Jump to content
Airbrush

The North Korea Problem

Recommended Posts

Rather than dropping bombs maybe we should be dropping aid packages. Rather than closing off trade maybe we should be dumping low cost consumer goods into their economy. If changing this enemy's mind is the objective then anything that changes their mind can be considered a weapon.

Not that I am being entirely serious or expect anything I say will change any minds but I can't help but think that it's the sense of being a state under siege that unites the North Korean people behind it's leadership and ennobles their hardships and sacrifices , so actions that reduce that siege mentality should deserve consideration. Action to deal with them look like the exact opposite of that. I do remain sceptical of the long term effectiveness of instigating insurrection and arming insurgents as a solution, as I do with enduring interference by outside powers in the internal affairs of nation states; the legacy of doing so in the Middle East does not fill me with optimism about the outcomes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2017 at 6:33 PM, Ken Fabian said:

Rather than dropping bombs maybe we should be dropping aid packages. Rather than closing off trade maybe we should be dumping low cost consumer goods into their economy. If changing this enemy's mind is the objective then anything that changes their mind can be considered a weapon.

Not that I am being entirely serious or expect anything I say will change any minds but I can't help but think that it's the sense of being a state under siege that unites the North Korean people behind it's leadership and ennobles their hardships and sacrifices , so actions that reduce that siege mentality should deserve consideration. Action to deal with them look like the exact opposite of that. I do remain sceptical of the long term effectiveness of instigating insurrection and arming insurgents as a solution, as I do with enduring interference by outside powers in the internal affairs of nation states; the legacy of doing so in the Middle East does not fill me with optimism about the outcomes.

Why aren't you being serious minds can change that is a well illustrated fact. I much rather try to change minds through some combination of purposeful generosity and role model behavior than threats of destruction. Telling people to do as you say or else, even when it works, tends to keep all parties involved angry, displeased, and plotting. 

 

Sadly it doesn't seem the U.S govt willing or able to do anything except reflexively antagonize when prodded. I follow politics closely and have no clear understanding of what the U.S. plans to do. I understand what the want but stated goals and the steps to reach those goals are not one in the same.  

Share this post


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

Why aren't you being serious minds can change that is a well illustrated fact. I much rather try to change minds through some combination of purposeful generosity and role model behavior than threats of destruction.

I've mentioned it elsewhere, but I read a great analysis once about how we need to stop building hydroelectric dams in third world countries, which makes a lot of money for us, but rarely helps much with their infrastructure and jobs, and leaves the country pretty messed up. Instead, we should spend a fraction of the cost and just give every household an energy-efficient refrigerator, eliminating the need for a dam in the first place, and endearing ourselves to the populace every time they open up their new gift from the US.

Maybe the same tactic could help in North Korea (South Korea makes a couple of appliances, right?), provided we looped the Kim dynasty into it somehow so they can "liberate" their own people and start moving into century 21. We can't do anything like this as long as the current administration is wearing it's MAKE KIM DEAD caps. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I've mentioned it elsewhere, but I read a great analysis once about how we need to stop building hydroelectric dams in third world countries, which makes a lot of money for us, but rarely helps much with their infrastructure and jobs, and leaves the country pretty messed up. Instead, we should spend a fraction of the cost and just give every household an energy-efficient refrigerator, eliminating the need for a dam in the first place, and endearing ourselves to the populace every time they open up their new gift from the US.

Maybe the same tactic could help in North Korea (South Korea makes a couple of appliances, right?), provided we looped the Kim dynasty into it somehow so they can "liberate" their own people and start moving into century 21. We can't do anything like this as long as the current administration is wearing it's MAKE KIM DEAD caps. 

Instead we implement sanctions which are demonstrable more negatively impactful on the average citizens than the leaders we seek to remove. From Iran and Syria to North Korea we have purposefully handicapped economies and stifled the growth ability of populations attempting to bend them to our demands. It has rarely worked if ever at all meanwhile the people suffer and the leaders stay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Instead we implement sanctions which are demonstrable more negatively impactful on the average citizens than the leaders we seek to remove. From Iran and Syria to North Korea we have purposefully handicapped economies and stifled the growth ability of populations attempting to bend them to our demands. It has rarely worked if ever at all meanwhile the people suffer and the leaders stay. 

Indeed, the US and the rest of the world just have to accept that yet another country has nukes despite all efforts; but what is the threat in real terms? Maybe control isn't working, perhaps co-operation will be more productive?

Even an insane leader (oxymoron, unless they're a King/Emporer) can't believe that one bomb versus several hundreds of thousands, is a going to be a winner. Kim knows he is never going to win by firing his bomb so his only option is the threat, classic bluff. 

Edited by dimreepr

Share this post


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

Indeed, the US and the rest of the world just have to accept that yet another country has nukes despite all efforts; but what is the threat in real terms? Maybe control isn't working, perhaps co-operation will be more productive?

Even an insane leader (oxymoron, unless they're a King/Emporer) can't believe that one bomb versus several hundreds of thousands, is a going to be a winner. Kim knows he is never going to win by firing his bomb so his only option is the threat, classic bluff. 

Continuous military build up is the only reason Kim is still in power. If Kim's grandfather and father has yielded to pressure from the West to not pursue increasing amounts of military power they would have been dispatched with decades ago. That is the paradox. Kim is actually behaving in the only way he can; self preservation. It is the result of foriegn policy from the weather which only responds to power. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Even an insane leader (oxymoron, unless they're a King/Emporer) can't believe that one bomb versus several hundreds of thousands, is a going to be a winner. Kim knows he is never going to win by firing his bomb so his only option is the threat, classic bluff. 

Nuclear arsenal is a perfect opportunity to make the "winner" be a loser, so why would this be a "bluff" ?? (aka MAD etc)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can the US develop an anti-ICBM missile system that is 100% effective and so numerous that it can overwhelm any number of attacking missiles?  Is it just a matter of time before anti-ICBM technology can actually make ICBMs obsolete?  Can we park a few satellites in orbit over North Korea, and whenever they launch an ICBM, this defense system can destroy any ICBMs launched using lasers or particle beams or anti-missiles?

Share this post


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

Can the US develop an anti-ICBM missile system that is 100% effective and so numerous that it can overwhelm any number of attacking missiles?  Is it just a matter of time before anti-ICBM technology can actually make ICBMs obsolete?  Can we park a few satellites in orbit over North Korea, and whenever they launch an ICBM, this defense system can destroy any ICBMs launched using lasers or particle beams or anti-missiles?

New tech always makes old tech obsolete. As that applies to the global arms race weapons and the threats they pose grow exponentially with each generation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/12/2017 at 7:51 AM, Ten oz said:

Why aren't you being serious minds can change that is a well illustrated fact. I much rather try to change minds through some combination of purposeful generosity and role model behavior than threats of destruction. Telling people to do as you say or else, even when it works, tends to keep all parties involved angry, displeased, and plotting. 

 

Sadly it doesn't seem the U.S govt willing or able to do anything except reflexively antagonize when prodded. I follow politics closely and have no clear understanding of what the U.S. plans to do. I understand what the want but stated goals and the steps to reach those goals are not one in the same.  

 

TenOz - I'm not serious in the sense that I doubt anyone who has any actual responsibility in this is interested in or will be influenced by my 2c worth. I freely admit to a lack of relevant expertise and, usually, I prefer to defer to experts who know a lot more than I do. No doubt there is an element of Dunning-Kruger in my simplistic alternative solutions - that if I knew a lot more maybe I might see why they can't or won't help. And yet it doesn't take an expert to see there is an enduring absence of expert solutions that do work.

Where there is a high level of disagreement amongst experts I suspect there are things that are, if not overlooked are overshadowed - most of all that there are competing and incompatible motivations at play; retaining power and keeping up appearances internally are not the same as securing enduring solutions. Kim Jong-un's posturing is for internal consumption, as is Donald Trump's. I suppose helping North Korea economically in order to ease them towards more normalised international relations is too counter-intuitive despite the regime having come to depend on the existence of outside enemies for legitimacy and solidarity.

I doubt there is any genuine plan to attack the US or, with the exception of South Korea, it's allies - although I suppose passing on WMD's to crazies that would use them is a real possibility - yet that threat would also be reduced by improved economic circumstances and more normal relations.

Edited by Ken Fabian

Share this post


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

TenOz - I'm not serious in the sense that I doubt anyone who has any actual responsibility in this is interested in or will be influenced by my 2c worth. I freely admit to a lack of relevant expertise and, usually, I prefer to defer to experts who know a lot more than I do.

Are experts that know a lot more than you necessarily the people who are elected or promoted to office? I would agree 100% with that sentiment experts where the ones voters empowered but they aren't. Doctors don't run govt healthcare agencies, Environmental Biologists don't write  environmental protection laws, social psychologists don't help decide foreign  policy, and etc. Here in the U.S. I do not believe people with the relevant expertise at calling the shots. 

 

10 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

No doubt there is an element of Dunning-Kruger in my simplistic alternative solutions - that if I knew a lot more maybe I might see why they can't or won't help. And yet it doesn't take an expert to see there is an enduring absence of expert solutions that do work.

In my opinion those who choose to support policies which have repeated failed to produce any positive results are the one with a low ability cognitive bias with illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is. 

 

10 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

Where there is a high level of disagreement amongst experts I suspect there are things that are, if not overlooked are overshadowed - most of all that there are competing and incompatible motivations at play; retaining power and keeping up appearances internally are not the same as securing enduring solutions

Appearances more often than solutions win elections. As a result appearances are generally valued greater than solutions by politicians. 

 

10 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

Kim Jong-un's posturing is for internal consumption, as is Donald Trump's.

I disagree. Kim's posturing is for external consumption. Donald Trump's is for internal consumption. As a side not to that point how do you think China really feels? The U.S. needs China's help dealing with North Korea and that has taken a lot of the U.S. pressure off them (China) regarding their activities in the South China sea. An issue your country seems (Australia) is worried about. 

 

11 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

I suppose helping North Korea economically in order to ease them towards more normalised international relations is too counter-intuitive despite the regime having come to depend on the existence of outside enemies for legitimacy and solidarity.

Currently there are many sanctions in place that hurt North Korea's economy. Leaving them alone would be equal to helping there economy at this point. That said it is obvious when we look at the state of world world equalizing prosperity globally is not a goal the powerful are or have ever been interested in. There has always be winners and losers, rich and poor, and many wars have been had to keep it that way.

 

11 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

I doubt there is any genuine plan to attack the US or, with the exception of South Korea, it's allies - although I suppose passing on WMD's to crazies that would use them is a real possibility - yet that threat would also be reduced by improved economic circumstances and more normal relations.

image.jpeg.1a176cbae12ec74690ff40f419070f33.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Airbrush said:

Can the US develop an anti-ICBM missile system that is 100% effective and so numerous that it can overwhelm any number of attacking missiles?  Is it just a matter of time before anti-ICBM technology can actually make ICBMs obsolete?  Can we park a few satellites in orbit over North Korea, and whenever they launch an ICBM, this defense system can destroy any ICBMs launched using lasers or particle beams or anti-missiles?

Why bother? NK has nukes and, it would seem, long-range rockets but that doesn't mean the former would sit happily on the latter. Even if they have an ICBM capability how many do you think they can make and why would they use what little they can muster? See the above illustration.

19 hours ago, Roamer said:

Nuclear arsenal is a perfect opportunity to make the "winner" be a loser, so why would this be a "bluff" ?? (aka MAD etc)

I don't understand the question?

23 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Kim knows he is never going to win by firing his bomb so his only option is the threat, classic bluff. 

Which bit do I need to explain further?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Why bother? NK has nukes and, it would seem, long-range rockets but that doesn't mean the former would sit happily on the latter. Even if they have an ICBM capability how many do you think they can make and why would they use what little they can muster? See the above illustration.

Yes. They can send a missile with a warhead on it...they'll not be raining warheads down en masse atm. They don't know how to make buses so that a missile can  carry up to ten independently targetable warheads like Trident can. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

Yes. They can send a missile with a warhead on it..

1

So what if they can, it doesn't change my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

So what if they can, it doesn't change my point.

I was agreeing with you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, StringJunky said:

I was agreeing with you. 

Sorry, my bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Sorry, my bad.

That's ok. Technologically, NK's nuclear abiity is probably 60's equivalent. They haven't mastered detonating at the correct time or autonomously, I would think as It's all been underground. I think they've still got a long way to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

That's ok. Technologically, NK's nuclear abiity is probably 60's equivalent. They haven't mastered detonating at the correct time or autonomously, I would think as It's all been underground. I think they've still got a long way to go.

Indeed, it's all guess', it's like being afraid of a spider because 'some' might hurt if they bite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Donald Trump plans to sit down and speak face to face with Kim Jong-un. I assume Trump will being asking for North Korean to give up their Nuclear Weapons programs and allow inspectors in to ensure they have done so. Kim Jong-un will most likely be asking for all sanctions to be removed. I suspect the deal they (Trump and Jong-un) come to will be a removal of sanctions in return for no more future testing. Such an agreement is a bigger win for North Korea than the U.S. but it at least would dial down tensions. In my opinion talks between the U.S.and North Korea must include South Korea, China, Japan, and Russia if they are to produce a long term result. China and Russia are North Korea's 2 largest allies and the only reason North Korea hasn't collapsed. While South Korea and Japan are the 2 countries most at risk of North Korean hostility. 

Share this post


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

Donald Trump plans to sit down and speak face to face with Kim Jong-un. I assume Trump will being asking for North Korean to give up their Nuclear Weapons programs and allow inspectors in to ensure they have done so. Kim Jong-un will most likely be asking for all sanctions to be removed. I suspect the deal they (Trump and Jong-un) come to will be a removal of sanctions in return for no more future testing. Such an agreement is a bigger win for North Korea than the U.S. but it at least would dial down tensions. In my opinion talks between the U.S.and North Korea must include South Korea, China, Japan, and Russia if they are to produce a long term result. China and Russia are North Korea's 2 largest allies and the only reason North Korea hasn't collapsed. While South Korea and Japan are the 2 countries most at risk of North Korean hostility. 

I'm struggling to see a win for the Donald, in any real sense, NK is never going to completely capitulate; as fish face in star wars said "It's a trap" and the Don instantly fell headlong, despite the clever buggers shouting NOOOO, WTF have you done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I'm struggling to see a win for the Donald, in any real sense, NK is never going to completely capitulate; as fish face in star wars said "It's a trap" and the Don instantly fell headlong, despite the clever buggers shouting NOOOO, WTF have you done?

He'll probably do what every president does with the Kims. He'll make it seem like he's being tough but fair, and North Korea will get a butt-ton of aid for making it look like they're complying. The secondary humanitarian concerns will be ignored in favor of the removal of such a massively crippling nuclear threat. 

Trump's "advisors" are most likely telling him not to brag too much or Kim will take offense and launch some retaliatory bluster. Can he resist?

It would be nice to think Kim actually wants some change and is afraid Trump is crazy enough to call his nuclear bluff. This seems to be an after-effect of Trumpism, where he stirs the pot enough to make the crazy float to the top so reasonable people can work on ladling that crap out and fix the soup. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

It would be nice to think Kim actually wants some change and is afraid Trump is crazy enough to call his nuclear bluff. This seems to be an after-effect of Trumpism, where he stirs the pot enough to make the crazy float to the top so reasonable people can work on ladling that crap out and fix the soup. 

 

We can but hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Trump's "advisors" are most likely telling him not to brag too much or Kim will take offense and launch some retaliatory bluster. Can he resist?

It would be nice to think Kim actually wants some change and is afraid Trump is crazy enough to call his nuclear bluff. This seems to be an after-effect of Trumpism, where he stirs the pot enough to make the crazy float to the top so reasonable people can work on ladling that crap out and fix the soup. 

Clinton, Bush, and Obama were all invited to sit down and talk by North Korea. Trump's dialed up rhetoric didn't lead to this offer. North Korea has sought one on one talks with a U.S. President for decades. Trump is simply the first POTUS to say yes. 

 https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/09/politics/north-korea-trump-obama-bush-clinton/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The talk( s ) should definitely include China, South Korea and Japan.
All are stakeholders in this 'spat'.

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.