NationStates Jolt Archive

(note, this is cross-posted from my blog at A Far Cry Left (http://farcryleft.blogspot.com/). Yes, it is a shameless plug.

Now the good stuff. "

Sunday, May 15, 2005
North Korea, 2006
The New York Times Article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/16/politics/16nuke.html?hp&ex=1116216000&en=179eeb5d38c5a3ee&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

So North Korea has issued a statement saying it will test it's first nuclear weapon soon. As expected, the US and the Pacific Asians aren't very happy with NK's actions.

Bush has said that if NK should procede and test a weapon, he and the US Asian allies will be forced to take 'measures'. What exactly are these? Well, we have no idea. Last time this administration said that is resulted in the wonderful morass we now call Iraq.

Japan has presented a solid plan of action involving the UN. Of course, this time the UN might actually be able to act as something more than a condom puppet for the US (reference crosslinked from NationStates). Japan's Secretary General has outlined a path to the UN security council (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/). The possible results of this meeting could either be peacekeeper troops (lovingly called 'smurfs') or economic sanctions.

I can somewhat agree with the Peacekeepers being used because NK has been a wee bit on the aggressive side for a nation that really has no global prominence except the attention it draws to itself. Sanctions on the other hand are just idiotic. We saw it in Iraq (http://www.un.org/News/ossg/iraq.htm) during the '90s. These Sanctions do not work at all, in fact, all they do is harm the general innocent populace (http://www.scn.org/ccpi/HarpersJoyGordonNov02.html). Again, noted here. (http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/Iraq/Sanctions.asp)

So, NK is in the final stages of a nuclear weapons test and the world holds its breath. Can we see war coming out of this. If it happens within the Bush regime, I certainly can see another Korean War, just as messy as the first, this time, involving atomics.

But then again, what are our alternative options? Can we repeal the North Korean Sanctions (http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL31696.pdf) and re-open trade to help the nation? Can we resume six-party or double-party talks?

I think one of the first things to do would be to repeal the economic santions. They are doing nothing to slow down the government but they keep the people in abject poverty. the repressive regime in NK makes it worse, literally starving the people to death. I think the six-party talks would be a good idea. Having the US, CHIN, JAP, SK, and NK re-open dialouge sessions could be very helpful.

It seems to sit in my mind however, that with the Bush administration in power, along with the neo-con right, war seems to be an almost inevitable conclusion

I think one of the first things to do would be to repeal the economic santions. They are doing nothing to slow down the government but they keep the people in abject poverty. the repressive regime in NK makes it worse, literally starving the people to death. I think the six-party talks would be a good idea. Having the US, CHIN, JAP, SK, and NK re-open dialouge sessions could be very helpful.

I'm all for this. Sadly, it probably isn't going to happen. I can see us getting into a lot of shit, due to our piss-poor leadership at this point in time.

We spent 200 billion or so fighting in iraq right? How bout we offer Kim Jung il and the top 10 North Korean political and military leaders $20 billion each to dismantle their weapons and defect to the US where they will be given immunity from prosecution and where they can live a life of luxury? Would they really turn that down?

These Sanctions do not work at all, in fact, all they do is harm the general innocent populace (http://www.scn.org/ccpi/HarpersJoyGordonNov02.html). Again, noted here. (http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/Iraq/Sanctions.asp)

and here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4553695.stm) (to a small degree to fault of sanctions)

We had a FAR more legitimate reason for going to war with N. Korea than Iraq. Hell we busted them selling missles in the seas near Australia. Damned idiots in D.C.

I'm all for this. Sadly, it probably isn't going to happen. I can see us getting into a lot of shit, due to our piss-poor leadership at this point in time.

which keeps making loud noises towards war in the region.

which keeps making loud noises towards war in the region.

Yip. Raging morons in control... Wonderful, 'innit?

Now I think all diplomatic options should be depleted before war but this is a different case. You got a Maniac running a country that has Nuclear weapons. NK is very different from USSR. Atleast the people that ran the USSR had some humanity but I really doubt Kim Jong il has any. I say once they test the Nuke the whole world should be knocking on the door step of Kim Jong il with a few million missiles aimed at him. If he even says anything else but I will turn over the nukes, I say we blow him up along with his nuclear facillities.

I propose *removing Kim from power* and move the demilitarised zone from the 38th Parallel to the Yalu River, with a new united, democratic, free government of Korea in Seoul.

North Korea has to go, send the marines in.

North Korea has to go, send the marines in.
That is one of the first great mistakes: never start a land war in Asia. You won't win.

We spent 200 billion or so fighting in iraq right? How bout we offer Kim Jung il and the top 10 North Korean political and military leaders $20 billion each to dismantle their weapons and defect to the US where they will be given immunity from prosecution and where they can live a life of luxury? Would they really turn that down?
I'm very sure we spent a lot more than 200 billion in Iraq.

Would you turn down possible world power for 20 billion bucks?

Interesting article in today's NY Times http://nytimes.com/2005/05/17/opinion/17kristoff.html

"Mr. Hu (Jintao) issued an internal statement saying that while North Korea had made economic mistakes, it had the right ideas politically."

You people do realize China still has North Korea's back right?

I'm very sure we spent a lot more than 200 millin in Iraq.

Would you turn down possible world power for 20 billion bucks?

He said 200 bn.

I would, 20bn would buy you a lot of power.

He said 200 bn.

I would, 20bn would buy you a lot of power.
Corrected.

But would it be the smae as being able to destroy America with a press of a button?

You people do realize China still has North Korea's back right?
Yes, I do realize that. That's why America prob. would find it very hard to win in a war against N. Korea

NK might have nuclear technology, but keep in mind, the missiles they are using are from the Soviet Era. They might get one up in the air, but if it would stay there long enough to hit anything, I don't know.

As a further point, NK might be able to hit LA or San Fran, but once that happens the US would turn NK into a glowing crater. What we'd have to watch for is China's involvment - they could hit us, multiple times, without a doubt.

NK might have nuclear technology, but keep in mind, the missiles they are using are from the Soviet Era. They might get one up in the air, but if it would stay there long enough to hit anything, I don't know.

As a further point, NK might be able to hit LA or San Fran, but once that happens the US would turn NK into a glowing crater. What we'd have to watch for is China's involvment - they could hit us, multiple times, without a doubt.
You realize that a Nuclear Warhead blown up in teh sky is about as dangerous as one blown up on the ground?

That would become WWIII. And cicilization woul come to an end

That is one of the first great mistakes: never start a land war in Asia. You won't win.

You can with all those nukes. Use them, while you can.

" You got a Maniac running a country that has Nuclear weapons. "

US or NK??????

Unfortunately, both...

This country does not have the funds to finance another war. Which means, that if NK (or China for that matter) truly becomes a threat to the US, we will be up ****'s creek.

Unless, of course, there's oil involved... :sniper:

Yes, I do realize that. That's why America prob. would find it very hard to win in a war against N. Korea

You guys are going to have to take on China one day, better now, while you are stronger.
China will whip your asses down the track if you dont.

NK might have nuclear technology, but keep in mind, the missiles they are using are from the Soviet Era. They might get one up in the air, but if it would stay there long enough to hit anything, I don't know.
As a further point, NK might be able to hit LA or San Fran, but once that happens the US would turn NK into a glowing crater. What we'd have to watch for is China's involvment - they could hit us, multiple times, without a doubt.

But look at the statistics, you have more nukes than them, alot more, it would be like some novice taking on a professional boxer, getting afew wild hits in, then getting cleaned up with six combos.
What are you worried about, you would win easily!
Dont you have any faith in your own countrys defences, their the best in the world m8.

But look at the statistics, you have more nukes than them, alot more, it would be like some novice taking on a professional boxer, getting afew wild hits in, then getting cleaned up with six combos.
What are you worried about, you would win easily!
Dont you have any faith in your own countrys defences, their the best in the world m8.
The US would certainly survive but Seoul and Tokoyo would not exist after NK is attacked. Well Tokoyo might survive, it is not clear whether NK has the technology to mount nuclear warheads in missiles. Seoul would surely die a firey death though, South Korea unfortunately built their biggest city within range of North Korean artillery. Thousands of artillery pieces would open fire on South Korea and the sky would turn black with shells the instant NK is attacked.

Um.....the reason why we won't go to war with N. Korea is that they have nukes. Sending ground troops into nukes is a rly bad idea. While, yes we have nukes too, the fact is that us shooting nukes at them isn't a good idea either. Basically we want to avoid anything with nukes as usuing them tends to lead to incredible death, and possibly WWIII, (MAD).
If talks break down with N. Korea we'll just do the same thing we did with the USSR, sit glaring at each other across the table.

The US would certainly survive but Seoul and Tokoyo would not exist after NK is attacked. Well Tokoyo might survive, it is not clear whether NK has the technology to mount nuclear warheads in missiles. Seoul would surely die a firey death though, South Korea unfortunately built their biggest city within range of North Korean artillery. Thousands of artillery pieces would open fire on South Korea and the sky would turn black with shells the instant NK is attacked.

I disagree, Tokyo has nuke shelters etc and mighten even get hit, radiation fallout could be a problem of course, but Im sure the ingenious Japanese will be ready for that.
your worried about the North korean artillary? Im sure that would be one of the first targets.

Get China to remove support. With the sanctions in place, the government's only source of survivability is the Chinese.

China could stop North Korea's nuclear program. I apologize for not having sources right now, though.

China reportedly supplies a great deal of North Korea's power and food. If China told NK to end its program(s) or have their power cut off, NK would most likely concede.

I'm not sure how likely it is to work, but... I've been up for too long, and it seems like it would work to me.

NoKo is PRC's cat's paw.

Let's see what US did when china proliferated nukes to pakistan.

*thinking long and hard*

Let's see what US did when pakistan proliferated nuke tech to libya, iran, and pretty much anybody who has the money.

forget the money, AQ Khan (yes, the Q stands for Queer) is a card carrying member of LeT (Lashkar-e-Toiba stands for army of the pure) which belongs to the umbrella organisation of United Jihad council floated by OBL.

forget about that, the US has satellite pics of C-130 planes (US supplied, of course) leaving Pakistan to North Korea carrying nuke components, which re-fuelled in china en route.

what has the NPT regime done in the face of *documented* proliferation by PRC and Pakistan ?

recall that pakistan had attempted to covertly acquire nuke tech *after* 9-11 from the *US* itself...it was in the news a month back.

NPT is a sham.

Long live dear leader Kim Jong and north korea.

if every country has an ICBM and a nuke, there would be no more wars in the world.

[QUOTE=Letharn]Um.....the reason why we won't go to war with N. Korea is that they have nukes. Sending ground troops into nukes is a rly bad idea.

Why would the NK's launch nukes on their own country?

While, yes we have nukes too, the fact is that us shooting nukes at them isn't a good idea either.

No, but it may be sadly unavoidable.



Basically we want to avoid anything with nukes as usuing them tends to lead to incredible death, and possibly WWIII, (MAD).

Your living a fools dream if you think WW3 without using nukes can be avoided, its going to happen whether you like it or not, and theirs not a dammned thing any of us can do about it, you can protest all you like.
You think all these nukes in the world are just sitting around for nothing?

Its the human races fate.

If talks break down with N. Korea we'll just do the same thing we did with the USSR, sit glaring at each other across the table.

What if they launch on SK or Japan?
I doupt you will be just glaring.

Dub will be saddling up and launching staright into NK, whether China likes it or not.

I disagree, Tokyo has nuke shelters etc and mighten even get hit, radiation fallout could be a problem of course, but Im sure the ingenious Japanese will be ready for that.
your worried about the North korean artillary? Im sure that would be one of the first targets.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2000/korea09122000.html

The ground forces, numbering one million active duty soldiers, provide the bulk of the North's offensive war-fighting capability and are the world's third largest army. They are supported by an air force of over 1,600 aircraft and a navy of more than 800 ships. Over 6 million reserves augment the active duty personnel. Seventy percent of their active force, to include 700,000 troops, 8,000 artillery systems, and 2,000 tanks, is garrisoned within 100 miles of the Demilitarized Zone. Much of this force is protected by underground facilities, including over four thousand underground facilities in the forward area alone. From their current locations these forces can attack with minimal preparations.
3. North Korea fields an artillery force of over 12,000 self-propelled and towed weapon systems. Without moving any artillery pieces, the North could sustain up to 500,000 rounds an hour against Combined Forces Command defenses for several hours. The artillery force includes 500 long-range systems deployed over the past decade. The proximity of these long-range systems to the Demilitarized Zone threatens all of Seoul with devastating attacks.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2000/korea09122000.html

The ground forces, numbering one million active duty soldiers, provide the bulk of the North's offensive war-fighting capability and are the world's third largest army. They are supported by an air force of over 1,600 aircraft and a navy of more than 800 ships. Over 6 million reserves augment the active duty personnel. Seventy percent of their active force, to include 700,000 troops, 8,000 artillery systems, and 2,000 tanks, is garrisoned within 100 miles of the Demilitarized Zone. Much of this force is protected by underground facilities, including over four thousand underground facilities in the forward area alone. From their current locations these forces can attack with minimal preparations.
3. North Korea fields an artillery force of over 12,000 self-propelled and towed weapon systems. Without moving any artillery pieces, the North could sustain up to 500,000 rounds an hour against Combined Forces Command defenses for several hours. The artillery force includes 500 long-range systems deployed over the past decade. The proximity of these long-range systems to the Demilitarized Zone threatens all of Seoul with devastating attacks.

I admit its formidable. But you will still beat them, simply because of your superior fire power.
On this, why does such a small nation of relative economic unimportance, have such a powerful armed force, its obvious they are nothing but China's pittbull terrier.
Have any of you guys heard about the horrible scientific experiments they have been carrying out on their own people, for things such as germ warfare etc I wonder whos really benefitting from this disqusting research, and whos the real target of it?

if every country has an ICBM and a nuke, there would be no more wars in the world.

What are you an idiot?

Get China to remove support. With the sanctions in place, the government's only source of survivability is the Chinese.

China hasnt armed NK for nothing m8.

I admit its formidable. But you will still beat them, simply because of your superior fire power.
On this, why does such a small nation of relative economic unimportance, have such a powerful armed force, its obvious they are nothing but China's pittbull terrier.
Have any of you guys heard about the horrible scientific experiments they have been carrying out on their own people, for things such as germ warfare etc I wonder whos really benefitting from this disqusting research, and whos the real target of it?
I'm not saying the US wouldn't win but we would kill millions of Koreans in doing so providing China did not get involved. What gives the US the right to throw away their lives? If China got involved the US would be in trouble. I have not heard about about these experiments. Perhaps you could provide a linky?

[QUOTE=Subterranean_Mole_Men]I'm not saying the US wouldn't win but we would kill millions of Koreans in doing so providing China did not get involved.

The sad and horrible fact of the matter is that this might happen, whether China gets involved or not.


What gives the US the right to throw away their lives?

Lives are unfortunately lost in any conflict, particularly now, as the weapons get deadlier and deadlier.
Sometimes its just unavoidable.

If China got involved the US would be in trouble.

Off who? The UN? Their a joke m8, and only fools take that organisation seriously now.

I have not heard about about these experiments. Perhaps you could provide a linky?

No sweat.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/10245
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/3933727.stm

This one I found particularly distressing.
http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/4287.html

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20041124-121316-5086r.htm

http://www.freenorthkorea.net/archives/freenorthkorea/001467.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2214-2005Mar25.html
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/FE06Dg01.html

and heaps more, if you want to look for them.

[QUOTE]

The sad and horrible fact of the matter is that this might happen, whether China gets involved or not.



Lives are unfortunately lost in any conflict, particularly now, as the weapons get deadlier and deadlier.
Sometimes its just unavoidable.



Off who? The UN? Their a joke m8, and only fools take that organisation seriously now.



No sweat.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/10245
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/3933727.stm

This one I found particularly distressing.
http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/4287.html

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20041124-121316-5086r.htm

http://www.freenorthkorea.net/archives/freenorthkorea/001467.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2214-2005Mar25.html
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/FE06Dg01.html

and heaps more, if you want to look for them.
Ok Let me sum up before I sign off.

Why would we attack North Korea?

1) Is NK a threat to the US? No its crappy missiles could not hit the Continental US. Even if they could why would they do this? Did the USSR or Maoist china ever try to nuke us? It is not like Kim Jong is some wacked out Islamic leader yearning for martyrdom. What possible reason could he have for starting a nuclear war.

2) A war with North Korea would be a disaster for koreans. South Korea would lose Seoul in a massive barrage of artillery. Their economy would be set back decades. A devestated cripilled South Korea would not be able to help North Korea develop. Look at germany. Even today East Germany is in horrible poverty and Germany is the world's third biggest economy. Things would not magicly get better if South Korea overthrows kim jong.

3) If China got involved I don't think the US would even win. What is the point of starting a nuclear war with a superpower over a small mountainous country of 20 million people? Even if it was a conventional war, the Chinese drove the Americans back to where they started in the first Korean War. Now they have an ever improving, ever more modern military. America would lose 10,000s of men. What purpose would justify this sacrafice?

What to do? Nothing.

Kim Il-jong is a power-hungry dictator. Call him evil or mentally unbalanced if you want, but he isnt an idiot. He realizes that if he fires a nuclear weapon, he will soon be ousted in one way or another. Same if he starts war, with any nation. Nukes are a way of keeping his power; nobody will strike first at him, if they know he has nuclear weapons. He knows that if he proliferates weapons, that they will likely be traced back to him. He will do what it takes to stay in power. Having nukes and not using them first is the best way to maintain his power. The sanctions are only hurting the people, he doesnt care about them, unless it means such wide-spread death and starvation that he wont have people to rule over...and I dont think the US is ready to starve millions of people to death to stop one nation having nuclear weapons.

Order Chinese food.

That'll show 'em!

I disagree, Tokyo has nuke shelters etc and mighten even get hit, radiation fallout could be a problem of course, but Im sure the ingenious Japanese will be ready for that.

Nope. There is supposedly one for the Imperial family, but virtuelly none for the the rest of the population.

According to the NPO, Japan Fallout Shelter Association, as of November 2002, Japan had a domestic distribution rate of 0.02%, the U.S 82%, while Switzerland, which make shelters compulsory, and Israel with its continuous sense of impending crisis have a rate of 100%.

The price of a shelter for a family of 4 to 5 runs close to 12 million Yen. Board member for the NPO, Nobuko Oribe says, “Fallout shelters haven’t really taken off because of guilt over being a sole survivor, and the fear that a neighbor could reach the shelter before you do—for this reason many people build them in secret.”
http://www.theeast.co.jp/urbanlegend.htm

Nope. There is supposedly one for the Imperial family, but virtuelly none for the the rest of the population.
http://www.theeast.co.jp/urbanlegend.htm

Well Ill be danged, dont that beat all. I would have thought the Japs would have been abit more smarter than that.

[QUOTE=Subterranean_Mole_Men]
Ok Let me sum up before I sign off.
Why would we attack North Korea?

Because their an evil dictatorship that experiments on its own people, having a country like this in the modern world, makes a joke of all our pretensions to be advanced.


1) Is NK a threat to the US? No its crappy missiles could not hit the Continental US. Even if they could why would they do this? Did the USSR or Maoist china ever try to nuke us? It is not like Kim Jong is some wacked out Islamic leader yearning for martyrdom. What possible reason could he have for starting a nuclear war.

No, but its definitely a threat to SK and Japan, Americas allies, and in the event of war, you dont drop your friends and run.


2) A war with North Korea would be a disaster for koreans. South Korea would lose Seoul in a massive barrage of artillery. Their economy would be set back decades. A devestated cripilled South Korea would not be able to help North Korea develop. Look at germany. Even today East Germany is in horrible poverty and Germany is the world's third biggest economy. Things would not magicly get better if South Korea overthrows kim jong.

Any wars a disaster, there will of course be severe casulties in this one, but the only defeat for SK would be if the US lost.
Isnt Berlin in East Germany? One of the most fastest growing western citys in Europe?



3) If China got involved I don't think the US would even win. What is the point of starting a nuclear war with a superpower over a small mountainous country of 20 million people? Even if it was a conventional war, the Chinese drove the Americans back to where they started in the first Korean War. Now they have an ever improving, ever more modern military. America would lose 10,000s of men. What purpose would justify this sacrafice?

Huge wars can start from smaller happenings, WW1 for instance.
WW3 may be the same, alot of tension between world powers and smaller ones, with one sore point starting more conflicts off.
America should have pushed the Chinese back when they had the chance in the Korean war, they wouldnt have this mess now.
Yes America would lose 10,000s of men,thats what happens in major wars.
The purpose to justify this would be Americas role as a super power, and ally to quite a few nations in Asia and the Pacific to be taken seriously by China.

[QUOTE=Mutated Sea Bass]
Ok Let me sum up before I sign off.

Why would we attack North Korea?

1) Is NK a threat to the US? No its crappy missiles could not hit the Continental US. Even if they could why would they do this? Did the USSR or Maoist china ever try to nuke us? It is not like Kim Jong is some wacked out Islamic leader yearning for martyrdom. What possible reason could he have for starting a nuclear war.

2) A war with North Korea would be a disaster for koreans. South Korea would lose Seoul in a massive barrage of artillery. Their economy would be set back decades. A devestated cripilled South Korea would not be able to help North Korea develop. Look at germany. Even today East Germany is in horrible poverty and Germany is the world's third biggest economy. Things would not magicly get better if South Korea overthrows kim jong.

3) If China got involved I don't think the US would even win. What is the point of starting a nuclear war with a superpower over a small mountainous country of 20 million people? Even if it was a conventional war, the Chinese drove the Americans back to where they started in the first Korean War. Now they have an ever improving, ever more modern military. America would lose 10,000s of men. What purpose would justify this sacrafice?

*Thank* you, for providing a bit of common sense.

North Korea will not start a war. It won't attack the US, because that would be suicidal. It won't attack any other country, because there would be international retaliation, and again it would be suicidal. Also, there's no earthly reason for them to do so. And if you think they would attack South Korea, then you know very little about Korea, North or South.

North Korea would only be dangerous if defending itself against an unprovoked US attack. Which won't happen either, despite all some people's dreams of bloodshed and blowing hundreds of thousands of innocent Koreans to ash.

I propose *removing Kim from power* and move the demilitarised zone from the 38th Parallel to the Yalu River, with a new united, democratic, free government of Korea in Seoul.
And the 10 Million or so in Seoul? I assume you've outfitted them all with personal teleporters? It's going to be a series of smoking craters within the first few minutes. I'm sure the North Koreans would save the nuke for Tokyo. If they go down, like all Stalinists, they'll go down looking to inflict maximum casualties.

That said, China would keep to itself. They know what the stakes for that war would be, and that they'd be facing the prospect of a nuclear decapitation if they chose poorly. They're not nearly so fond of the North Koreans as to sell out their own promising future.

But for the US, the best play is probably to buy them off as Clinton originally wanted, pre-axis of evil (my god that was stupid), and to pour money into developing battlefield robots, UCAVs, theater missle/artillery defense in all it's flavors, and a small arsenal of ground penetrating and/or precision guided nuclear weapons.

The Japanese would probably be better off reevaluating their posture and constitution, while getting in on theater missle defense. One of the most agonizing decisions facing them is no doubt the dilemma of taking up nuclear arms. Which would take them hardly anytime at all to build. That's probably the most stinging consequence of US foreign policy that will come out of this. I don't imagine China looks foreward to a future when they're surrounded by nuclear weapons.

The South Koreans are just screwed. Period. That's why their "Sunshine" Policy makes any sense at all. Seoul is an ashtray if it doesn't work.

[QUOTE=Subterranean_Mole_Men]

North Korea would only be dangerous if defending itself against an unprovoked US attack. Which won't happen either, despite all some people's dreams of bloodshed and blowing hundreds of thousands of innocent Koreans to ash.

Yes, you keep believing that. Makes the day nicer doesnt it.
The US would not launch on NK either without a good reason.

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here and there. I'm on the fence about North Korea. I'll explain as I go.

[QUOTE]

Because their an evil dictatorship that experiments on its own people, having a country like this in the modern world, makes a joke of all our pretensions to be advanced.

The part that disturbs me here is that it "makes a joke of all our pretensions to be advanced." The idea that a certain concept or "moral" justification should be pasted to every corner of society and the world is bogus and absurd. I'm not saying Kim is a good man, but goddamn it if I lived in that country I'd have found a way to kill his ass by now or died trying.

No, but its definitely a threat to SK and Japan, Americas allies, and in the event of war, you dont drop your friends and run.

In the event of a war you asses the situation accordingly and investigate any avenues that will assure your nation's safety above all others.

I'm leery of justifying rushing off to every ally's aid because it implies my nation is somehow expected to live up to the history and relations of some other country. If we can dig up enough people willing to throw their lives away for this, I don't suppose I care too much unless I see more numbers nicked off my paycheck.

Any wars a disaster, there will of course be severe casulties in this one, but the only defeat for SK would be if the US lost.

As irrational as it is, I always hold out hope that at the last minute someone will get their head out of their ass and make the right decision somewhere where it matters. I don't like to assume that war is inevitable, but on some levels I'm forced to acknowledge it and SK will in all probablity be crushed.

Isnt Berlin in East Germany? One of the most fastest growing western citys in Europe?

I think this is a moot point. The initial argument here [" Even today East Germany is in horrible poverty and Germany is the world's third biggest economy. Things would not magicly [sic] get better if South Korea overthrows kim jong."] is flawed because it assumes that a "magical solution" is even possible. I wouldn't bother with it.

Huge wars can start from smaller happenings, WW1 for instance.
WW3 may be the same, alot of tension between world powers and smaller ones, with one sore point starting more conflicts off.
America should have pushed the Chinese back when they had the chance in the Korean war, they wouldnt have this mess now.
Yes America would lose 10,000s of men,thats what happens in major wars.
The purpose to justify this would be Americas role as a super power, and ally to quite a few nations in Asia and the Pacific to be taken seriously by China.

America shouldn't have to justify shit. We're here, we can trade, that should be the end of it. Our diplomatic position now has been a result of a horribly insensitive foreign policy from day one. There are very few cases in world history where full scale force was unavoidable and appropriate, had we invested more heavily in rational decision making.

Example: If North Korea is a threat to Japan, consider that we re-wrote their consitution to forbid the Japanese from having a standing army. Sure, they can defend themselves, but North Korea probably knows if it can get in bed with China that Japan can't hit either of them. America has a way of making incredibly stupid foreign policy decisions and paying for them later. I hope we start to notice this shit soon.

Just leave them.

The US should sign a non-aggression pact with them and then let them starve.

Go and visit them, however. Since there is no production to speak of, they have a beautiful environment. And - the people there will have a chance to talk with outsiders. They might be impressed by the ability of a mechanic or teacher or student to travel to distant countries.

Tourists and personal contacts will instill in them a hunger for change. Much more than any economic sanctions, which will only lead to resistance.

REVELATION! FROM THE NEWEST ISSUE OF TIMEASIA!

Many South Korean citizens actually think that the USA possesses a greater threat to the peace in Korea than North Korea does...

Just leave them.

The US should sign a non-aggression pact with them and then let them starve.

Go and visit them, however. Since there is no production to speak of, they have a beautiful environment. And - the people there will have a chance to talk with outsiders. They might be impressed by the ability of a mechanic or teacher or student to travel to distant countries.

Tourists and personal contacts will instill in them a hunger for change. Much more than any economic sanctions, which will only lead to resistance.




Sadly, no. Tour groups etc to North Korea are INCREDIBLY tightly controlled. It's not like you can just rock on up and start speaking to people on the street. People are shown exactly what the government allows them to see, and there's definitely no socialising with natives.

We need a Sith lord that can convince China that North Korea plans to invade China as retribution for the centuries of Korean humiliation at Chinese hands, and at the same time tell Kim that the Chinese think he is a little bitch. Then China can walk in with thier clone army, Korea can send its battle-droids, and the Gungans will be caught in the middle. It's almost too easy...

1. The Korean War is still underway. There is an armistice, but the war is not resolved.
2. The United States did not start the Korean War. It was started by deliberate action on the part of the North Koreans.
3. The United Nations, under Resolution 90, is at war with North Korea.
4. North Korea sees itself at war with only the United States, and therefore wants to negotiate ONLY with the United States.
5. If the United States were to negotiate a separate peace with North Korea, it would be in violation of Resolution 90.
6. North Korea wants an unconditional guarantee that the United States will never attack it - no matter what.
7. The reason it wants this guarantee is that it wishes to unify Korea by force, and does not want any interference - the US is the only force that could stop them from doing so.
8. While they might appear crazy, the North Koreans are actually quite sane, but engaging in extremely risky brinkmanship. They have no real interest in negotiating with other parties, except to put pressure on the United States to engage in unilateral talks and unilateral solutions.
9. If the US were to agree to such a proposal, it is hardly likely that North Korea would actually dismantle anything at all. They would be emboldened by their success in brinkmanship, and would engage in more of the same.
10. If the North Koreans were to actually use a nuclear weapon first on a target in South Korea, Japan, or on American forces at sea, there would be a US nuclear response.
11. If the North Koreans merely test a weapon, the US is not likely to attack without first making some sort of stink at the UN (and it is likely that the UN will not authorize any action at all no matter how many violations North Korea will have engaged in). The UN will not authorize any invasion, and it will not authorize the use of nuclear weapons.
12. China is probably not happy with the idea that there's a crazy place on their border doing crazy things. I could easily imagine a Chinese invasion of North Korea - probably more likely than a US invasion of North Korea. The Chinese could walk in and take the place.

everyone is missing an important point here, we do not have to start a war with north korea, we just have to resume the one that still exists, a state of war still exists between nort and south korea (and the rest of the world through the UN) since the war never ended, they just agreed on a cease fire for negotiations

The US can afford to ignore North Korea, China, Japan, and South korea cannot

Just leave them.

The US should sign a non-aggression pact with them and then let them starve.

Go and visit them, however. Since there is no production to speak of, they have a beautiful environment. And - the people there will have a chance to talk with outsiders. They might be impressed by the ability of a mechanic or teacher or student to travel to distant countries.

Tourists and personal contacts will instill in them a hunger for change. Much more than any economic sanctions, which will only lead to resistance.

You can visit it - and I intend to one day - but you won't get to talk to many people, except your official guides, who will be with you all the time.

As a sidenote, I find your suggestion of "let them starve" repulsive. I don't think I even need to mention "inhumane". Roughly one third of the North Korean population survives only thanks to international aid, and you're advocating genocide. Cut off food aid, and it won't be the government who starves, it will be millions upon millions of innocent people.

You can visit it - and I intend to one day - but you won't get to talk to many people, except your official guides, who will be with you all the time.

As a sidenote, I find your suggestion of "let them starve" repulsive. I don't think I even need to mention "inhumane". Roughly one third of the North Korean population survives only thanks to international aid, and you're advocating genocide. Cut off food aid, and it won't be the government who starves, it will be millions upon millions of innocent people.

The US also cannot sign a non-aggression pact.

The purpose of the North Korean invasion of the South at the start of the Korean War was to re-unify Korea under their control.

UN Resolution 90 puts a stop to this.

The war is not over. It is merely a period of armistice.

If the US separately, and apart from the UN, negotiates a non-aggression pact with North Korea, they will be promising that the US will not intervene on behalf of the UN or South Korea. The US will be violating Resolution 90.

The UN needs to step forward and end the war - one way or another. The US did not start this war.

I find it interesting that the same people who decried unilateral non-UN action by the US in Iraq are the same people who demand unilateral non-UN action by the US in North Korea.

The US also cannot sign a non-aggression pact.

The purpose of the North Korean invasion of the South at the start of the Korean War was to re-unify Korea under their control.

UN Resolution 90 puts a stop to this.

The war is not over. It is merely a period of armistice.

If the US separately, and apart from the UN, negotiates a non-aggression pact with North Korea, they will be promising that the US will not intervene on behalf of the UN or South Korea. The US will be violating Resolution 90.


Eh... Why are you telling me this? I never said otherwise.

Thank you, but I do actually know all this. I trust everyone does. Having said that, it's pretty obvious the DPRK will not be the one to resume hostilities, just as it's obvious that the ROK will never attack its northern counterpart either. The two Koreas are getting on very well resolving their differences in a peaceful manner, slowly but steadily, and in spite of the US occasionally tossing a spanner into the works.

And I do agree that it would be absurd for the US to sign a non-aggression pact.

In the spirit of cleaning up your own messes, I have the current US behavior:

1. We messed up Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation. So we're there to clean up our mess.
2. We messed up Iraq by creating and helping Saddam. So we're there to clean up our mess.

I think that the Chinese need to clean up North Korea. I'd be glad to help, but it's really their mess, since they financed, encouraged, and helped the DPRK become the center of insanity.

1. We messed up Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation. So we're there to clean up our mess.
2. We messed up Iraq by creating and helping Saddam. So we're there to clean up our mess.


Soviet minefields, attack helicopters and tanks messed up Afghanistan.

Saddam independently overthrew his uncle in a coup.


DPRK become the center of insanity.


Talk about insanity! Kim il Sung made himself the state religion of NK. Movies (not movie) were made about his miraculous birth on Mount T'aebaek, also birthplace of Hwanin the Emperor God of Heaven and Earth. He preached he was descended from diety.

Then he pops out a son Kim Jung il whose aspiration is to make horror films. Kim Jung Il has repeatedly expressed his admiration of the first Friday the 13th movie. After studying and observing he started making slasher films with a moral tale about the collective versus individuality. Don't forget he used commandos to kidnap one of Japan's top actresses and one of Japan's top directors to produce a "monster movie that would surpass the quality of Godzilla movies" (aim high!) On top of this he has the world's largest Daffy Duck memorabilia collection.

Throw in millions of starving worshippers and a Barney Fife nuke and the comedy disappears.

Soviet minefields, attack helicopters and tanks messed up Afghanistan.

Saddam independently overthrew his uncle in a coup.


We supplied money, weapons, and training to the rebels in Afghanistan. Who later became the Taliban, who operated training camps for al-Qaeda using techniques they learned from US.

Saddam was given plenty of money and advice (not guns or gas) from the United States during the Iran-Iraq War.

Not that he didn't get a lot of help from the Soviets - in terms of thousands of tanks, missiles, guns, tons of ammunition - or advanced fighters and air defense radars from the French - before and after the first Gulf War, the latter in violation of the sanctions.

But we did deal with Saddam directly in the 1980s. So we're guilty, as much as anyone else, of helping him stay in power. So we cleaned him up.

No one complains when the French intervene unilaterally to clean up a former colony. So why do they complain when we do the same thing?

So, what do we know about North Korea? We know actually quite little. They have so effectively sealed their country off from the outside world that it is quite near the level often referred to as absurd. Our minimal experiences with Kim Jong Il, show that he's just an utter madman. He also happens to be the world's first "communist monarch" (how the hell does that one work I'd like to know...) He's obsessed with film, military, pornography and himself. In fact, he considers himself to be one of the greatest artists of all time. His mass performances (such as what were displayed to Madeline Albright during her trip to Pyongyang) are just plain weird. His kidnapping of Japanese movie actors and the like is also quite strange. And beyond that, he's just quite strange. He's totally unpredictable, and because he's so well sealed off the DPRK, no one really has any idea what is actually there. For all we know he could be bluffing on the nuclear bomb issue. He might have just ordered a big hole dug and filled back in to honor his "glory." When the west saw it and interepereted it as preparations for an underground nuclear bomb test, he might have sprung on it as an attempt to get US concessions once he heard the western media talking about it. Who knows. Beyond that, Kim doesn't act like a normal human being. When he made his visit to South Korea, his actions were described as resembling a Martian saying "Hello Earthlings, take me to your leader." He resembles an ancient oriental deity-potentate gone mad more than anything else.

Beyond that, I don't think sanctions will have any effect on North Korea anyways. The nation is already heavily isolated from the outside world. The people are already suffering, and what food that is available goes to feed the North Korean soldiers. Their economy is based around a late nineteen-sixties style Soviet military-industrial complex, and produces equipment from that era in increasingly smaller amounts. It's just a weird nation. A time capsule that dates back to the cold war era. Who knows.

here are a few possibilities:

..Kim is completely insane
..The nuclear issue is a ploy to prop a failing government
..he believes he can get something from the world that NK needs

The trouble is that any or all could be true. I have read that NK feels they can achieve a blitzkrieg-style invasion of SK if they can keep the USA out of the war for several days. Has anyone an idea of whether NK feels they can survive a nuclear attack?

The trouble is that any or all could be true. I have read that NK feels they can achieve a blitzkrieg-style invasion of SK if they can keep the USA out of the war for several days. Has anyone an idea of whether NK feels they can survive a nuclear attack?
If the US really, really felt like nuking the DPRK, we could easily turn the entire nation into a massive piece of green plate-glass. Or even more fun, we could make the ROK into a friendly little island! If the US decided that the DPRK didn't deserve to exist any more, the DPRK would have a zero-nuclear survivability chance.

If the US really, really felt like nuking the DPRK, we could easily turn the entire nation into a massive piece of green plate-glass. Or even more fun, we could make the ROK into a friendly little island! If the US decided that the DPRK didn't deserve to exist any more, the DPRK would have a zero-nuclear survivability chance.
do you really think China would take kindly to that?

1. The Korean War is still underway. There is an armistice, but the war is not resolved.
2. The United States did not start the Korean War. It was started by deliberate action on the part of the North Koreans.
3. The United Nations, under Resolution 90, is at war with North Korea.
4. North Korea sees itself at war with only the United States, and therefore wants to negotiate ONLY with the United States.
5. If the United States were to negotiate a separate peace with North Korea, it would be in violation of Resolution 90.
6. North Korea wants an unconditional guarantee that the United States will never attack it - no matter what.
7. The reason it wants this guarantee is that it wishes to unify Korea by force, and does not want any interference - the US is the only force that could stop them from doing so.
8. While they might appear crazy, the North Koreans are actually quite sane, but engaging in extremely risky brinkmanship. They have no real interest in negotiating with other parties, except to put pressure on the United States to engage in unilateral talks and unilateral solutions.
9. If the US were to agree to such a proposal, it is hardly likely that North Korea would actually dismantle anything at all. They would be emboldened by their success in brinkmanship, and would engage in more of the same.
10. If the North Koreans were to actually use a nuclear weapon first on a target in South Korea, Japan, or on American forces at sea, there would be a US nuclear response.
11. If the North Koreans merely test a weapon, the US is not likely to attack without first making some sort of stink at the UN (and it is likely that the UN will not authorize any action at all no matter how many violations North Korea will have engaged in). The UN will not authorize any invasion, and it will not authorize the use of nuclear weapons.
12. China is probably not happy with the idea that there's a crazy place on their border doing crazy things. I could easily imagine a Chinese invasion of North Korea - probably more likely than a US invasion of North Korea. The Chinese could walk in and take the place.

1. Ok? If you think anyone will buy that as justification for a first strike by the US, you must not understand things well.

2. The US and Soviet union forcibly split the koreans. The north koreans started the shooting, but dont think that the US isnt at all to blame(and Truman was my favorite president, so dont think Im just being anti-US).

3. Ok?

4. North korea doesn't see itself at war with anybody. The fact that its still war is semantics, everybody knows that the shooting has stopped, and that whoever starts it again is the aggressor.

5. Nobody is advocating that the US try to make another peace with North Korea. Its a virtual peace in effect, making it official wouldn't change anything.

6. Doesn't everybody want that from everybody? They might not come out saying it, but I doubt you want somebody to declare war on you.

7. China, Russia, US, France, and Britain could stop the North koreans, if they put enough effort into it(and I mean each seperatly). The North Koreans dont have a strong enough military to forcibly occupy South korea without help, against one of the 5 superpowers. It would take much longer for Russia, France, or Britain, but they would be able to do it too. As for unification, you act like thats such a bad thing. You can argue that unification under communism is bad, but the idea of unification itself?

8. Agreed.

9. Agreed.

10. Agreed.

11. Agreed, and I would support the UN in such case.

12. Agreed, and I would be fine with it.

[QUOTE=Melkor Unchained]
The part that disturbs me here is that it "makes a joke of all our pretensions to be advanced." The idea that a certain concept or "moral" justification should be pasted to every corner of society and the world is bogus and absurd. I'm not saying Kim is a good man, but goddamn it if I lived in that country I'd have found a way to kill his ass by now or died trying.

It mighten bother you much,(Im assumming your American) because NK is a long distance from you. But what if NK, was right next door, can you honestly say you wouldnt be morally bothered much by what was happenning there?
Im not calling you one, but that is how a coward thinks.

Um you would die trying, and you probably wouldnt even get close to him.
You can only take down a regime like that with a revolution, problem with that is, who can you trust to help?
Especially in NK?


In the event of a war you asses the situation accordingly and investigate any avenues that will assure your nation's safety above all others.

Then theres not much point in nations signing treatys to come to each others aid, if attacked is there? And if bullying nations are aware that one nation would get cold feet about its own safety, if it came to the punch, then this would just encourage nations to attack weaker ones, if they sense any doupt on the part of its allies.
In an alliegance, you dont question anything, except the intentions of your allies enemy.


I'm leery of justifying rushing off to every ally's aid because it implies my nation is somehow expected to live up to the history and relations of some other country. If we can dig up enough people willing to throw their lives away for this, I don't suppose I care too much unless I see more numbers nicked off my paycheck.

See previous answer.


As irrational as it is, I always hold out hope that at the last minute someone will get their head out of their ass and make the right decision somewhere where it matters. I don't like to assume that war is inevitable, but on some levels I'm forced to acknowledge it and SK will in all probablity be crushed.

Japan will go too, if the next ten years play out to my theory, the Chinese arent that happy with Japan, and still want revenge for Nanking etc
And yes the Chinese are still pissed about that.


America shouldn't have to justify shit. We're here, we can trade, that should be the end of it. Our diplomatic position now has been a result of a horribly insensitive foreign policy from day one. There are very few cases in world history where full scale force was unavoidable and appropriate, had we invested more heavily in rational decision making.

War makes money and kicks the economy along for the right nation, WW2 pulled America out of its economic slump, and set it up as the world power it is at present.
The only thing keeping America out of WW2 was a reluctance of the American public to be involved, until Pearl Harbor of course...makes you wonder doesnt it?

Example: If North Korea is a threat to Japan, consider that we re-wrote their consitution to forbid the Japanese from having a standing army. Sure, they can defend themselves, but North Korea probably knows if it can get in bed with China that Japan can't hit either of them. America has a way of making incredibly stupid foreign policy decisions and paying for them later. I hope we start to notice this shit soon.

World brinkmanship is never solved in one decade, consequences of decisions usually roll on to affect something else.
Its like trying to plug a hole in a dyke with your finger, and more holes opening up around it, than the amount of fingers you have.
I believe appeasement is usually the cause of this, you rob peter to pay paul, then peter gets angry later on etc

Sadly, no. Tour groups etc to North Korea are INCREDIBLY tightly controlled. It's not like you can just rock on up and start speaking to people on the street. People are shown exactly what the government allows them to see, and there's definitely no socialising with natives.


Tour groups have local tour guides. People working in hotels, restaurants, public toilets, taxis, public transport, museums, etc. etc. are locals. I come from a former communist country. It's not easy to talk to foreigners, but it's possible, even if all contacts are monitored by the secret police.

It mighten bother you much,(Im assumming your American) because NK is a long distance from you. But what if NK, was right next door, can you honestly say you wouldnt be morally bothered much by what was happenning there?
Im not calling you one, but that is how a coward thinks.

Don't bother me with hypothetical situations. I'm interested in discussing the here and now as opposed to concepts that would hold true in some sort of alternate reality. I have a problem with someone telling me I need to examine the situation from someone else's point of view: it just promotes the idea that I can't make these judgement calls on my own.

Right and wrong don't know boundaries; and assuming I'm the same person as I am now my reaction to the situation will not change regardless of my proximity to it.

Um you would die trying, and you probably wouldnt even get close to him.
You can only take down a regime like that with a revolution, problem with that is, who can you trust to help?
Especially in NK?

I see it as my responsiblity as a citizen to either fix my government or die trying if it turns into something resembling this kind of evil. I see myself as an end in and of myself, not a means to someone else's end. How close I get or how many people follow me is irrelevant.

Then theres not much point in nations signing treatys to come to each others aid, if attacked is there?

Nope.

And if bullying nations are aware that one nation would get cold feet about its own safety, if it came to the punch, then this would just encourage nations to attack weaker ones, if they sense any doupt on the part of its allies.

I think the thing you're forgetting here is that North Korea does not have anywhere near the infrastructure to carry out a full scale offensive against any other nation in the area, in some cases even if the victim didn't have US assistance. If they struck first, it would end very fast no matter who they went after and with what kind of weapon. I don't think China would back North Korea against the United States. North Korean leaders should be aware of the fact that they will be destroyed and occupied very quickly if they start, and probably by us.

I think the tendancy here is to exaggerate North Korea's power. It's not worth it on any level to launch a pre-emptive strike against them because they can't do that much damage before getting annihilated. I see your point, but we have to be aware that North Korea isn't anywhere near as powerful as, say, Germany in WWII.

In an alliegance, you dont question anything, except the intentions of your allies enemy.

This is a horrible way to think. Saying that I shouldn't think for myself or that we shouldn't examine our best interests because of a signature on a piece of paper you must have your priorities way out of line. Allowing for the removal of logic in any situation is a stupendously horrific idea.

Japan will go too, if the next ten years play out to my theory, the Chinese arent that happy with Japan, and still want revenge for Nanking etc
And yes the Chinese are still pissed about that.

China is moving more toward a capitalist economic model, and they're already trading partners with Japan. Japan also has more money and more markets for Chinese business than North Korea could ever provide. There is still a bit of cultural animosity, but in a practical decision making sense I don't think China will be too enthusiastic about the idea. The Chinese may not want a US foothold up there, but we already have them in Taiwan South Korea.

War makes money and kicks the economy along for the right nation, WW2 pulled America out of its economic slump, and set it up as the world power it is at present.
The only thing keeping America out of WW2 was a reluctance of the American public to be involved, until Pearl Harbor of course...makes you wonder doesnt it?

Wonder about how much of a son of a bitch FDR was? Don't get me started.

World brinkmanship is never solved in one decade, consequences of decisions usually roll on to affect something else.

Agreed. We've been making these kinds of mistakes for 229 years.

Its like trying to plug a hole in a dyke with your finger, and more holes opening up around it, than the amount of fingers you have.
I believe appeasement is usually the cause of this, you rob peter to pay paul, then peter gets angry later on etc

Well, yeah.