North Korea paradox

[quickquestion]

Not just North Koreans. South Korea would get hammered. Seoul is not far at all from the DMZ and even without nukes, conventional North Korean artillery should be able to reach it from across the border.

So you are saying that NK is holding SK hostage, and that if any nation attacks NK, they will bomb SK?

[Delta1212]

So you are saying that NK is holding SK hostage, and that if any nation attacks NK, they will bomb SK?

I'm not sure if I would frame it in terms of a hostage, but that is pretty much what would happen and everyone knows it.

[Ten oz]

Killing a smaller proportion to save the majority is the only noble thing. It is better to kill a few than let the majority rot in injustice and tyranny for the rest of their lives. NK is so decrupt that they even throw babies and children in jail for their Grandfather's crime.

49% is a smaller porportion than 51% but I doubt anyone here would be okay with 49% of a population being killed over the promise of better conditions for those who remain. It is also wrong to assume only North Korean's would die. U.S. service members and South Koreans would die. In all cases I think the numbers could be higher than what we have seen in Afghanistan and Iraqi. For me,in my opinion, that is not justified.

So you are saying that NK is holding SK hostage, and that if any nation attacks NK, they will bomb SK?

Or we are holding North Korea hostage? NK hasn't attacked anyone. We are considering throwing the first punch here.

[CharonY]

@Velocity_Boy, North Korea hasn't done anything recently which they having done many times over the past couple decade. The sabre rattling here is unfortunately on our (USA) said. Launching a Naval armada to a countries coast [..]

 

 

Actually it seems that this is not actually happening.

 

 

 

For more than a week, media reports in the U.S. and around Asia routinely have mentioned the approach of the USS Carl Vinson carrier strike group, seemingly implying an attack on North Korea could be imminent. But a week after the U.S. announced the carrier and its escorts would leave Singapore, forego port calls in Australia and instead return to Korean waters, the carrier and its group had yet to head north.

Rather, the ships were actually operating several hundred miles south of Singapore, taking part in scheduled exercises with Australian forces in the Indian Ocean.

[Ten oz]

 

Actually it seems that this is not actually happening.

 

Yeah, shame on me for think what the President says is reflective of reality. It is good news, in my opinion, it isn't happening but the rhetoric is still saber-rattling. I can't think of a single good reason for the President to claim he has ordered a Navy armada to the Korean peninsula when in fact he hasn't. It highlights the problem here. Our executive branch is out in public beating the war drum claiming the Navy has been deployed, we are prepared to act alone, peace through strength, and etc meanwhile that same executive branch cannot be trusted with ANYTHING it says.

[iNow]

While the warship wasn't headed to NK last week, it's headed there now.

 

Also, Department of Homeland Security former marine General John Kelly says the US is a nation under attack. While valid points are clearly made, the rhetoric seems intended to escalate rather than calm tensions.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/dhs-secretary-john-kelly-nation-attack/story?id=46866207

Edited April 19, 2017 by iNow

[Airbrush]

How much damage can N.Korea do on Seoul in a matter of minutes with thousands of artillery and conventional missiles? How difficult is it for N.Korea to float a nuke on a fishing boat into S.Korea? Should we assume they already have a few nukes positioned inside Seoul?

Edited April 19, 2017 by Airbrush

[Ten oz]

How much damage can N.Korea do on Seoul in a matter of minutes with thousands of artillery and conventional missiles? How difficult is it for N.Korea to float a nuke on a fishing boat into S.Korea? Should we assume they already have a few nukes positioned inside Seoul?

North Korea has a huge military. They have been tightening down the hatches for decades. No round of airstrikes is ending Kim's reign. They have underground shelters. To remove Kim we'd have to put boots on the ground and go in there. Additionally from the moment we start such an endeavor to the moment we capture Kim his military will be attempting to attack us, South Korea, and Japan.

 

This is the major mistake made in Iraq. People thought we could just casually roll in and get Saddam in a few weeks. It simply is never that easy. We are still bombing Afghanistan all these years after 9/11 after all.

Edited April 19, 2017 by Ten oz

[MigL]

It was the Chinese that saved North Korea from the UN forces during the war and set-up the stale-mate that's been in place since 1953. But that was China then, while China now is Communist in name only, and probably more Capitalist than North America. I'm sure KJU is a major embarrassment to them, what with his paranoia, the killing of his relatives who may seek to usurp his power and his general craziness.

All the US needs to do is summon the Chinese ambassador and tell him 5 % tariffs will be placed on all goods imported from China unless the KJU problem is resolved. I guarantee KJU will be gone within weeks, and he won't be missed.

[Ten oz]

.All the US needs to do is summon the Chinese ambassador and tell him 5 % tariffs will be placed on all goods imported from China unless the KJU problem is resolved. I guarantee KJU will be gone within weeks, and he won't be missed.

Trump has already threatened tariffs on China of the comical amount of 45% and claimed he'd label them a currency manipulator. While the currency manipulator bit recently stopped his team is still after tariffs as a way to offset the varies tax cuts he is seek for his 2018 budget. It hasn't bent China to its knees. Moreover it is the U.S. consumer who would pay tariffs and the negative impacts would hit both countries.

 

Strong arming China with threats of tariffs is the sort of tactic this thread is about. The notion that the U.S. can use it might (military or economic might) to bully other countries into action is a one way street. If rival countries take an equal approach in response war becomes inevitable. I believe that any international agreement or resolution attempt which only works one way and would lead to war if attempted by both sides is inherently flawed.

 

China as an friend and foe is a very interesting case. In the purist sense of capitalism, which so many in the U.S. claim to applaud, the U.S. has no stronger friend China. Walmart is the U.S.'s largest employer (embarrassingly) with well over 2 million employees. Walmart basically couldn't exist without Chinese goods. China also buys trillions worth of our treasury bonds. Two examples of how economically the U.S.& China are a capitalist match made in heaven. Yet we choose to treat China as a foe out of cold war nostalgia and a sprinkling of eurocentric global manifest destiny. As it relates to North Korea I think we are best just leaving them alone. So long as North Korea's activities are contained within there own borders it is none of our business. It we are concerned about the health of the people there perhaps we should lift a sanction or 2 and allow more food and goods to flow in. Perhaps if the people had a healthier economy with a few more options it would create the sort of shift in world view we are hoping for.

[MigL]

How is it 'inherently flawed' ?

It is done all the time in a democracy. If you don't like the policies of one retailer, you vote with your money and take your business elsewhere. The US is the biggest consumer in the world, and when the US stopped spending in 2008-09, even China' s economy was in trouble.

[Ten oz]

How is it 'inherently flawed' ?

It is done all the time in a democracy. If you don't like the policies of one retailer, you vote with your money and take your business elsewhere. The US is the biggest consumer in the world, and when the US stopped spending in 2008-09, even China' s economy was in trouble.

Firstly you are ignoring facts. Trump is already threatening tariffs and at levels greater than what you are suggesting and it hasn't changed China's position. Rather it has been Trump's position which has been softening. So your idea has basically already failed.

 

If I stop shopping at a specific retailer they have no comparable response. There can be no tit for tat. A consumer to retailer isn't the same relationship as a superpower to a superpower.

 

It is inherently flawed because in a relationship one should treat another in a similar fashion they wish to be treated. Behaving in any manner other will also lead to friction.

Edited April 20, 2017 by Ten oz

[MigL]

As if the Chinese believe anything D Trump says...

 

China produces goods for the US; the US produces little for China.

China has already taken the sternest position with N Korea that its ever had.

Russia is the only security council member to veto the strict warning to N Korea.

China approved it !

[Ten oz]

You open by saying China doesn't believe anything Trump says, if that is the case it contradicts your initial position of "Summon the Chinese ambassador and tell him 5% tariff". If China doesn't believe Trump than what good does it do Trump to threaten them with tariffs? Additionally Trump has already been doing so with no positive result. It is Trump who has changed his position on labeling them a currency manipulator and changing course on Taiwan.

 

I am not sure what point you are attempting to make about the U.N. Security Council or why it would need an exclamation point? The vote for new sanctions was unanimous. North Korea violated an existing agreement.

Edited April 20, 2017 by Ten oz

[quickquestion]

49% is a smaller porportion than 51% but I doubt anyone here would be okay with 49% of a population being killed over the promise of better conditions for those who remain. It is also wrong to assume only North Korean's would die. U.S. service members and South Koreans would die. In all cases I think the numbers could be higher than what we have seen in Afghanistan and Iraqi. For me,in my opinion, that is not justified.

Or we are holding North Korea hostage? NK hasn't attacked anyone. We are considering throwing the first punch here.

My issue is with the facism of NK.

Why can't they just send an American Spy to NK and bring Kim to justice.

[Delta1212]

My issue is with the facism of NK.

Why can't they just send an American Spy to NK and bring Kim to justice.

As always, that is easier said than done.

[quickquestion]

As always, that is easier said than done.

But they haven't even tried.

[Ten oz]

My issue is with the facism of NK.

Why can't they just send an American Spy to NK and bring Kim to justice.

Lot leaders around the world who need to be brought to "justice". Why is it the USA's who gets to decide when and on whom "justice" happens?

 

As for sending over spies what happens if and when they are caught. Do we stand by and allow them to be imprisoned indefinitely or executed?

But they haven't even tried.

How do you know?

[quickquestion]

Lot leaders around the world who need to be brought to "justice". Why is it the USA's who gets to decide when and on whom "justice" happens?

 

As for sending over spies what happens if and when they are caught. Do we stand by and allow them to be imprisoned indefinitely or executed?

How do you know?

Not sure what to say, because America is a fascist nation of itself.

America is the lesser of 2 evils, so I am for America defeating NK.

[Ten oz]

Not sure what to say, because America is a fascist nation of itself.

America is the lesser of 2 evils, so I am for America defeating NK.

USA is a lesser of evil than many countries. I don't see how that justifies USA entering a preemptive war of choice. It isn't as though war is upon us and everyone must choose a side. We (USA) have a table full of options and nothing is forcing us to use force.

[quickquestion]

USA is a lesser of evil than many countries. I don't see how that justifies USA entering a preemptive war of choice. It isn't as though war is upon us and everyone must choose a side. We (USA) have a table full of options and nothing is forcing us to use force.

Because its about saving the Koreans from unbearable tyranny and starvation.

[neutrinosalad]

The problem with North Korea is that if they get a proper propulsion system, they could have a nuclear arm that they could deliever to a major South Korean or Japanese city. Currently neither of those two countries have nuclear arms themselves and if they feel that the United States nuclear umbrella is not sufficient, it could lead to a nuclear arms race in South East Asia. This could ultimately spiral out of control and lead to a major ground war in the region.

 

Taking out Kim Jong Un is ultimately about preserving the stability and balance of power of the region.

 

I have been following the story and it does not appear that China has direct control over North Korea, they merely have influence over North Korea. I also saw an article that talked of a news article that one of the top Communist Party paper's printed and it appears that Chinese leadership is resistant to taking serious action because they do not want to have to deal with nuclear fallout or a massive refugee crisis in the Northeast region of China. Ultimately, the only way we are going to be able to take out Kim Jong Un is by applying constant and increasing pressure to China until they decide that the alternatives to propping up Kim Jong Un's regime is no longer worth it.

 

Personally, I still do not see how China could simply transform North Korea into a territory of China. They could take out Kim Jong Un and replace him with a leader that is more subservient to China. Then over time, they could introduce the influence of the Chinese government more heavily to install reforms that would lead to a more competent government in North Korea.

[Ten oz]

Because its about saving the Koreans from unbearable tyranny and starvation.

 

"More than 20 million people are facing famine in Yemen, Somalia, South Sudan and northeast Nigeria, aid agencies say. Cholera is on the rise in Somalia, where drought is driving people to flee in search of water, said Bruce Orina, the Red Cross’s deputy regional director for Africa. At least 300,000 malnourished children are trapped by fighting in Nigeria.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/22/world/africa/famine-yemen-somalia-red-cross-relief.html

 

Unbearableconditions exist all over the world. The amount of money it costs to wage war could easily feed the 20 million people facing famine in Yemen, Somalia, South Suden and Northeast Nigeria. You aren't attempting to explain why it is North Korean which must be addressed with force at this time. Rather you keep indicating that Kim Jung Un is bad.

The problem with North Korea is that if they get a proper propulsion system, they could have a nuclear arm that they could deliever to a major South Korean or Japanese city. Currently neither of those two countries have nuclear arms themselves and if they feel that the United States nuclear umbrella is not sufficient, it could lead to a nuclear arms race in South East Asia. This could ultimately spiral out of control and lead to a major ground war in the region.

 

Taking out Kim Jong Un is ultimately about preserving the stability and balance of power of the region.

 

I have been following the story and it does not appear that China has direct control over North Korea, they merely have influence over North Korea. I also saw an article that talked of a news article that one of the top Communist Party paper's printed and it appears that Chinese leadership is resistant to taking serious action because they do not want to have to deal with nuclear fallout or a massive refugee crisis in the Northeast region of China. Ultimately, the only way we are going to be able to take out Kim Jong Un is by applying constant and increasing pressure to China until they decide that the alternatives to propping up Kim Jong Un's regime is no longer worth it.

 

Personally, I still do not see how China could simply transform North Korea into a territory of China. They could take out Kim Jong Un and replace him with a leader that is more subservient to China. Then over time, they could introduce the influence of the Chinese government more heavily to install reforms that would lead to a more competent government in North Korea.

China has Nuclear Weapons, Japan is a defacto nuclear weapon state as they (Japan) has all the materials and tech to build nuclear weapons at any time, and the U.S. has bases in South Korea and Nuclear armed war ships and Subs off the Coast. North Korea is surrounded by Nuclear capable countries. I don't see how the balance of power is altered. It isn't as if North Korea could invade South Korea. Not with the U.S. in DMZ and along the coast.

 

This situation has been ongoing for decades. Things were heightened in the 90's over a graphite-moderated nuclear reactor, heightened again during the Bush years when he labeled then one of the "Axis of Evil", then steeper sanctions put in place under Obama, and now Trump threatening war. Each U.S. President has put their our signature on the situation.

 

Simply listing all the ways the situation is bad doesn't justify a preemptive war in my opinion. Things are bad in Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Ukraine, and etc, etc, etc but we aren't about to roll in forces to remove leaders.

[quickquestion]

Then the problem here, is the human species. Fix the human species and abominations like Kim 2, dog-torturers, and fascist Chinese. If you fixed the human species you could feed starving people without fear of being bombed. And to do this you must somehow invent a genetic modifying transmutagen that promotes nobility in humans.

[neutrinosalad]

China has Nuclear Weapons, Japan is a defacto nuclear weapon state as they (Japan) has all the materials and tech to build nuclear weapons at any time, and the U.S. has bases in South Korea and Nuclear armed war ships and Subs off the Coast. North Korea is surrounded by Nuclear capable countries. I don't see how the balance of power is altered. It isn't as if North Korea could invade South Korea. Not with the U.S. in DMZ and along the coast.

 

This situation has been ongoing for decades. Things were heightened in the 90's over a graphite-moderated nuclear reactor, heightened again during the Bush years when he labeled then one of the "Axis of Evil", then steeper sanctions put in place under Obama, and now Trump threatening war. Each U.S. President has put their our signature on the situation.

 

China having nuclear weapons and the United States having nuclear weapons is the status quo. South Korea and Japan being protected under the United States nuclear umbrella is also the status quo.

 

Now what is not the status quo is North Korea having a nuclear weapon that they are capable of reliably delivering to a large city in South East Asia (ex: Seoul, South Korea or Tokyo, Japan). If North Korea develops a proper delivery system and a stronger nuclear weapon, the political calculus would be altered in the region in a highly negative way. Japan and South Korea may perceive a nuclear North Korea as a large enough threat due to their unpredictability that relying on the nuclear umbrella of the United States is not enough to protect their people. This may drive Japan and South Korea to develop their own personal cache of nuclear weapons that they have direct control over. If China sees South Korea and Japan developing a cache of personal nuclear weapons, they may see this as a threat to their national sovereignty and want to engage in a preemptive strike against either country to tank their nuclear program. This could lead to a reaction from the United States and spark a large ground war in the region.

 

Now, that is just me projecting into the future based on what I know right now. Either way, the current trajectory is a bad one. The current trajectory is a constant increase in tensions between major countries in the South East Asia region where war is more and more likely each successive year.

 

This is why it makes sense that we should remove Kim Jong Un and replace him with someone else.

 

 

 

Simply listing all the ways the situation is bad doesn't justify a preemptive war in my opinion. Things are bad in Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Ukraine, and etc, etc, etc but we aren't about to roll in forces to remove leaders.

 

Currently the threat of a preemptive strike has been used as a stick to push China to take action. The carrot that has been presented is maintaining the current trade relation that is beneficial to China.

 

Ultimately what needs to happen is China needs to go into North Korea and change out Kim Jong Un with someone who is agreeable to China's political wishes, so that the North Korean government can be pushed towards competence and stability.

 

What is going on in those countries does not appear to be on a trajectory towards large scale war that has the capacity to decimate societies and damage global trade. North Korea is being treated differently due to the scale upon which destabilization of that part of the world can damage global stability.