The North Korea Problem

[zapatos]

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Yes to one and three; which nation did North Korea invade and which nation did North Korea give WMDs to?

1. South Korea of course.

2. Don't move the goalposts now. You asked about proliferation, not distribution. NK has both nuclear weapons (true WMD) and chemical weapons (commonly referred to as WMD).

[zapatos]

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

@ Zapatos, You can not provide a link showing that North Korea, "regarding what is happening", has made threats to South Korea.

That's not what you said. Read your question again. Or is this a magical goalpost thing?

[Ten oz]

17 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Can you provide of a link showing that the White House has made any clear demands regarding what is happening with regards to North Korean citizens or a link showing a clear threat against South Korea made by North Korea?

 

To my knowledge my govt's official position isn't demading anything specific:

"We do not seek a regime change, we do not seek the collapse of the regime, we do not seek an accelerated reunification of the peninsula, we do not seek an excuse to send our military north of the 38th parallel," said Mr Tillerson, referring to the border between the Koreas "

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40797613

 

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

That's not what you said. Read your question again. Or is this a magical goalpost thing?

Above is the original qoute. Not goal posts moved. In context of the full post I made 2 points both of which are directed towards the current stand off. You have provided links referencing old rhetoric from Kim Jong-il mostly. Your most recent explainof North Korea threatening South Korea is 5yrs old. That doesn't justify pre-emptive action today. As this showdown plays out North Korea has not been threatening South Korea. North Korea even went out of its way to issue a statement singling out the U.S. as the "only" nation is its crosshairs. More over South Korea is pointing the finger at both sides asking the saberrattling to stop.Additionally you have not even attempted to address the other part of the post questioning what Trump's official position is. What are we asking/demanding North Korea do at this moment to ease tensions?

[zapatos]

9 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 

Additionally you have not even attempted to address the other part of the post questioning what Trump's official position is. What are we asking/demanding North Korea do at this moment to ease tensions?

You are correct. I did not attempt to address the other part. Nor did I address a number of other questions asked by many other people in this thread.

It is difficult to look at a small time slice and get an accurate view of a situation. North Korea did not suddenly begin threatening others in 2017. Acting like its previous history has nothing to do with the present makes for a poor analysis. Launching missiles toward Japan or shelling South Korean islands cannot be removed from the present analysis just because they didn't happen in the past two weeks.

[Ten oz]

18 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Has North Korea ever attacked any other nation, have they ever used WMDs against anyone, have they participated in the proliferation of WMDs? The U.S. has done all the above multiple times. We (USA) have pre-emptively invaded countries, used nuclear weapons, armed Saddam with gas and helped Pakistan get Nukes. To some extent action speak loudly as words. If we dispassionately look at our histories it seems more likely that we (USA) would act first. Even within the context of the strong rhetoric Kim Jong-un is not expressing a desire to attack us first. Rather Kim Jong-on is carrying on about how fiercely North Korea would retaliate. North Korea's red line is being attacked. Trump's red line looks like a rorschach test.

 

Can you explain what the Trump administration wants or would accept which would de-escalate the situation? The U.S. currently doesn't have an expressed goal. We are not asking for Kim Jong-un's regime to be removed, not asking for their military to disarm, not demanding they withdrawn troops from someplace, or etc. With Afghanistan the goal was Al Qaeda. We told the Taliban govt to hand over Al Qaeda leaders or else we'd come for Al Qaeda and them (Taliban). In Iraq the goal  was to remove Saddam from power and disarm the country of WMD's (something they didn't have). Agree or disagree with Afghanistan and Iraq wars or not at least there were stated goals known to all in advance. What is the goal in North Korea? State Dept, Rex Tillerson, said the U.S. is not seeking regime change. So what are we seeking? I will need to know they answer to that before supporting military action by my govt on my behalf.

 

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

1. South Korea of course.

2. Don't move the goalposts now. You asked about proliferation, not distribution. NK has both nuclear weapons (true WMD) and chemical weapons (commonly referred to as WMD).

1 - Per Korean war the North was occupied by the USSR and the South by the United State. North Korea was not formerly its own nation. Separate govts were formed in 1948 and the Korean war followed from 1950-1953. They only example of North Korea attacking another nation you can provide is the cold war pressured quasi civil war which created North Korea to begin with? I take it you concede there have been no attacks on other nations since then? The ideology that governs North Korea today was created post the Korea war in 1955:

"The Juche ideology is the cornerstone of party works and government operations. It is viewed by the official North Korean line as an embodiment of Kim Il-sung's wisdom, an expression of his leadership, and an idea which provides "a complete answer to any question that arises in the struggle for national liberation".[152] Juche was pronounced in December 1955 in order to emphasize a Korea-centered revolution.[152] Its core tenets are economic self-sufficiency, military self-reliance and an independent foreign policy. The roots of Juche were made up of a complex mixture of factors, including the cult of personality centered on Kim Il-sung, the conflict with pro-Soviet and pro-Chinese dissenters, and Korea's centuries-long struggle for independence."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea#Political_and_legal_status

 

2 - I listed 3 things and then provided 3 examples for context to illustrate what I was referencing. My example of U.S. proliferation was the giving Saddam gas and helping Pakistan get nukes. You are completely ignoring the the question in its context and instead implying a separate one based on formalities. That is fine. You can duck questions all you want just stop pretending I am moving the goals.

[Ten oz]

6 minutes ago, zapatos said:

You are correct. I did not attempt to address the other part. Nor did I address a number of other questions asked by many other people in this thread.

It is difficult to look at a small time slice and get an accurate view of a situation. North Korea did not suddenly begin threatening others in 2017. Acting like its previous history has nothing to do with the present makes for a poor analysis. Launching missiles toward Japan or shelling South Korean islands cannot be removed from the present analysis just because they didn't happen in the past two weeks.

Which brings us back to the coversation about which nations North Korea attacked. One doesn't have to go back 67yrs to references the U.S. attacking another nation. While history matters the current situation has little to do with what North Korea did in 2012. This is about spirally rhectoric as both Kim Jong-un and Trump play a dangerous game of one upmanship. I already posted links showing that North Korea has a history of challanging each new U.S. administration. In this case inexperience and a need to freestyle on social media is making things crazy. Trump and Kim are going back and worth meanwhile no one seems to be able to communicate what either side even wants.

[Ten oz]

On 8/11/2017 at 6:58 AM, Ten oz said:

Interesting article by the Washington Post today outlining the close relationship North Korea had with Grenada at the end of the 70's into the early 80's and the impact Reagan's "Operation Urgent" had on the way North Korea views the U.S.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/08/09/the-reagan-era-invasion-that-drove-north-korea-to-develop-nuclear-weapons/?utm_term=.d3594dff2106

 

Reading about Reagan's invasion of Grenada got me thinking about the way relations with North Korea with North Korea has played out over time. The Nuceal program in North Korea has been known about since the 1980's. Every U.S. President for nearly 40yrs has had to deal with North Korea. Below are some key dates because they show how Donald Trump's last 3 predecessors were all challanged early by North Korea and dealing with North Korea persisted throughout their administrations. I think it is also important to note that despite belabored relations and political pressure from within a shot was never fired By Bill Clinton, George Bush, or Barrack Obama. Now we are just 7 month in to Trump's admin and

 

1985 - North Korea signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. They never fully complied.

 

1993- "On 1 April 1993, the IAEA concluded that North Korea was in non-compliance with its Safeguards Agreement, and referred this to the UN Security Council. Following UN Security Council resolution 825, which called upon the DPRK to reconsider its decision to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and allow weapons inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) into the country, North Korea "suspended the effectuation" of that withdrawal in June 1993 "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework

 

1994 - " President Clinton approved a plan today to arrange more than $4 billion in energy aid to North Korea during the next decade in return for a commitment from the            country's hard-line Communist leadership to freeze and gradually dismantle its nuclear weapons development program. "

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/19/world/clinton-approves-a-plan-to-give-aid-to-north-koreans.html?pagewanted=all

 

2001(03)  - "by early 2001, some of us were questioning whether the agreement was the best way to achieve the goal of eliminating North Korea's nuclear capacity. And in October 2002, the North Koreans admitted to American diplomats that they had been operating a clandestine uranium enrichment program, in violation of the agreement and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

In response, the West's oil shipments to North Korea were suspended, and the International Atomic Energy Agency unanimously adopted a resolution warning that the nuclear program was a violation of the North's commitments. In January 2003, North Korea formally withdrew from the nonproliferation treaty."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/15/opinion/what-bush-did-right-on-north-korea.html

 

2007 - President Bush, directly engaging the man he publicly called a “tyrant,” wrote a letter to North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-il, in which he held out the prospect of normalized relations with the United States if North Korea fully disclosed its nuclear programs and dismantled its nuclear reactor, administration officials said Thursday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/world/asia/07korea.html

 

2009 - "Facing the first direct challenge to his administration by an emerging Nuclear Weapons state, President Obama declared Monday that the United States and its allies would “stand up” to North Korea hours after that country defied international sanctions and conducted what appeared to be its second nuclear test."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/world/asia/26nuke.html

 

2016 - "The Obama administration announced on Wednesday that it was imposing sanctions on North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, personally, blacklisting the unpredictable ruler and top officials in his reclusive government for human rights abuses as he aggressively presses forward with his Nuclear ballistic Missile programs."

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/world/asia/obama-puts-sanctions-on-north-korean-leaders-for-human-rights-abuse.html

-

 

16 minutes ago, zapatos said:

You are correct. I did not attempt to address the other part. Nor did I address a number of other questions asked by many other people in this thread.

It is difficult to look at a small time slice and get an accurate view of a situation. North Korea did not suddenly begin threatening others in 2017. Acting like its previous history has nothing to do with the present makes for a poor analysis. Launching missiles toward Japan or shelling South Korean islands cannot be removed from the present analysis just because they didn't happen in the past two weeks.

Look through the links above. North Korea challanged Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and Obama. This isn't new. I am very familiar with the history. It is one of the reason why I don't believe Trump can just bully his way through this with threats.

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Which brings us back to the coversation about which nations North Korea attacked. One doesn't have to go back 67yrs to references the U.S. attacking another nation. While history matters the current situation has little to do with what North Korea did in 2012. This is about spirally rhectoric as both Kim Jong-un and Trump play a dangerous game of one upmanship. I already posted links showing that North Korea has a history of challanging each new U.S. administration. In this case inexperience and a need to freestyle on social media is making things crazy. Trump and Kim are going back and worth meanwhile no one seems to be able to communicate what either side even wants.

If you want to constrain your questions, then please do so before I answer them and not after I answer them. I assume the shelling of Yeonpyeong is also outside the scope of what you consider relevant.

The current situation has everything to do with what North Korea has done in the past. There is a reason we treat North Korea and their acquisition of nuclear weapons differently than we treat India, Pakistan and Israel.

Edited August 13, 2017 by zapatos

[zapatos]

56 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 

1 - I take it you concede there have been no attacks on other nations since then?

Absolutely not.

 

Quote

The bombardment of Yeonpyeong was an artillery engagement between the North Korean military and South Korean forces stationed on Yeonpyeong Island on 23 November 2010.^[5] Following a South Korean artillery exercise in waters in the south, North Korean forces fired around 170 artillery shells and rockets at Yeonpyeong Island, hitting both military and civilian targets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Yeonpyeong

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

2 - I listed 3 things and then provided 3 examples for context to illustrate what I was referencing. My example of U.S. proliferation was the giving Saddam gas and helping Pakistan get nukes. You are completely ignoring the the question in its context and instead implying a separate one based on formalities. That is fine. You can duck questions all you want just stop pretending I am moving the goals.

Don't blame me if you cannot adequately convey what you meant to say. "Proliferation" does not mean 'giving to other countries' whether you used those examples or not.

Edited August 13, 2017 by zapatos

[zapatos]

54 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Which brings us back to the coversation about which nations North Korea attacked. One doesn't have to go back 67yrs to references the U.S. attacking another nation. While history matters the current situation has little to do with what North Korea did in 2012. 

So give me the damn cutoff already. And then explain why the US attacking other nations is relevant but NK attacking other nations is not.

[Ten oz]

56 minutes ago, zapatos said:

If you want to constrain your questions, then please do so before I answer them and not after I answer them. I assume the shelling of Yeonpyeong is also outside the scope of what you consider relevant.

The current situation has everything to do with what North Korea has done in the past. There is a reason we treat North Korea and their acquisition of nuclear weapons differently than we treat India, Pakistan and Israel.

 

49 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Don't blame me if you cannot adequately convey what you meant to say. "Proliferation" does not mean 'giving to other countries' whether you used those examples or not.

I provided examples which you willfully ignored. You want to address my question in context so you are creating side debate to fillibuster.

45 minutes ago, zapatos said:

So give me the damn cutoff already. And then explain why the US attacking other nations is relevant but NK attacking other nations is not.

I gave you a cutoff when I explained when North Korea came to exist. The Korea War is part of what created North Korea. They need to have existed before you can start claiming they attacked nations.

 

Since you refuse to have an honest discuss there is no point in continuing. You are refusing to address the bulk of the questions I ask while totally misrepresenting the ones you are choosing to address. While insulting me with false claims that I am moving the goal posts. It accomplishes nothing. You aren't looking for a real discuss and I am not going to waste my day being trolled by you because my comments challange the limits of what you know and are able to respond to without making concessions you don't seem willing to make. It is this same contrived sense of looming danger and blunt refusal to acknowledge our own hypocrisy that pushed us (U.S.) into a massive mistake in Iraq.

Edited August 13, 2017 by Ten oz

[zapatos]

19 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I gave you a cutoff when I explained when North Korea came to exist. The Korea War is part of what created North Korea. They need to have existed before you can start claiming they attacked nations.

 

 

So why doesn't The bombardment of Yeonpyeong count?

 

Quote

Since you refuse to have an honest discuss there is no point in continuing. You are refusing to address the bulk of the questions I ask while totally misrepresenting the ones you are choosing to address. While insulting me with false claims that I am moving the goal posts. It accomplishes nothing. You aren't looking for a real discuss and I am not going to waste my day being trolled by you because my comments challange the limits of what you know and are able to respond to without making concessions you don't seem willing to make. It is this same contrived sense of looming danger and blunt refusal to acknowledge our own hypocrisy that pushed us (U.S.) into a massive mistake in Iraq.

I agree that I am unwilling to limit my comments to the unrealistically narrow view of the conflict that you are trying to force on the discussion.

And don't complain about me insulting you when you call me a troll. It's rather hypocritical.

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

If you want to constrain your questions, then please do so before I answer them and not after I answer them. I assume the shelling of Yeonpyeong is also outside the scope of what you consider relevant.

The current situation has everything to do with what North Korea has done in the past. There is a reason we treat North Korea and their acquisition of nuclear weapons differently than we treat India, Pakistan and Israel.

Could you clarify what you mean specifically with regard to India and Pakistan?

[iNow]

The idea is that Pakistan and India (and Israel, or even Russia during the Cold War) are different because a policy of deterence and containment can work in those places, but won't work in North Korea.

The suggestion is that NK is run by a person not interested in normal rational decision making or survival of his people.... only survival of his own regime. We've also seen how NK has ignored sanctions over and over again... the type of sanctions that might change behaviors of those other countries with nukes. This (they say) renders the containment approach unworkable in NK. They aren't deterable like we see in other nuclear states.

Interestingly, this argument was also put forth repeatedly by Trump emissaries today on the Sunday shows, the ones I personally saw were head of CIA Mike Pompeo and on another show National Security Advisor HR McMaster.

I agree with Zapatos' position. History matters here and NK IS different. I also agree with Ten Oz that there's a whole lot of smoke here with little fire. The drumbeat of war is thumping and people are falling in line, but the supposed urgency of the situation feels rather manufactured. 

Edited August 14, 2017 by iNow
Spelling

[MigL]

Agree with iNow, there won't be a war, nuclear or otherwise.

The US, although D Trump is president, is too sensible and has too much to lose in terms of casualties to allies.
North Korea, although at the whim of a madman, have been told by China that if they start something, they are on their own.

I believe the US has made her intentions perfectly clear.
We want North Korea to stop testing and developing nuclear weapons ( already too late ).

They entered into treaties and contracts worth US$4 bill in aid, to stop nuclear development, all of which they subsequently ignored.
( can we get our money back ? ) 

It has to made clear to China that the inflammatory rhetoric coming from both sides is NOT the destabilizing factor.
Rather it is K-J-U's missile and warhead testing, along with the occasional attacks on neighbors.

[Moontanman]

I'd feel a bit better about all of it if sane people were incontrol... 

[zapatos]

4 hours ago, CharonY said:

Could you clarify what you mean specifically with regard to India and Pakistan?

Sure. And I really could have picked any nuclear powers but I chose them as they are relatively small players. 

In addition to iNow's very good description...

The point I was making was that the approach to any nuclear power is not based on what happened with them today but what has happened with them over a longer period of time. India and Pakistan could harm the United States with nuclear weapons, but the reason we are not dealing with them like we deal with NK is because they have not been threatening us or our allies in a prolonged fashion like NK has been. While we have had spats with Pakistan, and Pakistan with India on an ongoing basis, none of the three has a history of nearly continuous threats of annihilation of the other.

If someone shows you a bat and threatens to hit you with it every time you see them, you tend to act toward them like they might actually follow through one of those times.

Edited August 14, 2017 by zapatos

[CharonY]

I am not entirely sure whether that characterization is entirely accurate. I confess that my knowledge is limited, but in the 90s Pakistan has declared that it would use its nuclear potential not only in retaliatory fashion, but also to counter Indian aggression. The US has then issued broad sanctions against Pakistan (and India). The stance changed when they considered Pakistan a potential ally in the Middle East conflict, I believe. I suppose deciding factors are mostly a) the threat to the US itself (or close allies) and b) potential strategic usefulness. NK is a threat without benefits, so to say.

[iNow]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Agree with iNow, there won't be a war, nuclear or otherwise.

Just to be clear, that wasn't my intended message. I'm not yet convinced that's the case. 

[Sensei]

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/14/politics/north-korea-guam/index.html

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defense Secretary James Mattis, said (...)

"We have no desire to inflict harm on the long-suffering North Korean people, who are distinct from the hostile regime in Pyongyang,"

 

But how on the Earth ordinary North Korean person can receive this information, when they have no free media, no censorless Internet, and are half century brain washed, etc. etc. .... ?

 

Maybe start from mass food supply from airplanes flying at 20-30 km altitude to N.K. villages together with solar panel powered radios (so they won't need batteries or other external power supply), and spread informations.

 

[zapatos]

4 minutes ago, Sensei said:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/14/politics/north-korea-guam/index.html

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defense Secretary James Mattis, said (...)

"We have no desire to inflict harm on the long-suffering North Korean people, who are distinct from the hostile regime in Pyongyang,"

 

But how on the Earth ordinary North Korean person can receive this information, when they have no free media, no censorless Internet, and are half century brain washed, etc. etc. .... ?

 

Maybe start from mass food supply from airplanes flying at 20-30 km altitude to N.K. villages together with solar panel powered radios (so they won't need batteries or other external power supply), and spread informations.

 

Flying into NK airspace will likely be considered an act of war.

North Koreans found with radios we give them will likely be in some serious trouble.

Do we even have planes that fly at 20-30 km altitude?

[MigL]

Only SR-71 Blackbirds...

And they can't drop much of anything.

[CharonY]

5 hours ago, Sensei said:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/14/politics/north-korea-guam/index.html

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defense Secretary James Mattis, said (...)

"We have no desire to inflict harm on the long-suffering North Korean people, who are distinct from the hostile regime in Pyongyang,"

 

But how on the Earth ordinary North Korean person can receive this information, when they have no free media, no censorless Internet, and are half century brain washed, etc. etc. .... ?

 

Maybe start from mass food supply from airplanes flying at 20-30 km altitude to N.K. villages together with solar panel powered radios (so they won't need batteries or other external power supply), and spread informations.

 

There are actually a number initiatives to smuggle information into North Korea. An example is the Flashdrives For Freedom.

[Sensei]

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

There are actually a number initiatives to smuggle information into North Korea. An example is the Flashdrives For Freedom.

They don't even have street lights at night... People who have computer which can handle flashdrive are "elite of N.K.", regime members, family and supporters...

(better than nothing, but very far from "ordinary N.K. person")

Photo from ISS:

Edited August 14, 2017 by Sensei