliferation is just a fact we have to get used to.

[Stark]

The legal fictions around countries obviously having nukes but not 'officially' being 'nuclear weapon states' is probably a motivator for people with nukes to posture; they know that a) people don't want to admit anyone to the club without a strong reason and b) that there's precedent for everyone just looking the other way for decades.

What's fascinating to me is the disconnect in the media here; hilarious jingoistic war drums throughout the media, and then they report as an aside 'oh yeah Korean workers stay in the 'closed' industrial area to continue working because they simply don't care about tensions'. This is what scares me about all these situations - the drama isn't played out between North and South Korea, but on the TV screens of millions of distant white people. Its part of the game NK is playing, but the people watching don't have to (and clearly don't) understand that.

[Metahive]

Good thing that Broomstick is so good at psychoanalyzing an entire nation. I think she should try and become adviser to the president just so she can tell him how all those strange aliens that live outside the US really feel.

[Col. Crackpot]

washington cools rhetoric in attempt to diffuse tensions

Well that is refreshing. Hopefully Kim and company take the out and follow suit.

[Stark]

That they're 'reducing' their rhetoric in response to increased tensions might suggest to people that the rhetoric was counterproductive; it's still a really good thing that they were aware of this.

Again, it's kind of terrifying that the US State Department is, itself, way less hysterical than the message many people are being given. The hilarious statements like 'threats get you nowhere' are such laughable fantasies it's sad, though.

[Col. Crackpot]

Publicly tossing out a mea culpa and backing off is actually pretty brilliant in so much as the north koreans would look like agressive self serving pricks if they continue to escalate. If they back off... great. All is hunky dory until the next tantrum. If they continue to escslate... well lets just say i'll be glad i dont live Seoul.

[Stark]

The goal isn't to look good while a war starts; the goal should be to not have a war at all.

It's fucking terrifying that you're so smug about the deaths of thousands in Seoul so long as America doesn't look bad while it happens.

[Col. Crackpot]

The goal isn't to look good while a war starts; the goal should be to not have a war at all.

It's fucking terrifying that you're so smug about the deaths of thousands in Seoul so long as America doesn't look bad while it happens.

No asshole I wasn't smug. This was clearly a smartly executed diplomatic plan that allows both de escalation and for NK to save face. Stop assuming everyone here is a one dimentional redneck. It makes you look like an asshole. Dont you have Aborigines to steal minerals from?

[Stark]

It's actually pretty sad that the State Department apparently didn't realise people could hear what they were saying. Things like 'whoa flying a nuclear stealth bomber near a flashpoint maybe not a great plan after all' are just mindblowing.

Its a good illustration of how this kind of scenario plays out, and how empty the rhetoric of 'stop the badman' and 'threats get you nowhere' really is. Threats don't get you anywhere unless people believe them, and clearly the US now believes them. Tactical excuse for killing thousands of Koreans for American pride = established!

[Col. Crackpot]

It's actually pretty sad that the State Department apparently didn't realise people could hear what they were saying. Things like 'whoa flying a nuclear stealth bomber near a flashpoint maybe not a great plan after all' are just mindblowing.

Its a good illustration of how this kind of scenario plays out, and how empty the rhetoric of 'stop the badman' and 'threats get you nowhere' really is. Threats don't get you anywhere unless people believe them, and clearly the US now believes them. Tactical excuse for killing thousands of Koreans for American pride = established!

Have you given a moments thought to the possibilty that carrot and stick was the plan all along? Back up the allies with the stick, let Kim blow steam and then whip out the carrot?

[Stark]

Have you given a thought to the possibility that it wasn't? What's the point of inventing imaginary rationale? Judge people by what they do, not by what you think they might have maybe been planning if they were Grand Admiral Thrawn. They could have quietly acknowledged the threat and not terrified the whole...

oh wait

Terrifying the whole world = success!