Paladin Solo
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
calculon000 said:
True, but then again, I'm glad there are people who are aggressive on limiting the number of nukes in the world as we have disscussed before.
Taepodong-2 missile was aimed at Hawaii?
- Thread starter brandons1313
- Start date
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
True, but then again, I'm glad there are people who are aggressive on limiting the number of nukes in the world as we have disscussed before.
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Come now, Rosh. What about the Indians, Pakis, and Israel? Americans can share.
How does the attempted emigration of an entire nation sound? If I was eating my grass to stay alive, and all of a sudden I can cross the border into a country where dudes die from playing video games my skinny ass is there.
Try processing 3 million people into a country the size of South Korea with the logistics we have at our disposal. Even before our military adventures we didn't have the means to feed, protect, and process that many people. Not to mention that Kim would just shut his own border and wipe out entire villages as examples.
Which of course would be a big fat lie. Kim already has one of the world's largest militaries and the ability to level Seoul in a matter of seconds. He has plenty of military deterrence. By developing nukes and then attempting to develop delivery systems capable of attacking the United States it becomes pretty clear to me that North Korea's nuclear program is intended to blackmail the United States into non-interference while Kim "unifies" the peninsula.
How's that for your monetary incentive? The protection of a trade partner? The economic stability of an entire region?
Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, if South Korea bites the dust, the whole world is going to feel it.
Bradylama said:
This is a possible intent, but it can't be proven. It could also be that if the US attacks NK in any way, it would be a good idea to have a weapon that might overcome the US' safety blankets of the oceans to hit them back. Anything that happens in NK would make it a defensive war for NK, so there would have to be some way to attack the US homeland in the same manner. That's just from a strategic standpoint, because I wouldn't let anyone invade my country without any ability to make them feel something as bad. The US has gone by this attitude of "mutual assured destruction" for decades, and it isn't surprising that Kim would want to follow suit when he's copying many of the stronger aspects of the US military.
I can understand Kim's nervousness and having to make bold stand-offish remarks, because take a look at Iraq, and Bush didn't even have to have evidence to invade it. It is one thing to fence off a dog from your yard, but another to start taunting and antagonizing it while making brutish gestures towards other dogs you don't like. Kim's paranoid, and understandably so. It doesn't make what he's doing right, it is just making him more desperate and dangerous.
Which, minus any diplomacy (there isn't any in the Bush administration), means that another conflict is likely inevitable.
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
The problem with North Korea pursuing a MAD-type policy, though, is that the only thing being wiped off the map will be North Korea.
Not even Kim can escape a nuclear exchange, which is why I think their program is all bark and no bite. Kim can't really use a nuke because it assures his destruction, but if he can threaten to use a nuke and make Americans wee themselves, then he gains a tremendous political leverage.
Kim Jong's only interest is the preservation of his power, and actually using a nuke on the Americans will do anything but.
Realistically, the best way to maintain his power would be to keep his mouth shut and quit rattling sabres. Like Suaside said, there's no immediate interest in invading North Korea, unless they threaten stability around the Sea of Japan. That's why I think Kim's ultimate goal is to preserve his position while simultaneously becoming a hero-god in the reunification of the Peninsula, and the best way to do that, would of course keep the US from interfering by nuclear threat.
I know there's no proof of that, but it seems like the most likely possibility to me. He's taking a serious gamble on this, and I don't think he would take it unless it meant a new Korea under his iron thumb.
Not even Kim can escape a nuclear exchange, which is why I think their program is all bark and no bite. Kim can't really use a nuke because it assures his destruction, but if he can threaten to use a nuke and make Americans wee themselves, then he gains a tremendous political leverage.
Kim Jong's only interest is the preservation of his power, and actually using a nuke on the Americans will do anything but.
Realistically, the best way to maintain his power would be to keep his mouth shut and quit rattling sabres. Like Suaside said, there's no immediate interest in invading North Korea, unless they threaten stability around the Sea of Japan. That's why I think Kim's ultimate goal is to preserve his position while simultaneously becoming a hero-god in the reunification of the Peninsula, and the best way to do that, would of course keep the US from interfering by nuclear threat.
I know there's no proof of that, but it seems like the most likely possibility to me. He's taking a serious gamble on this, and I don't think he would take it unless it meant a new Korea under his iron thumb.
since when did it become about logistics instead of morals?Bradylama said:
(i doubt numbers would be a prob btw, the NK borderpatrols are a wee bit too effective. sure they let slip a few from time to time, but it'll be their ass if they let people slip through en masse. self preservation will take the upperhand.)
if the US has money for endless of warmongering, then wouldn't it be fair to say they have some money for relief? you know, war is VERY fucking expensive. taking in people that are already used to minimalistic treatment (at best) can't be that expensive to feed & house.
now, this isn't about US money, it's the UN ffs. they're supposed to have money ready for that stuff, but for some reason the runaways have to be recognised by the US before being allowed into UN care programs. how fucked up is that?
no one is saying Kim is a good guy & a fine leader Brady, but you can hardly nuke/invade a country for "thinking they're about to do something bad". you better have some proof for that.Bradylama said:
funny thing though, even if the US were to find proof, the world would probably assume it's manipulated anyway.
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
The proof will come when North Korean troops cross the border, and the American's response thereafter.
We don't really even need to invade North Korea. We don't have relations with them as it is, so it wouldn't be like we were damaging them by bombing testing sights. If we keep the NK's missile production and testing underground, then how do they know their stuff will work? Chances are they won't. And by doing so, we keep the North Koreans in a position where all they can do is talk and never have anything to show for it. Essentially what's happening now, only we don't give them room to improve.
If Kim shells Seoul, we invade North Korea. If Kim nukes Japan, we invade North Korea. If Kim nukes China, then I think you get the idea. It'd require some pretty competent surveillance, though, to determine where they intend to test the missiles, though.
As for the refugees, even assuming we could feed and house them, what do we do with them? Jobs don't spring up instantly, and bullshit government labor can't last forever. Then there are issues of overcrowding and politics. Sure the South Koreans would welcome them as bretheren, but how long would that last? They certainly can't go back to North Korea, and they'll step on plenty of toes in the South, which might cause them to collectivise.
I guess this is more of a morality issue, though. I would say it'd do more harm than good by accepting North Korean refugees.
As if Dubya needed to prove anything to the world.
We don't really even need to invade North Korea. We don't have relations with them as it is, so it wouldn't be like we were damaging them by bombing testing sights. If we keep the NK's missile production and testing underground, then how do they know their stuff will work? Chances are they won't. And by doing so, we keep the North Koreans in a position where all they can do is talk and never have anything to show for it. Essentially what's happening now, only we don't give them room to improve.
If Kim shells Seoul, we invade North Korea. If Kim nukes Japan, we invade North Korea. If Kim nukes China, then I think you get the idea. It'd require some pretty competent surveillance, though, to determine where they intend to test the missiles, though.
As for the refugees, even assuming we could feed and house them, what do we do with them? Jobs don't spring up instantly, and bullshit government labor can't last forever. Then there are issues of overcrowding and politics. Sure the South Koreans would welcome them as bretheren, but how long would that last? They certainly can't go back to North Korea, and they'll step on plenty of toes in the South, which might cause them to collectivise.
I guess this is more of a morality issue, though. I would say it'd do more harm than good by accepting North Korean refugees.
As if Dubya needed to prove anything to the world.
but it would be another proof to the world that you are an evil warmongering nation, only out for your own best interest & disregarding anything that doesnt fit your pretty lil' american dream.Bradylama said:
heh, if Kim is ever stupid enough to nuke China, i think China will take care of the problem themself. no need for USA to invade anything.Bradylama said:
that said, that - aint - going - to - happen
yar, spreading them out over 192 UN member countries would really be a huge problem...Bradylama said:
so you prefer illegals that are hunted down by NK's secret police?Bradylama said:
how nice
welsh
Junkmaster
Well Rosh, I think our immigration problems would be less difficult if we had a decent Mexico policy and our immigration policies weren't so fucked up. I think Mexico and illegal immigraton is a problem that can get fixed (though the incompetence of W is amazing).
North Korea I am less sure. If North Korea gets the capacity to deliver a nuclear warhead on Los Angeles, than I think there will be doubts as to how far the US is willing to go to defend South Korea and doubts among our allies of how far we are willing to go to protect them.
We face the same challenge when China threatens Taiwan- are the US willing to go all the way? Well the Chinese have more to lose in a nuclear exchange with the US than they might gain.
North Korea is, in contrast, in bad shape. Not so long ago, during the last big famine, there was talk that the regime must suffer a coup, that the military may try a take over, etc. How far might Kim go to blackmail the US into supporting him and his regime? Would he be willing to risk a war or even to detonate a nuclear weapon just to show he's serious?
Nuclear diplomacy is a game of resolve and character- the other side must believe you are serious, and sometimes you need to show that level of seriousness. I doubt the Chinese or Russians would go all the way, so they would use other means to expand their sphere of interest. Kim, I am less sure of. Perhaps, as has been mentioned above, he might be deterred, but that assumes he can be deterred.
Sure, that's all just probabilities. Perhaps but the track record of negotiating with Kim is clear- that guy can't be dealt with.
We offer carrots in the form of nuclear technology, he breaks his word.
We give him the cold shoulder and ignore him, and he builds nuclear weapons and missiles.
No ignoring him and offering incentives doesn't work.
Perhaps its time to give him the stick.
This is classic diplomacy with the communist-tolatitarians- another form of warfare in which duplicity and evasion is merely tactical and power is what matters most.
Yes, its unfortunate that thousands if not millions of people might be killed in a nuclear exchange, and if there is a way to remove Kim without war, than that should be done.
I would rather see a mushroom cloud over North Korea than one over Hawaii or Alaska or L.A.
Brady is correct, the North Koreans have always maintained a policy of unification of the Korean peninsular. Currently North Korea is at a disadvantage because South Korea has done economically well while North Korea has become a shambles. There are significant financial issues at stake. North Korea could blackmail its neighbors in order to raise the money to stay in power and sometimes a blackmailer must show violence in order to prove its' capacity to back up its coercion.
That's unacceptable. Kim plays a dangerous game and this is the most significant threat to US interests in the last 15 years.
Was nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki worth it? I buy the predictions that an invasion would have cost up to a million lives of US and more of the Japanese. 250,000 Japanese vs over a million casualties- I have no problem with that math.
North Korea? Ignoring this problem is not going to send it away. That is also a lesson from Afghanistan- ignoring a problem will not make it better. Trying to deal with a cockroach like Kim is not going to improve matters. It would be better of nuclear weapons were not used, but if necessary.. then yes.
And while I may agree that many of Bush's policies or US foreign policies are half-assed, this is different. The US, largely under Bush, has fucked up with Kim and North Korea. It's time to fix the problem once and for all.
Morality? Please. This is about blackmail and dealing with a person who will bleed his people white to stay in power (and I am not talking about W). You're worried about how other people are going to think about you? Please.
What is the moral of this story? Make it a clear signal- if you threaten the US than be prepared to get crushed. IF you think you can blackmail the US, you will be crushed. If you fuck with us, you will be crushed. The US can be your friend, but if you threaten hostility, than prepare to answer for it for the US will take the threat seriously.
YOu mention Afghanistan- the problem there was that the US ignored the problems left behind after the Soviets withdrew. The US ignored the problem of Osama until he became dangerous. We've ignored North Korea too long. Time to deal with it.
Simple- if Kim wants to live, pay him off and have him live in exile in China. If he wants to play the nuclear game, let him feel the first sting of the nuclear exchange.
North Korea I am less sure. If North Korea gets the capacity to deliver a nuclear warhead on Los Angeles, than I think there will be doubts as to how far the US is willing to go to defend South Korea and doubts among our allies of how far we are willing to go to protect them.
We face the same challenge when China threatens Taiwan- are the US willing to go all the way? Well the Chinese have more to lose in a nuclear exchange with the US than they might gain.
North Korea is, in contrast, in bad shape. Not so long ago, during the last big famine, there was talk that the regime must suffer a coup, that the military may try a take over, etc. How far might Kim go to blackmail the US into supporting him and his regime? Would he be willing to risk a war or even to detonate a nuclear weapon just to show he's serious?
Nuclear diplomacy is a game of resolve and character- the other side must believe you are serious, and sometimes you need to show that level of seriousness. I doubt the Chinese or Russians would go all the way, so they would use other means to expand their sphere of interest. Kim, I am less sure of. Perhaps, as has been mentioned above, he might be deterred, but that assumes he can be deterred.
Sure, that's all just probabilities. Perhaps but the track record of negotiating with Kim is clear- that guy can't be dealt with.
We offer carrots in the form of nuclear technology, he breaks his word.
We give him the cold shoulder and ignore him, and he builds nuclear weapons and missiles.
No ignoring him and offering incentives doesn't work.
Perhaps its time to give him the stick.
This is classic diplomacy with the communist-tolatitarians- another form of warfare in which duplicity and evasion is merely tactical and power is what matters most.
Yes, its unfortunate that thousands if not millions of people might be killed in a nuclear exchange, and if there is a way to remove Kim without war, than that should be done.
I would rather see a mushroom cloud over North Korea than one over Hawaii or Alaska or L.A.
Brady is correct, the North Koreans have always maintained a policy of unification of the Korean peninsular. Currently North Korea is at a disadvantage because South Korea has done economically well while North Korea has become a shambles. There are significant financial issues at stake. North Korea could blackmail its neighbors in order to raise the money to stay in power and sometimes a blackmailer must show violence in order to prove its' capacity to back up its coercion.
That's unacceptable. Kim plays a dangerous game and this is the most significant threat to US interests in the last 15 years.
Was nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki worth it? I buy the predictions that an invasion would have cost up to a million lives of US and more of the Japanese. 250,000 Japanese vs over a million casualties- I have no problem with that math.
North Korea? Ignoring this problem is not going to send it away. That is also a lesson from Afghanistan- ignoring a problem will not make it better. Trying to deal with a cockroach like Kim is not going to improve matters. It would be better of nuclear weapons were not used, but if necessary.. then yes.
And while I may agree that many of Bush's policies or US foreign policies are half-assed, this is different. The US, largely under Bush, has fucked up with Kim and North Korea. It's time to fix the problem once and for all.
Morality? Please. This is about blackmail and dealing with a person who will bleed his people white to stay in power (and I am not talking about W). You're worried about how other people are going to think about you? Please.
What is the moral of this story? Make it a clear signal- if you threaten the US than be prepared to get crushed. IF you think you can blackmail the US, you will be crushed. If you fuck with us, you will be crushed. The US can be your friend, but if you threaten hostility, than prepare to answer for it for the US will take the threat seriously.
YOu mention Afghanistan- the problem there was that the US ignored the problems left behind after the Soviets withdrew. The US ignored the problem of Osama until he became dangerous. We've ignored North Korea too long. Time to deal with it.
Simple- if Kim wants to live, pay him off and have him live in exile in China. If he wants to play the nuclear game, let him feel the first sting of the nuclear exchange.
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
As much as I agree with Welsh in spirit, there's no denying how horrible an idea being the aggressor in a nuclear exchange will be. I mean, nuking hundreds of thousands of skinnies because Kim might be able to strike fucking Alaska is something that will sap any semblance of credibility we had as a positive force in the world. We certainly won't be excused by murdering hundreds of thousands, including giving Japan a bad new rash of melanoma.
So? President Clinton launched Tomahawk missiles on Baghdad in response to the attempted assassination on Herbert Walker Bush. We've always done whatever the Hell we've wanted militarily when we could. No nation acts against its own best interests by purpose.
I mean, wow, big steamin' helpin' of no shit.
Part of the entire point. By actually using nukes, Kim loses everything. Which is why we shouldn't take his nuclear blackmail seriously.
Better than massacres at the border, I'd say.
BIG NEWS!
Japan is threatening pre-emptive strikes on North Korea.
They're actually spending time right now trying to see if a pre-emptive strike would be constitutional for them. The problem, though, is whether or not the JSDF is actually capable of launching an attack on North Korea. The general consensus is they can't.
So? President Clinton launched Tomahawk missiles on Baghdad in response to the attempted assassination on Herbert Walker Bush. We've always done whatever the Hell we've wanted militarily when we could. No nation acts against its own best interests by purpose.
I mean, wow, big steamin' helpin' of no shit.
Part of the entire point. By actually using nukes, Kim loses everything. Which is why we shouldn't take his nuclear blackmail seriously.
Better than massacres at the border, I'd say.
BIG NEWS!
Japan is threatening pre-emptive strikes on North Korea.
They're actually spending time right now trying to see if a pre-emptive strike would be constitutional for them. The problem, though, is whether or not the JSDF is actually capable of launching an attack on North Korea. The general consensus is they can't.
welsh said:
Which might have worked, and was working under Clinton and others, until Bush first killed the one-on-one talks, decided to cut supplies as agreed to, and then labeled NK as an "Axis of Evil" along with Iraq and Iran. Not too fucking bright. Due to that steaming pile of failed diplomacy, NK had to assume that the US was no longer willing to deal like they were in Clinton's time, and the possibility of a US invasion was quite likely given that diplomacy was going out of the window.
You have to leave a way out through diplomatic channels, and Bush is playing the same "I see a gun in his hands!" bullshit he played with Hussein. Kim's trying now to form some kind of deterrance, because not even the lack of evidence stopped Bush in invading and destroying Iraq, without care to civilians or even his own troops.
Bradylama said:
As would China, and oh, hey look, more relations go down the shitter. Nuking NK is just a simple, inelegant solution that I would expect of Bush, because it lacks the foresight of the action's consequences, and it would be even worse if not more so than Afghanistan. The US, if it did not create Osama and the Taliban, certainly helped him grow in power, their later neglect allowing him to rise in power. The only way the US absolved most of the bitter feelings after having nuked Japan was through years of invested support. Which was one of the few occasions of US occupation doing something other than fuck the host country to hell.
Indeed, and the rest of the world considers the US to be full of arrogant fuckheads who will do whatever they want without care to anyone else. Want proof? Take a look at any of our major businesses and then look at our government. Instead of working together with our allies in a mutually-respectful way, we're just doing whatever the fuck we want, without regard to anyone else, in the most selfish and cutthroat ways imaginable.
So if the US only has the US' interests in mind, the US can seriously go piss off because the US used to remove governments from power for doing the exact same thing.
Because of two things: If Kim creates a nuclear exchange, it would adversely affect China, and who knows how they will react to it? Kim's already on thin ice with them, given that China has to devote thousands of soldiers to prevent NK refugees from crossing the Yalu River.
If Kim keeps firing off missiles, it will not just ire the JSDF, but also the South Korean Army, which has 5 MILLION RESERVISTS, and probably would crush Kim's forces like a bug in their 50-60's era Soviet tanks. Without US aid. Compared to that, Iraq had an army around the same size as NK, but also had equipment that could be called modern. SK also spends about...oh, about the entire NK budget, just on defense. It also must be noted that many of the "military" in NK are farmers, and not the MMOG type.
NK has become a shithole, and if anyone thinks it would be like the Korean War again if Kim decided to attack, they're quite mistaken. There is no support from China or Russia with modern equipment and supplies, as NK's current equipment is mostly scrap from that time, and China and Russia openly trade with SK.
1/4 of a mil vs. the 4th largest army in the world. Still might be possible given how technologically far behind the KPA is to the JSDF. Now, with SK backing, NK doesn't stand a chance.
So, the most viable solution is diplomacy to make sure Kim doesn't feel backed into a corner, and wait until Kim sees no reason to make missiles; as if relic parts could do anything, though I do admit there's a possibility of attacking Japan or SK with nukes, which will only destroy NK as China and Russia step in from the north. A peaceful solution will only happen with diplomacy, as Bush's gunslinging has only made things worse.
The missile tests are really little more than a bluff, and a weak one at that, given the claims by NK folks about being able to hit US bases anywhere in the world, when the tests have been quite laughable as the mechanics of the missiles break down. It's pretty sad how the media and US govt. both expect everyone to jump at the littlest sign of terror, and attribute the claims of NK people as "fact", as where the missiles "could hit" given the claimed ranges. I really loved the laughable "aimed at Hawaii" in the news, as if it's going to hit Hawaii when it can't even make it out of the Sea of Japan.
As someone who lived through much of the Cold War, the terror alert levels were a joke, and NK missiles reaching the US as part of an offensive strike are an even bigger joke. Most likely, they would be used if the US decides to invade, and will be aimed at one of the SK bases in order to try and throw the invasion into disarray.
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
There's no doubt that the JSDF could defeat the KPA, sure, but the problem is whether or not the JSDF has the logistics, munitions, or training for an offensive strike on North Korean installations.
The Japanese aren't even looking for a conflict here, they're looking for a loophole in their constitution just to drop bombs on missile launch pads.
The Japanese aren't even looking for a conflict here, they're looking for a loophole in their constitution just to drop bombs on missile launch pads.
welsh
Junkmaster
Except of course if North Korea detonated a bomb on Tokyo.
Russia and China stopping North Korea from going to war? Are you kidding?
If the Russians and Chinese took their hands off it would only because they calculate that saving North Korea is not in their interest. But protecting South Korea? That's nuts.
And you don't think that North Korea is a test of the US resolve to protect Taiwan. If the US gets nuked protecting South Korea, how likely are we to stop China from pressing for Taipei? And if the US gets burnt in this exchange and decides to keep out of foreign affairs- hot dog! China gets easier access to Central Asian Oil!
Trade? Fuck. International trade didn't stop World War 1 either, and prior to World War 1 the countries of Europe were trading with greater intensity than ever nor duplicated that level of inter-state trade until the 1970s- 1980s. And as China improves its technology, might not war on the Korean Peninsula mean that China is clearly dominant as Japan and South Korea lick the wounds of war and watch China surpass their comparative levels of technology?
Trusting China is foolish.
And how much is it worth (in dollars) to stop Kim from actually going through with a war.
You guys are forgetting a core element of nuclear diplomacy. Using nuclear coercion only works if the other side believes you are capable of going all the way.
When Kissenger threatened Saudi Arabia with nuclear attack during the 1970s when oil got jacked up, the Saudis laughed. Nicaragua never too seriously any threats of atomic attack. But Cuba did, and to back that up it had Soviet deterrence- which may still explain why the US doesn't depose Castro.
Lessons of nuclear diplomacy- the Soviets believed Nixon was willing to go all the way in 1973 during the '73 Arab Israeli war in order to keep the Soviets out of Egypt. At that point the US administration was forced to play that card because the Israeli's had managed to fuck what good faith Kissenger had managed to hell.
During the Cuban Missile Crisis the US left the ball in the Russian court but promised nuclear exchange and had taken steps to go all the way if it came down to it.
When the Russians asked Nixon if he minded a nuclear exchange in which Russia nukes China, Nixon was clear in voicing his concerns that it was unacceptable to the US.
I agree that utilzing nuclear weapons would create a lot of anti-US resentment. Actually using them would cause many thousands of unfortunate casualties.
But if you think South Korea and Japan going to war with Japan through conventional means won't get you to the same place, you are foolish. That would only mean that you are slowly moving up the ladder of escalation that could lead eventually to nuclear warfare as 'war by other means" only after leading to many thousands of civilian deaths by conventional warfare.
(although probalby big profits by the war industry).
So you don't go there.
You make it clear to Kim that you are willing to go all out, that nuclear holocaust is just a touch of a button away. You make it clear that the steps are already being taken. You make it clear and certain that the US will accept the risks of war- both economic, political and diplomatic. That this is so important to the US that we are willing to do it.
Because lack of resolve is why Saddam backed down. But the certainty of resolve got the dipshits in Haiti to get out while the getting was good.
Nuclear deterrence was also known as the Balance of Terror for good reason. Nuclear obliteration is terrorism-an awesome way to scare the shit out of your enemy. Thus Japan ends World War 2 because it has no idea how many more Hiroshimas and Nagasakis it has to look forward too.
But like terrorism, it is an act that requires projecting character and resolve- the willingness to do something unthinkably horrific. Deterrence or compellence has to be credible, or it won't work.
You give Kim a door out- comfortable exile vs certain death. And you make it clear that if he doesn't take the exile option, he and most of his country will be vaporized.
If Kim doesn't take the hint, perhaps someone close by will decide Kim is no longer representing the Korean state and its best to do away with him and make friendly.
If it still doesn't happen, you give him a very clear signal.
This is not about morality or doing the "fair thing".
Rosh, you know damn well how much I think Bush is a prick and I've been plenty clear about my criticisms of the US in the past.
But this suggestion of conventional warfare as acceptable is bullshit.
Diplomacy has consistently failed. The only way out is to depose him, influence a regime change, or force him out of state. You can't trust China's interests to play by what you wish for. Rather, play by what you can expect and a proven track record. The Chinese will fuck the US if it can. China has only self-interest to consider. Russia may play smarter to deter what it sees as greater US aggression.
But to get rid of Kim you must send a clear signal. You have two choices- leave or die. All this crap about US popularity abroad only suggests a lack of resolve.
In a game of chicken- where two cars are speeding at each other in the hope of both drivers swerving to avoid the other, often both play brinksmanship that leads to a collision because both drivers are certain the other would rather swerve and suffer shame, then crash.
The way you win the game is by making sure the other driver sees you throw your steering wheel out the window.
Playing the same game here- make sure that Kim knows that war is coming and it will be unimaginably horrible and yet the US is enthusiastic about this, that the US wants this, and then KIm will have second thoughts.
.
Russia and China stopping North Korea from going to war? Are you kidding?
If the Russians and Chinese took their hands off it would only because they calculate that saving North Korea is not in their interest. But protecting South Korea? That's nuts.
And you don't think that North Korea is a test of the US resolve to protect Taiwan. If the US gets nuked protecting South Korea, how likely are we to stop China from pressing for Taipei? And if the US gets burnt in this exchange and decides to keep out of foreign affairs- hot dog! China gets easier access to Central Asian Oil!
Trade? Fuck. International trade didn't stop World War 1 either, and prior to World War 1 the countries of Europe were trading with greater intensity than ever nor duplicated that level of inter-state trade until the 1970s- 1980s. And as China improves its technology, might not war on the Korean Peninsula mean that China is clearly dominant as Japan and South Korea lick the wounds of war and watch China surpass their comparative levels of technology?
Trusting China is foolish.
And how much is it worth (in dollars) to stop Kim from actually going through with a war.
You guys are forgetting a core element of nuclear diplomacy. Using nuclear coercion only works if the other side believes you are capable of going all the way.
When Kissenger threatened Saudi Arabia with nuclear attack during the 1970s when oil got jacked up, the Saudis laughed. Nicaragua never too seriously any threats of atomic attack. But Cuba did, and to back that up it had Soviet deterrence- which may still explain why the US doesn't depose Castro.
Lessons of nuclear diplomacy- the Soviets believed Nixon was willing to go all the way in 1973 during the '73 Arab Israeli war in order to keep the Soviets out of Egypt. At that point the US administration was forced to play that card because the Israeli's had managed to fuck what good faith Kissenger had managed to hell.
During the Cuban Missile Crisis the US left the ball in the Russian court but promised nuclear exchange and had taken steps to go all the way if it came down to it.
When the Russians asked Nixon if he minded a nuclear exchange in which Russia nukes China, Nixon was clear in voicing his concerns that it was unacceptable to the US.
I agree that utilzing nuclear weapons would create a lot of anti-US resentment. Actually using them would cause many thousands of unfortunate casualties.
But if you think South Korea and Japan going to war with Japan through conventional means won't get you to the same place, you are foolish. That would only mean that you are slowly moving up the ladder of escalation that could lead eventually to nuclear warfare as 'war by other means" only after leading to many thousands of civilian deaths by conventional warfare.
(although probalby big profits by the war industry).
So you don't go there.
You make it clear to Kim that you are willing to go all out, that nuclear holocaust is just a touch of a button away. You make it clear that the steps are already being taken. You make it clear and certain that the US will accept the risks of war- both economic, political and diplomatic. That this is so important to the US that we are willing to do it.
Because lack of resolve is why Saddam backed down. But the certainty of resolve got the dipshits in Haiti to get out while the getting was good.
Nuclear deterrence was also known as the Balance of Terror for good reason. Nuclear obliteration is terrorism-an awesome way to scare the shit out of your enemy. Thus Japan ends World War 2 because it has no idea how many more Hiroshimas and Nagasakis it has to look forward too.
But like terrorism, it is an act that requires projecting character and resolve- the willingness to do something unthinkably horrific. Deterrence or compellence has to be credible, or it won't work.
You give Kim a door out- comfortable exile vs certain death. And you make it clear that if he doesn't take the exile option, he and most of his country will be vaporized.
If Kim doesn't take the hint, perhaps someone close by will decide Kim is no longer representing the Korean state and its best to do away with him and make friendly.
If it still doesn't happen, you give him a very clear signal.
This is not about morality or doing the "fair thing".
Rosh, you know damn well how much I think Bush is a prick and I've been plenty clear about my criticisms of the US in the past.
But this suggestion of conventional warfare as acceptable is bullshit.
Diplomacy has consistently failed. The only way out is to depose him, influence a regime change, or force him out of state. You can't trust China's interests to play by what you wish for. Rather, play by what you can expect and a proven track record. The Chinese will fuck the US if it can. China has only self-interest to consider. Russia may play smarter to deter what it sees as greater US aggression.
But to get rid of Kim you must send a clear signal. You have two choices- leave or die. All this crap about US popularity abroad only suggests a lack of resolve.
In a game of chicken- where two cars are speeding at each other in the hope of both drivers swerving to avoid the other, often both play brinksmanship that leads to a collision because both drivers are certain the other would rather swerve and suffer shame, then crash.
The way you win the game is by making sure the other driver sees you throw your steering wheel out the window.
Playing the same game here- make sure that Kim knows that war is coming and it will be unimaginably horrible and yet the US is enthusiastic about this, that the US wants this, and then KIm will have second thoughts.
.
Apparently some forces in Japan are considering destroying the North Korean launch sites. According to them, the constitution would allow this, as destroying those sites would count as self-defence.
I didn't find any English articles, so I'm afraid I can't give any links...
I'm not really liking the idea of a second Korean war, it might lead to worse things. Especially if there's a nuclear exchange (unlikely though).
The North Korean government is insane. Is invading the country the only solution to this? I say kidnap Kim and put him on trial for crimes against Humanity. The real losers here are the North Korean people.
I didn't find any English articles, so I'm afraid I can't give any links...
I'm not really liking the idea of a second Korean war, it might lead to worse things. Especially if there's a nuclear exchange (unlikely though).
The North Korean government is insane. Is invading the country the only solution to this? I say kidnap Kim and put him on trial for crimes against Humanity. The real losers here are the North Korean people.
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
How much profit is involved in a war that lasts under a week?
And why is that? The end result is certainly more desirable than a nuclear exchange in which North Korea actually glows for once in the night's sky, and the entire northeastern coast of Asia faces severe health issues because of American actions.
How many nukes can Kim field? How many can actually strike the US? We'll play nuclear ball with him when he actually brings something tangible to the table. Until then, if he does continue testing missiles that are theoretically capable of reaching the US, we threaten conventional force. We can destroy what little Kim has left easily, and if he decides to escalate things by shelling Seoul, then his ass is gone. We can smack the ball out of his hands before he even gets down court, and there's not much reason why we shouldn't.
Of course, in this case there's no reason we can't let the JSDF take care of things by giving them the "leg up." It essentially amounts to the same situation as when the Israeli Air Force set back Saddam's nuclear program to 0.
And what is it about those interests that are served by nuking North Korea? Both nations share borders with North Korea, and you think the political fallout will be less significant after a Nuclear exchange?
If you're suggesting that one or the other will actually intervene on behalf of the North Koreans, you're pretty much insane. What if we start playing nuclear hardball like you suggest? What if the Chinese and the Russians threaten nuclear retaliation against us for irradiating Manchuria and Siberia? Short sighted doesn't even begin to describe this.
So you'd suggest deploying a strategic bomber wing to the far east? Fly some B-52s a few miles above Pyongyang and hope Kim gives in? Why not just avoid the whole mess and let the Japs take care of things? They're seperated by an ocean, and the South Koreans certainly can't be blamed for JSDF planes jetting across the Sea of Japan.
Japan has very, very little in the way of a military, Article 9 of their constitution states that they will not maintain a full military capable of any sort of prolonged or full-scale warfare as the japanese govt no longer recognizes war as a legitimate option in any situtation. They do however have a small self-defense force capable of repelling attackers, but little else.Ghoullove said:
SK on the other hand can easily handle Nk all on it's own. Its military can easily handle the NK military. The NK military is undernourished, under-equipped, undertrained because they simply don't have the funds even though their military is a fairly large part of their laughable GDP.
The US does not need to and should not be involved in this situation on any ground force level if at all. The idea of NK having the capability of hitting the US is completely rediculous. Our bases in SK and Japan are the only things at risk and we shouldn't even have bases in SK. They're constantly being rotated with troops unfamiliar with the base and region as the deployment there is only short tour (9-12 months generally), the morale at those bases is godawful - ask anyone who's been there, and with the US's hands tied all over the globe since they're overextended we wouldn't be able to support those troops for shit should full scale war break out. They can't do a thing there but die. Our bases in Japan are sufficient to supply air and naval support to the region which is the only support we should offer should such an engagement take place.
The idea of nuking NK is also fucking rediculous. We'd destroy foreign relations with Japan, Russia, and China as all would be subjected to the fallout. Mind you, we can lose SK as a trade partner, but Japan and China? Hell no.
The situation doesn't even warrent nuclear warfare. Kim is pure bluster. That he's threatening the US might warrent conventional bombing, but with as big of a joke his missles are, they are little justification for even that.
My thoughts on the situation is fairly simple. Sure it pisses me off that he'd threaten us or our allies, but he's not worth losing men over. Dissolve our SK bases, strengthen our naval presence there to replace the loss of artillery support, move the air forces at Osan and Kunsan to Hawaii Alaska or Japan to cover it, get our Army and Marines out and issue and ultimatum. The US will support SK in its peace efforts, but should there ever be another directed threat toward Japan, SK, or us, there will be retribution.
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
We can afford to lose china as a trade partner more than they can afford to lose us.
What we can't afford to lose are all those bonds that the Chinese own. =/
What we can't afford to lose are all those bonds that the Chinese own. =/
Don't count out the Japanese defence force yet. From what I see they have an excellent professional force which can stand up to some scrutiny, their defence budget alone is $45 billion. I will admit the defence force would have to bit bigger in order to back up South Korea in a fight. A remiltitarized Japan could be a good thing, enough to make China nervous.