General North Korea thread

[Gandalf]

OK... That was over 40 years ago. Anything since then?

Beats me. I'm not privy to the hidden actions and thoughts of the endless shitshow of clowns Americans seem to elect to the big chair.

[Flagg]

...Have you even been paying attention?

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

I should think the decades of American troops and weapons parked on the North Korean border would be a great example of why the North Korean government could reasonably infer ill will on the US's part and want to invest it weapons that could reliably deter future invasions of their country. Not just full blown regime change but also a whole range of bombing, no fly zones and other military options that would suddenly be a bad idea to pull against a country that can blast armies and cities off the face of the earth. That's not even getting into all the Axis of Evil crap and the object lesson of Iraq, both times.

If I were Kim Jong-il back in the 90s I would have invested in a nuclear program too. The past decade or so has shown how foolish it is to depend on the rationality and good will of American leadership when it comes to that sort of thing.

We have troops there to prevent North Korea from invading South Korea again. And having worked with a guy who was stationed in SK I can pretty confidently say US troops would have to haul ass south or be overrun.

That said, Fatty Kim is following the standard chest thumping to get attention and maybe some foreign aid. Unfortunately, we have a Pricksident who is not capable of diplomacy and thus is doing chest thumping of his own.

[Elheru Aran]

They know they'd never win a war, and certainly wouldn't start one, but they must prove the point that the US will have to pay a price for attacking them first. They will bolster and huff and puff, but that is business as usual. They just needed to have a get out of jail card in their deck to keep getting away with being mouthy.

The problem there is that it's a pretty fine line between 'prove the point' and 'do something really stupid that ends your country' when it comes to the Norks. And to an unfortunate degree, where that line falls depends on who's in charge in the various countries involved, such as the Atomic Cheeto...

[Broomstick]

The news have been very loud about "yes, they have missiles, but they only can reach this or that distance in theory, no evidence...",
"They probably can't aim",
"Their nukes are weak".

And that is one way the media/the west/US/etc are contributing to this mess.

The two test were solely made to clarify the questions asked. They can reach at least *that* far, we can get them where we want them to go, and our nukes are *that* big.

Yes, but I can't help but think they could use a bit more discretion in where and what direction they're testing.

They are already in the game, unless they give up nukes - which means they will get in trouble after that because everybody will act under the premise that they could get them again, very quickly. Puts NK on a constant risk of military invasion, and a reality of having to allow in inspectors and stuff. That is totally inaceptable to them, so giving up is no valid strategy anymore. Once you are nuclear, you have to stay in that game.

Well, yes, of course, if they give up the nukes they could get them back quickly, and that's assuming (because it will be assumed) they aren't hiding a couple in reserve somewhere. They've got the tiger by the tail now and really can't let go.

It's not just the US - Russia and others are on record as not liking a nuclear North Korea.

But in order to play with the new rules, NK can't have the world thinking that their nuclear capabilities are minimal - they have to prove they are dangerous in order to be taken serious. They know they'd never win a war, and certainly wouldn't start one, but they must prove the point that the US will have to pay a price for attacking them first.

See, that's where we differ - I don't have the confidence they will "never" start a war. I don't have that confidence for EITHER side here, whether by deliberate decision or simply stupid shit gone off the rails.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

I guess Russia was feeling left out, because Putin has now stuck his oar in...

[Broomstick]

What exactly did he have to say?

[LaCroix]

See, that's where we differ - I don't have the confidence they will "never" start a war. I don't have that confidence for EITHER side here, whether by deliberate decision or simply stupid shit gone off the rails.

I prefer to assume that people act in their self interest - Kim has grown up in Switzerland - he knows what the world looks like. He is now king of his own land, and he'll prefer to keep it that way. Also - NK actually is willing to negotiate on their nuclear capabilities, but not "As long as the U.S. hostile policy and nuclear threat continues." (Us media almost always omits that part of their official stance.)

Do I trust Trump to be rational - actually, he is the only one I am scared of, but I also have the confidence that generals in the US military have the competence to keep Trump from doing something stupid. (It's not the first president who would order attacks on a whim or drunk.)

On Russia - There was a bit in the radio I heard during commute - Putin says that putting more sanctions and pressure on NK is the wrong thing to do, diplomatic meetings and talks are needed. And complained that it is hard to explain that kind policy to a person that confuses Austria with Australia.

[Broomstick]

I prefer to assume that people act in their self interest - Kim has grown up in Switzerland - he knows what the world looks like. He is now king of his own land, and he'll prefer to keep it that way. Also - NK actually is willing to negotiate on their nuclear capabilities, but not "As long as the U.S. hostile policy and nuclear threat continues." (Us media almost always omits that part of their official stance.)

(Emphasis added) How, exactly, is that supposed to work?

Because my impression (and please provide a counter to this if you can) is that NK views the fact that the US has nuclear weapons as a "nuclear threat" and there is no way in hell the US is going to unilaterally disarm (they did, in and agreement with the Russians, reduce the nuclear stockpile along with the Russians doing the same, so reduction is possible. Just not entire elimination.)

And, as near as I can tell, the fact the US is an ally of South Korea is a "hostile policy" as is the notion that South Korea should have some sort of self-determination rather than being simply subjugated by the North, and, indeed, that is the root base of the entire Korean War.

Granted, there are other forms of hostility, like sanctions, which are of debatable ethics and could be negotiated down or away, but the two above points would seem to make appeasing the North Koreans impossible from a US standpoint.

On Russia - There was a bit in the radio I heard during commute - Putin says that putting more sanctions and pressure on NK is the wrong thing to do, diplomatic meetings and talks are needed. And complained that it is hard to explain that kind policy to a person that confuses Austria with Australia.

Nothing would please me more than the Russians managing to broker an actual peace between North Korea and the US, a formal end to the war, and a normalizing of relations between the two. And while it would require Putin to deal with someone who, as he put it, confuses Austria with Australia, Trump seems to have some sort of respect for Putin which make it more likely that Putin could actually do that than many others.

It's not that the US is friends with Russia, but the two nations have been able to work together in the past even while having deep conflicts between them. Indeed,the fact Russia is NOT friends with the US is part of what would enable them to do such negotiating.

[The Romulan Republic]

See, that's where we differ - I don't have the confidence they will "never" start a war. I don't have that confidence for EITHER side here, whether by deliberate decision or simply stupid shit gone off the rails.

I prefer to assume that people act in their self interest - Kim has grown up in Switzerland - he knows what the world looks like. He is now king of his own land, and he'll prefer to keep it that way. Also - NK actually is willing to negotiate on their nuclear capabilities, but not "As long as the U.S. hostile policy and nuclear threat continues." (Us media almost always omits that part of their official stance.)

Because we should absolutely take North Korean propaganda at face value, right?

In any case, of course America won't meet those demands, because if you back down in the face of threats of nuclear war, it encourages more people to make those kinds of threats.

Do I trust Trump to be rational - actually, he is the only one I am scared of, but I also have the confidence that generals in the US military have the competence to keep Trump from doing something stupid. (It's not the first president who would order attacks on a whim or drunk.)

Depends on which generals it is who get the order, I suppose.

On Russia - There was a bit in the radio I heard during commute - Putin says that putting more sanctions and pressure on NK is the wrong thing to do, diplomatic meetings and talks are needed. And complained that it is hard to explain that kind policy to a person that confuses Austria with Australia.

Why is more sanctions and pressure the wrong thing to do? I'm not saying we shouldn't be talking to North Korea, but t seems to me that he's saying basically that we should begin negotiations by backing down and just giving them what they want- essentially rewarding them for making threats of nuclear war.

And yeah, I'm sure Putin has the best interests of America and its allies at heart here.

[Elheru Aran]

In any case, of course America won't meet those demands, because if you back down in the face of threats of nuclear war, it encourages more people to make those kinds of threats.

Do I trust Trump to be rational - actually, he is the only one I am scared of, but I also have the confidence that generals in the US military have the competence to keep Trump from doing something stupid. (It's not the first president who would order attacks on a whim or drunk.)

Depends on which generals it is who get the order, I suppose.

I would be very surprised if Mattis and possibly John Kelly haven't already told the Joint Chiefs on the down-low that they should check with them first before acting upon certain orders from Trump. Same policy as Kissinger with Nixon, so there is precedent.

All this is speculation, of course. But there are definite indications that Mattis is being very cautious, doesn't agree with Trump on a lot of stuff, and is firmly slow-pedaling whatever directives he's been given. Given Kelly's past as a USMC general, he certainly has the connections to make similar unofficial requests with the upper echelons of the military, and his position as Chief of Staff at the White House means he probably knows most of what's going on in Trump's office and is in a position to head off anything untoward before disaster strikes.

[The Romulan Republic]

One can only hope.

Of course, that's a problem in and of itself, because their are very good reasons why the military is supposed to be subordinate to the civilian leadership. But when the civilian leadership is Trump... well, I'll take the generals calling the shots behind the scenes over nuclear war because the orange man-child threw a tantrum at the wrong time.

[Ralin]

Right... And it was North Korea that invaded the South back in the 1950's, and kept troops parked on the border ever since. It's been the North engaged in assassination, kidnapping, and random missile firing around the peninsula ever since, not just against the US and the South but also as far afield as Japan. What was the South and North Korea's neighbors supposed to do? Just roll over and submit? A good slice of North Korea's problems are self-imposed. Wah-wah-wah, if they weren't such belligerent asshats shitting in their own backyard they'd have less reason to fear the rest of the world.

You keep mentioning the fact that the North Korean government is made up of bad people as if it's somehow a revelation. None of this changes the fact America is their enemy and they have every reason to assume ill will from the US government.

It is STILL the case that if the North Koreans confine themselves to their own territory they will remain unmolested.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight. Sort of like Iraq? The various sanctions and embargos against Iran? Decades of attempts to 'contain' China, up to and including selling weapons to separatists and would-be breakaway provinces?

And who the hell appointed America the arbitrator of what constitutes North Korean territory and what their appropriate place in the region is?

There have long been major differences between Iraq and North Korea, not the least of which is oil. Iraq also brought invasion on itself when it invaded Kuwait. The next time around it was hardly a secret that part of the motivation for invading Iraq was the hopes that America would get access to the oil there and talk of the oil paying for the invasion. North Korea has no such resource. There is also the religious bullshit surrounding the Middle East that infests some of the US political structure that simply doesn't apply to North Korea.

Wow. Leaving aside the natural resource wealth North Korea has, did you seriously just defend the Iraq War? In 2017?

Yes, North Korea had a perfectly understandable reason to maintain an army and work on weapons, but this dick-waving they chronically engage in just serves to inflame others. At this point everyone knows they have nukes, they don't have to do fly-overs across Japanese territory and plan to bomb Guam to prove anything at this point.

Mmm, no, being aggressive and belligerent serves to show in no uncertain terms they they do have the capability to do those things, can't be intimidated and can bring the proverbial fire and fury if it comes to it.

And as far as I know what they've announced the intent to do is send a missile near Guam, again to prove that they can do so. Doing that in international waters is well within their rights. It's not anymore 'dick-waving' than America and South Korea's annual joint military exercises.

One thing is certain, however - if they do nuke the US the response is most likely going to be nuclear and result in the destruction of North Korea.

That's a possibility. Really I don't think anyone knows what's going to happen until someone uses nukes as a weapon again.

The one real obstacle to response-in-kind, China, has stated that if North Korea bombs first they'll abandon them to their fate.

An article in the Global Times suggesting that isn't exactly an unambigious policy statement by the government. They also have a mutual defense treaty, after all: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41152824

We have troops there to prevent North Korea from invading South Korea again. And having worked with a guy who was stationed in SK I can pretty confidently say US troops would have to haul ass south or be overrun.

Pfft, no. We have troops there to project American power and serve as a threat. The South Korean army is more than capable of preventing their neighbor from invading them if that's really what the concern was. Seriously, how do people not get that the country with a larger population, a vastly stronger economy, better weapons and technology and IIRC even a larger army than their enemy is able to take care of themselves?

Unfortunately, we have a Pricksident who is not capable of diplomacy and thus is doing chest thumping of his own.

Meh. See prior statement about how Trump isn't handling this substantially differently from how Clinton, Obama or Bush would. That's a problem in it's own right; near as I can tell the US is still following a 'contain North Korea by preventing them from obtaining nuclear weapons and missiles to put them on' policy after North Korea has amply demonstrated that they have obtained nuclear weapons and missiles to put them on, but terrifying as it is that Trump is making these calls so far he's literally been more of the same on the subject.

[Flagg]

Right... And it was North Korea that invaded the South back in the 1950's, and kept troops parked on the border ever since. It's been the North engaged in assassination, kidnapping, and random missile firing around the peninsula ever since, not just against the US and the South but also as far afield as Japan. What was the South and North Korea's neighbors supposed to do? Just roll over and submit? A good slice of North Korea's problems are self-imposed. Wah-wah-wah, if they weren't such belligerent asshats shitting in their own backyard they'd have less reason to fear the rest of the world.

You keep mentioning the fact that the North Korean government is made up of bad people as if it's somehow a revelation. None of this changes the fact America is their enemy and they have every reason to assume ill will from the US government.

It is STILL the case that if the North Koreans confine themselves to their own territory they will remain unmolested.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight. Sort of like Iraq? The various sanctions and embargos against Iran? Decades of attempts to 'contain' China, up to and including selling weapons to separatists and would-be breakaway provinces?

And who the hell appointed America the arbitrator of what constitutes North Korean territory and what their appropriate place in the region is?

South Korea?

There have long been major differences between Iraq and North Korea, not the least of which is oil. Iraq also brought invasion on itself when it invaded Kuwait. The next time around it was hardly a secret that part of the motivation for invading Iraq was the hopes that America would get access to the oil there and talk of the oil paying for the invasion. North Korea has no such resource. There is also the religious bullshit surrounding the Middle East that infests some of the US political structure that simply doesn't apply to North Korea.

Wow. Leaving aside the natural resource wealth North Korea has, did you seriously just defend the Iraq War? In 2017?

Yes, North Korea had a perfectly understandable reason to maintain an army and work on weapons, but this dick-waving they chronically engage in just serves to inflame others. At this point everyone knows they have nukes, they don't have to do fly-overs across Japanese territory and plan to bomb Guam to prove anything at this point.

Mmm, no, being aggressive and belligerent serves to show in no uncertain terms they they do have the capability to do those things, can't be intimidated and can bring the proverbial fire and fury if it comes to it.

And as far as I know what they've announced the intent to do is send a missile near Guam, again to prove that they can do so. Doing that in international waters is well within their rights. It's not anymore 'dick-waving' than America and South Korea's annual joint military exercises.

I don't disagree with this, but in the past they have committed attention seeking actions involving nuclear weapons in order to give concessions they have no intent of following through on to gain humanitarian aid that goes directly to their military.

One thing is certain, however - if they do nuke the US the response is most likely going to be nuclear and result in the destruction of North Korea.

That's a possibility. Really I don't think anyone knows what's going to happen until someone uses nukes as a weapon again.

I doubt North Korea would ever attack anyone with nuclear weapons unless detonated on their home soil in an act of self defense. Maybe at the most try to hit the west coast of the US, but only if the US attempts to invade.

We have troops there to prevent North Korea from invading South Korea again. And having worked with a guy who was stationed in SK I can pretty confidently say US troops would have to haul ass south or be overrun.

Pfft, no. We have troops there to project American power and serve as a threat. The South Korean army is more than capable of preventing their neighbor from invading them if that's really what the concern was. Seriously, how do people not get that the country with a larger population, a vastly stronger economy, better weapons and technology and IIRC even a larger army than their enemy is able to take care of themselves?

The South Koreans could always demand we leave. But I don't dispute that a major reason we still have troops stationed at or near the DMZ is to project American power. It's just not the only reason.

Unfortunately, we have a Pricksident who is not capable of diplomacy and thus is doing chest thumping of his own.

Meh. See prior statement about how Trump isn't handling this substantially differently from how Clinton, Obama or Bush would. That's a problem in it's own right; near as I can tell the US is still following a 'contain North Korea by preventing them from obtaining nuclear weapons and missiles to put them on' policy after North Korea has amply demonstrated that they have obtained nuclear weapons and missiles to put them on, but terrifying as it is that Trump is making these calls so far he's literally been more of the same on the subject.

I don't recall Clinton, Obama, or Warcriminal Bush channeling fucking 'Game of Thrones' when threatening them.

But yeah, I'm not worried about North Korea attacking the US (I live close enough to their possible nuclear missile range that I might get a hefty dose of radiation), I'm more worried about the US attacking NK.

[Ralin]

I don't recall Clinton, Obama, or Warcriminal Bush channeling fucking 'Game of Thrones' when threatening them.

When the overall message is "We will destroy you with our massive military power if you attack us or our allies" and the person saying it is the president of the United States I don't think it really matters exactly how bombastically they phrased it.

Also just to be clear I was talking about a hypothetical President Hillary Clinton. Actual President Clinton is probably the last US president who had a real chance of fixing things with North Korea, but apparently he and his cabinet decided to just wait for them to collapse on their own.

[Broomstick]

You keep mentioning the fact that the North Korean government is made up of bad people as if it's somehow a revelation. None of this changes the fact America is their enemy and they have every reason to assume ill will from the US government.

The US likewise has reason to assume ill will from North Korea. I'll also point out that it was North Korea's invasion of the South that started this whole mess back in 1950. The Korean War was not solely between the US and North Korea, 16 nations were involved on the side of South Korea and two (China and USSR) on the North.

It is STILL the case that if the North Koreans confine themselves to their own territory they will remain unmolested.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight. Sort of like Iraq? The various sanctions and embargos against Iran? Decades of attempts to 'contain' China, up to and including selling weapons to separatists and would-be breakaway provinces?

Excuse me? When did we invade China? Nor have we invaded Iran. Yes, the US has invaded nations for bullshit and dumbshit reasons but it's not an inevitabillity.

And who the hell appointed America the arbitrator of what constitutes North Korean territory and what their appropriate place in the region is?

It was actually a UN decision that demarcated the current borders.

There have long been major differences between Iraq and North Korea, not the least of which is oil. Iraq also brought invasion on itself when it invaded Kuwait. The next time around it was hardly a secret that part of the motivation for invading Iraq was the hopes that America would get access to the oil there and talk of the oil paying for the invasion. North Korea has no such resource. There is also the religious bullshit surrounding the Middle East that infests some of the US political structure that simply doesn't apply to North Korea.

Wow. Leaving aside the natural resource wealth North Korea has, did you seriously just defend the Iraq War? In 2017?

Nope. I merely stated justifications used by those who wanted the war in 2003 - a war I have been on record as opposing since before it began. Stating facts is not the same as approving of them.

The invasion post-Kuwait, in 1991, was justified in that it ejected Iraq from a sovereign nation (Kuwait) that Iraq had invaded and conquered. A position backed by both the United Nations and the Arab League, and enforced by 34 countries.

Yes, North Korea had a perfectly understandable reason to maintain an army and work on weapons, but this dick-waving they chronically engage in just serves to inflame others. At this point everyone knows they have nukes, they don't have to do fly-overs across Japanese territory and plan to bomb Guam to prove anything at this point.

Mmm, no, being aggressive and belligerent serves to show in no uncertain terms they they do have the capability to do those things, can't be intimidated and can bring the proverbial fire and fury if it comes to it.

Funny - why hasn't every other nation with a nuke felt compelled to dick wave? Does Pakistan routinely fire missiles over India? Does the UK routinely test-fire missiles into the Atlantic?

Yes, we know they have nukes. This is now an unquestioned fact. The fact they still feel compelled to dick wave shows they are reacting differently than every other nation known to have a nuke.

And as far as I know what they've announced the intent to do is send a missile near Guam, again to prove that they can do so. Doing that in international waters is well within their rights. It's not anymore 'dick-waving' than America and South Korea's annual joint military exercises.

No, they have threatened to BOMB Guam, not merely send a missile "near" it. They've threatened the US with an EMP attack just this week.

Yes, yes, they have a long history of bluster, but it's a fact they have made specific threats towards the US and its possessions.

One thing is certain, however - if they do nuke the US the response is most likely going to be nuclear and result in the destruction of North Korea.

That's a possibility. Really I don't think anyone knows what's going to happen until someone uses nukes as a weapon again.

Really? We're talking about the US here. They aren't known for restraint when attacked, regardless of who is in charged.

The one real obstacle to response-in-kind, China, has stated that if North Korea bombs first they'll abandon them to their fate.

An article in the Global Times suggesting that isn't exactly an unambigious policy statement by the government. They also have a mutual defense treaty, after all: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41152824

Of course China isn't going to lock itself in too tightly to anything, they're going to evaluate based on circumstances. But it does seem that if Kim is batshit fucking stupid enough to nuke the US that China isn't likely to back them up on it, because why the hell would China, in 2017, want to get in a genuine war with the US? They didn't want that in 1950, hence the whole bullshit business about proxy wars at the time like the Korean War.

We have troops there to prevent North Korea from invading South Korea again. And having worked with a guy who was stationed in SK I can pretty confidently say US troops would have to haul ass south or be overrun.

Pfft, no. We have troops there to project American power and serve as a threat. The South Korean army is more than capable of preventing their neighbor from invading them if that's really what the concern was. Seriously, how do people not get that the country with a larger population, a vastly stronger economy, better weapons and technology and IIRC even a larger army than their enemy is able to take care of themselves?

Where the fuck are you getting your information?

North Korea has the fourth largest military in the world. South Korea is ranked number seven. You do not recall correctly. Much of South Korea's military capability as far as weapons and technology are concerned come from its alliance with the United States.

South Korea's economy may be larger, but it's focused on civilian industries. North Korea is all about the military, to the point it's official policy that the army eats first and gets everything first, even if that means the civilians starve.

[Flagg]

I don't recall Clinton, Obama, or Warcriminal Bush channeling fucking 'Game of Thrones' when threatening them.

When the overall message is "We will destroy you with our massive military power if you attack us or our allies" and the person saying it is the president of the United States I don't think it really matters exactly how bombastically they phrased it.

Yeah, but I don't really recall any of them saying that, it's just implied. I just try to see it from a more global perspective. Let the North Koreans be the nutjob bombastic asshats, the US (and its allies) are supposed to be the adults in the room. Or at least pretend. When the US has a leader acting just as crazy and bombastic as the leader known for being crazy and bombastic it further erodes confidence among America's allies.

Like, I don't think South Korea wants Seoul to become an atomic wasteland (or if what I've read is true, leveled by artillery) because of Trumpzi hearing a rumor that Fatty Kim's dick is 6 nanometers compared to Trumpzi's 5 nanometers and ordering a "preemptive" attack on NK over fucking Guam. And that's not because I don't care about the people of Guam, I just don't think the North Koreans have any intention of actually attacking Guam. I don't know that Trumpzi is clued in to that reality.

Also just to be clear I was talking about a hypothetical President Hillary Clinton. Actual President Clinton is probably the last US president who had a real chance of fixing things with North Korea, but apparently he and his cabinet decided to just wait for them to collapse on their own.

I think it had more to do with North Korea (apparently) acting in bad faith as far as the "stop trying to build nukes and we'll give you humanitarian aid" thing went when they didn't stop trying to build nukes and all the aid went to the government and military.

[Broomstick]

I don't recall Clinton, Obama, or Warcriminal Bush channeling fucking 'Game of Thrones' when threatening them.

When the overall message is "We will destroy you with our massive military power if you attack us or our allies" and the person saying it is the president of the United States I don't think it really matters exactly how bombastically they phrased it.

And how is that different from every other major world power since forever?

I doubt you're old enough to remember Krushchev pounding his shoe on a table shouting at the capitalist countries "We will bury you!" That wasn't threatening and bombastic? I mean, holy shit, the Cold War was full on and both sides had a shit ton of nukes pointed at each other.

And let's be clear - the critical thing here is NOT "attack the US and its allies", there have been plenty of attacks on both US troops and US allies over the past 70 years that have not resulted in war, including acts of war on the part of North Korea. The critical thing here is that if you NUKE the US you should expect to be destroyed. That dates back to MAD with the USSR, it's not something cooked up special just for the Kim Dynasty.

Also just to be clear I was talking about a hypothetical President Hillary Clinton. Actual President Clinton is probably the last US president who had a real chance of fixing things with North Korea, but apparently he and his cabinet decided to just wait for them to collapse on their own.

Given how active US intervention has turned out over the past few decades was that really such a bad choice?

You know, if Kim stops the goddamned dick-waving the US might be content to go back to that... even if it's a long time, if ever, before North Korea collapses.

[Ralin]

More later, but for now:

And how is that different from every other major world power since forever?

I doubt you're old enough to remember Krushchev pounding his shoe on a table shouting at the capitalist countries "We will bury you!" That wasn't threatening and bombastic? I mean, holy shit, the Cold War was full on and both sides had a shit ton of nukes pointed at each other.

You do realize that I am (lukewarmly) defending Trump's conduct in this particular case, right?

Given how active US intervention has turned out over the past few decades was that really such a bad choice?

You know, if Kim stops the goddamned dick-waving the US might be content to go back to that... even if it's a long time, if ever, before North Korea collapses.

My point is that if we were ever going to have relatively normal relations with North Korea, or even an abnormal and hostile but not actually something we worry about relationship the way we do/did with Cuba, the time to offer the hand of friendship along with the massive aid we ended up giving them anyway when Kim il-Sung had just taken over and the famines were at their height. Near as I can Clinton et al decided to pass on that possibility in favor of waiting for the regime to fall apart on it's own so they could deal with someone easier to get along with/influence. This did not work, obviously, and if North Korea hasn't collapsed on its own yet then it probably never will.

I'm not at all convinced this would have worked, mind. Plenty of the problems with North Korea are squarely on its leadership for being evil despots and there's no amount of understanding or diplomacy that can change that. But it seems much more likely to have worked than our (failed) policy of containment.

[Flagg]

You do realize that I am (lukewarmly) defending Trump's conduct in this particular case, right?

I do. But for the life of me I don't know why. Aside from looking like the ass he is by effectively sounding like Fatty Kim, North Korea isn't exactly worth responding to. I mean we have troops in Afghanistan (and more on the way) as well as plenty of far more important shit to deal with.

Like you said, containment failed, they have thermonuclear weapons, and barring a first strike by them (which I don't believe will happen) we have nothing to really worry about. By responding to what is essentially geopolitical trolling, he's just making it easier for them to play the victim.

[LaCroix]

Sorry - could not reply earlier. It's hard to me to address The points Broomstick and TRR bring up beyond of what Ralin already said. NK is rattling their sabre right no, but that is not different to what the US did back then during the cold war. NK tests nukes at their (within their own borders) test sites. So did the US. They tested their missiles. So did the US.

The only difference is that no matter where NK points their missiles for range testing, they will fly nearby or over somebody.

North - Russian and Chinese Mainland - you can't shoot there.
West - China everywhere - No can do, just as well.

South? - South Korea. There is one possible route to thread a needle between SK and Taiwan, which they used the last time. Not firing that direction while tensions are high is a sound diplomatic decision of NK. Still, they will hit the Philippines, Indonesia and Australia using that flight path if they test longer ranges. So it is limited. (Actually, considering the range of the latest test, they would have very likely hit the Samar provinces if they used that path.) They did use that trajectory to launch satellites, though, but in that case only the first stages drop into the ocean, which makes it a save direction.

East?No matter where to the east they fire, it will fly over Japan. The flight path NK chose was actually the only one where it passes through the Japanese islands and not over them - They used this path three times. It's the only one that leads to the missile definitely landing in the ocean and not on someones head. (Even though news like to say it fell into the ocean after passing Japan, it did not do so nearby - it was 1000km or so behind Japan.)

Their main launch trajectories:


Even though the News like to portray it different, these are pretty responsible trajectories, if you ask me. And pointing the missile toward Japan for that long range test was actually a very sound decision in order to minimize risk of hitting any inhabited areas.

You do realize that I am (lukewarmly) defending Trump's conduct in this particular case, right?

I do. But for the life of me I don't know why. Aside from looking like the ass he is by effectively sounding like Fatty Kim, North Korea isn't exactly worth responding to. I mean we have troops in Afghanistan (and more on the way) as well as plenty of far more important shit to deal with.

Like you said, containment failed, they have thermonuclear weapons, and barring a first strike by them (which I don't believe will happen) we have nothing to really worry about. By responding to what is essentially geopolitical trolling, he's just making it easier for them to play the victim.

Flagg pretty much sums up my position on how serious this thing is. NK(or anybody) having nukes is not good, but they won't give them up (refer to Libya to see what happens to you if you do), so we got to live with that. And before you start about "the US's best interest" or "easy to dismiss when not being in danger", remember that first, the US also doesn't care about 95% of the worlds best interest, and second, if the missile is even theoretically capable to barely hit the west coast, it will be able to easily hit everything in Europe. I'm actually living closer to the threat than you are, and with no missile defense that might save my ass.

On the other hand, we can be pretty sure they are not stupid enough to use them. After a bit of playing with their new wang, (espesially if Trump stops feeding the troll) they will return to the usual level of attention seeking. They will continue testing missiles and launch satellites, but they were pretty responsible with itAnd as long as they only detonate nukes in their homeland, they can do it till the cows glow at home, for all I care.

[Simon_Jester]

Funny - why hasn't every other nation with a nuke felt compelled to dick wave? Does Pakistan routinely fire missiles over India? Does the UK routinely test-fire missiles into the Atlantic?

Yes, we know they have nukes. This is now an unquestioned fact. The fact they still feel compelled to dick wave shows they are reacting differently than every other nation known to have a nuke.

In fairness to the North Koreans, they have to test their missiles and nuclear weapons somehow to pursue a nuclear program. There aren't a lot of directions for North Korea to fire a missile that won't alarm someone.

The nearly unique thing about North Korea is that they've kept up the ultranationalist "fuck you world" propaganda against the outside world. Other nuclear powers don't loudly talk about how if they don't get what they want on random petty issues, they'll turn their rival's capital into "a sea of fire" or some such.

Well, except maybe America under Trump, specifically and personally Trump, which is very much not a reassuring comparison. I don't think any of us think Trump having nuclear launch codes is good, and if there is any nuclear-armed polity that's being even... Trumplier... than Trump in terms of behavior of this kind, it's North Korea.

And as far as I know what they've announced the intent to do is send a missile near Guam, again to prove that they can do so. Doing that in international waters is well within their rights. It's not anymore 'dick-waving' than America and South Korea's annual joint military exercises.

No, they have threatened to BOMB Guam, not merely send a missile "near" it. They've threatened the US with an EMP attack just this week.

Yes, yes, they have a long history of bluster, but it's a fact they have made specific threats towards the US and its possessions.

Yeah. It's sort of like receiving death threats in the mail. Probably 99% of all death threats aren't ever actually going to materialize, but that doesn't make it acceptable or respectable behavior, and it's wrong to normalize someone who regularly sends death threats as "that's just the way he acts, that wacky neighbor of mine!"

Sorry - could not reply earlier. It's hard to me to address The points Broomstick and TRR bring up beyond of what Ralin already said. NK is rattling their sabre right no, but that is not different to what the US did back then during the cold war.

The only significant difference is that North Korea loudly and publicly... for lack of a better term, fantasizes about launching specific nuclear attacks against specific targets. Like, "Oho, maybe we will nuke... GUAM!"

This was never normal behavior for the US, USSR, or other nuclear powers during the Cold War. This kind of specific threats to use nuclear weapons, precise and detailed ones, as opposed to the general threat of mutually assured destruction? Yeah, they were rare. Maybe not totally unprecedented, but rare. North Korea rolls them out like once a month.

This kind of behavior is extremely irresponsible and dangerous, because it means that a nuclear attack by North Korea is always plausible on some level, because it's something they've basically said that they will do. Not just "will do if XYZ," will do.

It's like, in 1980 if American radar saw a single Soviet missile flying towards the US, it would be reasonable for people to say "wait, this must be some kind of misunderstanding or mistake, there's no way the Russians would do something like this" and NOT react as if it's an actual nuclear attack. The reverse is also true- exactly that happened in 1983 with the case of Stanislav Petrov. The reason is that both sides could know neither side was at all likely to launch a first strike, even in a moment of relatively high tension.

With North Korea, we believe that to be true, we expect that they will behave rationally... but you can only go so far trusting in the rationality of people who constantly make specific nuclear death threats. You can never be sure, you always have to wonder "wait, but what if this time they mean what they're saying?"

Even if you adopt a stance of never believing North Korean threats or giving them any credibility... that itself has problems. Sooner or later the North Koreans will encounter a situation where they make a nuclear threat and mean it. Say, because they feel the continued survival/safety/power of the North Korean government is at stake somehow. If the whole world is used to ignoring their random death threats, then they'll ignore a sincere threat too, and it becomes more likely that we accidentally blunder into nuclear war.

Either way, the constant random threats are irresponsible and dumb- either they increase the risk of accidental war when people believe them, or they do so when people disbelieve them.

[This goes for any other country too, not just North Korea; it's a commentary on why sane nuclear powers don't make constant death threats against their neighbors in general]

[Broomstick]

NK tests nukes at their (within their own borders) test sites. So did the US.

The latter is incorrect. The US conducted numerous tests outside its borders which is why the Pacific is now dotted with radioactive islands and atolls. In this respect, the NK is behaving better than the US did in the 1905's and 60's. If I recall correctly, all NK nuke testing has been underground which is in accordance with modern practices. So.... good on them for doing it that way.

The only difference is that no matter where NK points their missiles for range testing, they will fly nearby or over somebody.

Thank you for that illustrated explanation, that actually makes a lot of sense.

Does North Korea warn Japan before lobbing a missile for testing? That sort of thing goes a long way towards reassuring the intent in testing and not hostility.

[Flagg]

Either way, the constant random threats are irresponsible and dumb- either they increase the risk of accidental war when people believe them, or they do so when people disbelieve them.

[This goes for any other country too, not just North Korea; it's a commentary on why sane nuclear powers don't make constant death threats against their neighbors in general]

Just to clarify, I don't think the US (or UN) should ignore NK. I just don't think we should respond to their blustering buffoonery. Especially not with blustering buffoonery of our own.

[LaCroix]

NK tests nukes at their (within their own borders) test sites. So did the US.

The latter is incorrect. The US conducted numerous tests outside its borders which is why the Pacific is now dotted with radioactive islands and atolls. In this respect, the NK is behaving better than the US did in the 1905's and 60's. If I recall correctly, all NK nuke testing has been underground which is in accordance with modern practices. So.... good on them for doing it that way.

I'm aware of that, but I didn't want to bring it up and get into perceived "US bashing". The Us initially tested devices on their own soil, too, just as Russia, and that's why I brought it up. Since NK lacks oversea territory, I felt the comparison would not be valid. (Unless NK decides to haul a nuke out into international waters and test them there, which I kind of can't see happening.)

The only difference is that no matter where NK points their missiles for range testing, they will fly nearby or over somebody.

Thank you for that illustrated explanation, that actually makes a lot of sense.

Does North Korea warn Japan before lobbing a missile for testing? That sort of thing goes a long way towards reassuring the intent in testing and not hostility.

I do believe that NK usually honors international rules and announces their satellite launches with the International Maritime Organization, along with trajectory data and where the expended stages are supposed to drop. (Sounds strange, but this is the usual way it is done, for almost everybody launches over the ocean for obvious reasons, and you need to warn ships to stay clear of the splash zones, and if possible, the whole flight path, in case of malfunction.)

They also keep contact and exchange data with the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs on their sattelites.

I'm not sure if the last launch was announced beforehand, though, military test launches are a different thing, Most nations don't(didn't) announce those.

I think they didn't, and that's mostly why Japan is outraged. On the other hand, when they announced the latest satellite, Japan decided to be rude and vowed to shoot it down if it passes over Japan, which is why NK lauched that on the southern trajectory, instead, if memory proves right.

Again, NK is janking some chains, intentionally. The trajectory of the launch must have been immediately obvious that it would not hit Japan (~400km above them), but not warning them was still a rude thing. OTOH, If they announced, the usual countries would have protested, Japan would most likely have tried to shoot it down, etc. So not announcing was not completely a dick move, but had a plausible explanation, as well. The fact they didn't warn China and Cussia (or at least - they act as if they haven't been warned) moves that one closer to dick move, though.

Again, NK mostly keeps with the pattern of being kind of responsible (to not cause that war they know they will lose everything in), while trying to flip off as many rivals as possible at the same time. Once you realized that this is their thing, they are predictable.

[SolarpunkFan]

The link has an autoplay video, just FYI.

The South Koreans are cool as ice, so why are we sweating?

ON WEDNESDAY, after another long day of reading non-stop articles about the pending threat to the world from the nuclear armed rogue state of North Korea, I got to feeling worried for the people of Seoul, South Korea.

With President Trump goading North Korea and Kim Jong Un goading President Trump, it must be a pretty frightening time to live there, I figured.

What I learned next surprised me.

South Korea is a pretty small country and its capital is located in the northern part, really not far from the border with North Korea. The city of about 10 million people is about an hour’s drive from the demilitarised zone that separates the two countries.

North Korea claims to have nuclear weapons that could reach America. That may be true, but their ability to wreak havoc on South Korea is undoubtable, nukes or not.

President Trump’s former strategist Steve Bannon gave his sense of what a major conflict might look like in an interview a few weeks back.

“Ten million people in Seoul,” Bannon said, could “die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons.”

Those poor South Koreans must be terrified, I thought. If I was them I would be trying to escape the danger zone. I decided to check the price of flights out of Seoul to see if they had been bid up to crazy levels amid a mad scramble for safety.

The search was a flop. You can fly from Seoul to Shanghai (a two hour flight) for just $184, according to Google Flights.

You can get all the way across the Pacific to LA for just $655. Peanuts. Flights going back the other way cost more: It is actually more expensive to fly into Seoul than to escape it! The panic I expected to find is conspicuously absent.

It got me thinking. If they’re not panicking, why are we?

When I opened the Korea Times the other day, the top story was about their national Soccer team taking on Uzbekistan in World Cup qualification.

The World Cup is not until 2018. If South Korea is eradicated in a major nuclear blast later this year, then there will be no team to take the field in Russia. (Incidentally this could be good news for the hapless Socceroos, who are on the brink of missing qualification for next year’s World Cup, but luckily our boys have no sway over geopolitical conflict.)

Other ways you could look for South Korean panic also come up blank. Their stock market has dipped slightly since a peak in July, but it rose around 1 per cent on Thursday and is about 15 per cent higher than a year earlier.

If South Korea is razed those stocks will be an exceptionally bad buy. But nobody seems to really think it will be.

And on social media? Nobody in Seoul seems to be posting pics of them digging nuclear bunkers or stockpiling bottled water. It looks suspiciously like life goes on as normal.

Which involves a lot of eating:

And drinking:

And obsessing over somebody called Jimin. Jimin, I have learned, is a singer with K-pop band BTS. (Their name translates as the bulletproof boyscouts.) A sort of Korean Bieber, he exerts a pull on Korean fans far, far in excess of what the bemused outside observer could reasonably expect.)

Park Jimin posts are outstripping Kim Jong Un posts by about a million to one, as far as I can see.

So while the west beats itself into a lather, live reports from Seoul ring with total nonchalance.

The Republic of Korea (South) and The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North) are still technically at war (no armistice was ever signed at the end of the Korean conflict).

The two countries have a single major difference: One adopted a market economy and has zoomed ahead in terms of wealth. The other remains riven with malnutrition thanks to the privations of a communist dictatorship.

(South Korean fathers may roll their eyes as their daughters swoon for Jimin but it’s better than seeing them collapse from starvation.)

Despite the ideological and ensuing cultural divides, there is a great deal the two Koreas retain in common. They share a language and a culture. Many families are split across the two nations.

If anyone has insight into what is going on in North Korea, it is probably the South Koreans.

If they’re not panicking, maybe we shouldn’t be either.