Jump to content
Airbrush

The North Korea Problem

Recommended Posts

The North Korea problem is in China's ball court. As such, the US needs to focus on forcing China to deal with it.

I am not normally an advocate of nuclear use, even for power, but hypothetically speaking: Why doesn't the US threaten China with a Nuclear South Korea and Nuclear Japan? The last thing China needs surrounding it is two US-friendly nuclear powers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sicarii said:

The North Korea problem is in China's ball court. As such, the US needs to focus on forcing China to deal with it.

I am not normally an advocate of nuclear use, even for power, but hypothetically speaking: Why doesn't the US threaten China with a Nuclear South Korea and Nuclear Japan? The last thing China needs surrounding it is two US-friendly nuclear powers.

A threat must be realistic to be effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Sicarii said:

The North Korea problem is in China's ball court. As such, the US needs to focus on forcing China to deal with it.

I am not normally an advocate of nuclear use, even for power, but hypothetically speaking: Why doesn't the US threaten China with a Nuclear South Korea and Nuclear Japan? The last thing China needs surrounding it is two US-friendly nuclear powers.

Japan could assemble a nuclear weapon anytime they want to. They don't need our assistance to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nec209 said:

China, Iran and Russia to name some countries hate the US they are  not alliance with US

You shouldn't generalize like this. It makes a point that has some inherent merit too easy to dismiss because it's too easily shown wrong with counter examples. China, Iran, Russia, and the US are not monolithic one-dimensional entities, but positions like yours here require them to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One gaint inconvenient matter here is that Kim Jing-il's pursuit of WMD's may very well be the only reason his son Kim Jung-un is still in power today. Had Jong-il conceded to calls too and demilitarize it is very likely he would have then experienced the U.S. supproting opposition groups to eventually overthrow his regime. Muammar Gaddafi agreed to eliminate his country's WMD's conceding to U.S. pressure back in 2003 as (U.S.) invasion of Iraq kicked off. Gaddafi who'd been in power since 1977 and considered a strongman the throughout by the west was Initially celebrated Toney Blair and George Bush for the decision to finally cooperate. By 2011, with technically military support from the U.S., opposition to Gaddafi were dragging his body down the street. Contrast that with Syria. During the Iraq war kick off we (U.S.) pressured Assad same as Gaddafi but Assad refused. We respond with rounds of sanctions the Syrian Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Act is 2004 and against the Commercial Bank of Syria via the Patriot Act in 2006. Additionally we provided weapons and technical support to opposition groups. However and in part because Assad never disarmed and instead allied with the military power of Russia his body has yet to be laid out on display in the streets following public execution.

 

This isn't meant to paint the U.S. as the bad guy. Assad is a evil person who uses chemical weapons and helpless people. Kim Jong-un baths is luxury while his people starve. My point is that history tells us that strongmen who eventually concede to the pressure to demilitarize their hold on power don't last long afterward. Fear of how crazy Kim is and what he might do is the only reason he is still alive perhaps and it is a caveat to all of this I think he is aware of.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are Kim Jong Un's favorite foods?  With his big belly there must be a good number of delicacies imported into N.Korea.  If the world can persuade China, Russia, or whatever country is supplying Un's favorite foods, and CUT THEM OFF, the great leader, and his pampered officers, will have a big problem.  That is a VERY big problem, not a minor problem like most of his poor people starving to death.

Edited by Airbrush

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you think... Is this the right approach or likely to make matters worse?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/08/world/asia/north-korea-un-sanctions-nuclear-missile-united-nations.html

Quote

 

In chilling language that evoked the horror of a nuclear exchange, Mr. Trump sought to deter North Korea from any actions that would put Americans at risk. But it was not clear what specifically would cross his line. Administration officials have said that a pre-emptive military strike, while a last resort, is among the options they have made available to the president.

“North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States,” Mr. Trump told reporters at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J., where he is spending much of the month on a working vacation. “They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.”

 


Is Trump trying to "out-North_Korea" North Korea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, iNow said:

What do you think... Is this the right approach or likely to make matters worse?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/08/world/asia/north-korea-un-sanctions-nuclear-missile-united-nations.html


Is Trump trying to "out-North_Korea" North Korea?

Back in April Trump claimed he was sending an "armada" to the peninsula. Clinton, Bush, and Obama all had tense times with North Korea. Relations have been poor since the Korean War. Trump's language and lack of diplomatic understanding or experience seems to be making the situation worse. North Korea already called Trump's armada bluff. It is bad for future international affairs for Trump to continue blustering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, iNow said:

What do you think... Is this the right approach or likely to make matters worse?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/08/world/asia/north-korea-un-sanctions-nuclear-missile-united-nations.html


Is Trump trying to "out-North_Korea" North Korea?

He's drawn the line in the sand and they're almost certain to stick a toe over it (it's what they do), TBH he seems like a man who's just bought a really cool gun and is just itching to pull the trigger.

Edited by dimreepr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone note that the Chinese fired off a slew of missiles close to the North Korean border, during so called war exercises, shortly after it was revealed that the North Koreans had successfully miniaturized their nuclear warheads,  D Trump's 'fire and fury', and K-J-U's 'attack on Guam' plans ?

A not-so-subtle message, maybe ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that China establishes itself as a major player in the conflict and is sending a message to Pyongyang and Washington.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CharonY said:

It seems that China establishes itself as a major player in the conflict and is sending a message to Pyongyang and Washington.

North Korea is simply a puppet state of China.  If China is trying to send a message to Washington, Trump should simply give them a JFK response.

Quote

It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba North Korea against any nation in the Western Hemisphere allied with the United States as an attack on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union China.  - President John F. Kennedy

.Perhaps that response would get China to put its poodle North Korea on a short leash.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

North Korea is simply a puppet state of China.  If China is trying to send a message to Washington, Trump should simply give them a JFK response.

.Perhaps that response would get China to put its poodle North Korea on a short leash.  

I'm glad to see that cooler heads are speaking up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump's "fire and fury" reply implies that he is willing to do a first nuclear strike on N.Korea, since they have already crossed the red line.  One hour after Trump said N.Korea "best not make any more threats", N.Korea threatened to attack Guam.  Also N.Korea is assumed to be able to destroy many US cities.  That is also intolerable to Trump.  Therefore Trump feels justified in a first strike, to avoid a longer, more extensive war later.  The only question is when?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

Trump's "fire and fury" reply implies that he is willing to do a first nuclear strike on N.Korea, since they have already crossed the red line.  One hour after Trump said N.Korea "best not make any more threats", N.Korea threatened to attack Guam.  Also N.Korea is assumed to be able to destroy many US cities.  That is also intolerable to Trump.  Therefore Trump feels justified in a first strike, to avoid a longer, more extensive war later.  The only question is when?

Longer and more extensive war later? That implies it can be shorter and less extensive now. All relative since a future war at a later time is theoretical. What war which the U.S has been directly involved in over the last hundred years hasn't been long and extensive? What pre-emptive wars look good in hindsight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, it is.

One madman with one nuclear weapon is equivalent ,if not worse, than a sane  one with a whole arsenal.
( yes, D Trump is an idiotic buffoon who is corrupt, self-serving and full of himself, but is still sane )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I don't think nuclear proliferation is the answer, as Sicarii has previously suggested.

The amount of trade between China, the world's largest manufacturer, and the US, the world's largest consumer, is HUGE.
Gradually increasing tariffs on Chinese imports until the situation is resolved would result in the 'disappearance' of K-J-U within 6 months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, MigL said:

Unfortunately, it is.

One madman with one nuclear weapon is equivalent ,if not worse, than a sane  one with a whole arsenal.
( yes, D Trump is an idiotic buffoon who is corrupt, self-serving and full of himself, but is still sane )

Seems kim is engaged in a tit for tat with Trump. Basically both Kim and Trump are saying many of the same things. Not sure why that makes Kim more of a madman than it makes Trump? It is also useful to point out Kim's rhetoric is all about what North Korea will do in response to an attack and not preemptively. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MigL said:

Unfortunately, it is.

One madman with one nuclear weapon is equivalent ,if not worse, than a sane  one with a whole arsenal.
( yes, D Trump is an idiotic buffoon who is corrupt, self-serving and full of himself, but is still sane )

I am not entirely sure that Kim Jong Un is entirely insane. He could be acting rational within the confines of the rather cult-like system he is operating in.But sure, t in NK the risks and consequences of a madman in power are vastly higher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/1/2017 at 0:36 PM, Area54 said:

For all his failings Reagan did contribute greatly to a reduction in nuclear arms. I don't see Trump achieving the same thing. If I am correct then an alternative to Trump, who sees nuclear arms as a serious problem and acts to attempt to reduce them further is a positive step. (But I refer you to all the limitations identified in my previous post as to why you should completely ignore my suggestions.)

Trump will probably greatly reduce the amount of nuclear missiles in the U.S.

By launching them elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/9/2017 at 1:25 PM, waitforufo said:

North Korea is simply a puppet state of China.  If China is trying to send a message to Washington, Trump should simply give them a JFK response.

.Perhaps that response would get China to put its poodle North Korea on a short leash.  

I'm not sure.

I highly doubt there will be a war between the U.S.A and China. They're too closely related to start a war. If there is a war, it'll be devastating to both of them. Even if the U.S.A managed to conquer all of China(or Vice versa, China conquers the U.S.A) it would be so devastating and destructive, that it would be beneficent to neither of them. Plus, I believe both of them would launch every nuke they had before they could be destroyed. Soon as they realized they were on a downward slope with no hope of winning, they'd be like an animal caught in a corner. They will do everything they possibly can to preserve themselves. Which would probably result in the nuclear annihilation. China is closely tied to North Korea, sure. But are they willing to risk everything for a country that would be wiped out with little impact on their economy and life style? I doubt it. 

China knows that the U.S.A sure isn't gonna risk a war between China. So threats against China won't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US should fire exactly one missile....... into space...... with Trump securely strapped to it.

The North Koreans should probably do exactly the same - with a different passenger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put both of them knee deep in a huge vat of gasoline and give them a book of matches and see who really understands MAD... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

-

Edited by Ten oz
formatting issue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.