NationStates Jolt Archive

After watching this video (North Korea - Children of the State (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6951629397402742053)) in its' entirety, I was moved to open this thread.

North Korea has a population of 22 Million, and despite accounts that Kim Jong-Il (Dear Leader) controls a repressive regime, the fact remains that the people are "totally indocrinated" and love their leader dearly.

It would appear that simply removing Kim Jong-Il from power would accomplish very little, and arguably could make the situation far worse.

The fact that North Korea is developing its' nuclear potential, and has enough firepower to turn Soeul, South Korea into a pile of rubble, using conventional weaponry, makes any possible solution to the problem much more difficult.

Also, after watching another video (North Korea Nuclear Documentary (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3787046457101273554)) in its' entirety, I believe the only logical solution is through peaceful, and meaningful negotiations with the ultimate goal of reunifying the people of North and South Korea.

I don't see how bombs and bullets, economic sanctions, or a war of words is going to accomplish very much. If anything, those actions will make the world a far more dangerous place.

What do you think are the viable solutions?

Has North Korea ever benefitted of good behaviour? No. Has it got what it wants by threatening others? Yes. I believe that NK wants recognition and they have noticed that there's only one way to get it.

I agree with you that there should be much more talks, friendly gestures and so on. Other countries should encourage NK to be more involved, not push it further away

I agree that a military "solution" would not work. However, I don't see how normal relations with North Korea would accomplish anything either, other than encourage other nations with estranged governments (see Iran, Syria) to behave the same way. The best course of action? Defer to East Asian nations. Let China, South Korea, Russia and Japan handle North Korea. China and South Korea can keep trading with North Korea, Japan can cut off all relations with it.

As it stands, the integration of the Koreas is highly desirable. But given Kim Jong Il's stand on outside influences and power sharing in the affairs of the DPRK it would seem most likely that he would have no desire to share power with the government of the ROK. He would only assent to a unification of the Koreas if he were to remain solely in charge. We're going to have to wait until he dies, or does something really retarded for the possibility for the country to change.

On the flip side, the Japanese are now debating the legality of pre-emptive strikes by their military. What happens if they pull the trigger? Even now, there is no serious discussion of pre-emptive strikes in the US government. http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/07/10/us.nkorea.ap/index.html

I agree that a military "solution" would not work. However, I don't see how normal relations with North Korea would accomplish anything either, other than encourage other nations with estranged governments (see Iran, Syria) to behave the same way. The best course of action? Defer to East Asian nations. Let China, South Korea, Russia and Japan handle North Korea. China and South Korea can keep trading with North Korea, Japan can cut off all relations with it.
I do believe that isolating North Korea in the first place was a big part of the problem.

As it stands, the integration of the Koreas is highly desirable. But given Kim Jong Il's stand on outside influences and power sharing in the affairs of the DPRK it would seem most likely that he would have no desire to share power with the government of the ROK. He would only assent to a unification of the Koreas if he were to remain solely in charge.
I disagree. After watching the video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3787046457101273554), one expert suggested that Kim was a nationalist first and a socialist second, and that the merged countries would more than likely be a democracy.

We're going to have to wait until he dies, or does something really retarded for the possibility for the country to change.
He is only 65. You could be waiting a long. long time. I don't think that is a viable option.

On the flip side, the Japanese are now debating the legality of pre-emptive strikes by their military. What happens if they pull the trigger? Even now, there is no serious discussion of pre-emptive strikes in the US government. http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/07/10/us.nkorea.ap/index.html
I think the US should try and discourage any and all such actions, unless of course they prefer an intense war.

Edit: The Japanese should also realize their complicity in this whole matter. It was the Japanese that invaded Kprea back in the early 1900's and tried to crush the Korean cultural identity.

1. Nuke back to stone age.
2. Invade conventionally.
3. Stage coup.
4. Convince the PRC to do those things.

After watching this video (North Korea - Children of the State (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6951629397402742053)) in its' entirety, I was moved to open this thread.

North Korea has a population of 22 Million, and despite accounts that Kim Jong-Il (Dear Leader) controls a repressive regime, the fact remains that the people are "totally indocrinated" and love their leader dearly.

It would appear that simply removing Kim Jong-Il from power would accomplish very little, and arguably could make the situation far worse.

The fact that North Korea is developing its' nuclear potential, and has enough firepower to turn Soeul, South Korea into a pile of rubble, using conventional weaponry, makes any possible solution to the problem much more difficult.

Also, after watching another video (North Korea Nuclear Documentary (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3787046457101273554)) in its' entirety, I believe the only logical solution is through peaceful, and meaningful negotiations with the ultimate goal of reunifying the people of North and South Korea.

I don't see how bombs and bullets, economic sanctions, or a war of words is going to accomplish very much. If anything, those actions will make the world a far more dangerous place.

What do you think are the viable solutions?
Diplomacy with a dictatorial, paranoid, even demented regime has ( and will have ) no effect whatsoever except encourage them. Can you say, "Parking lot for Japanese cars bound for the rest of the world," boys and girls?

Diplomacy with a dictatorial, paranoid, even demented regime has ( and will have ) no effect whatsoever except encourage them. Can you say, "Parking lot for Japanese cars bound for the rest of the world," boys and girls?


my list:
1. Nuke back to stone age.
2. Invade conventionally.
3. Stage coup.
4. Convince the PRC to do those things

Notice how anything diplomatic (other than chattin' with Hu) is very much absent.

I disagree. After watching the video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3787046457101273554), one expert suggested that Kim was a nationalist first and a socialist second, and that the merged countries would more than likely be a democracy.
Therein lies the problem. Kim does not fit into any of our rational concepts of politics. While his beliefs may show evidence of both nationalism and socialism,he is neither a nationalist or a socialist. His personal beliefs would tend to show us that he believes he rules by divine right.


He is only 65. You could be waiting a long. long time. I don't think that is a viable option.
I'm hoping he'll go the way of Ceausescu and Mussolini sometime soon. Although the fanatical religious devotion his people have regarding him makes that kind of tough.

Isolation and containment must occur, and he'll eventually die.


I think the US should try and discourage any and all such actions, unless of course they prefer an intense war.
I agree. War on the Korean Peninsula is not a wise course of action at this time.

Edit: The Japanese should also realize their complicity in this whole matter. It was the Japanese that invaded Kprea back in the early 1900's and tried to crush the Korean cultural identity.
There's lot's of people who are responsible for the current situation, ranging from the US, to Russia, to Japan, to the PRC.

Therein lies the problem. Kim does not fit into any of our rational concepts of politics. While his beliefs may show evidence of both nationalism and socialism,he is neither a nationalist or a socialist. His personal beliefs would tend to show us that he believes he rules by divine right.



I'm hoping he'll go the way of Ceausescu and Mussolini sometime soon. Although the fanatical religious devotion his people have regarding him makes that kind of tough.

Isolation and containment must occur, and he'll eventually die.



I agree. War on the Korean Peninsula is not a wise course of action at this time.


There's lot's of people who are responsible for the current situation, ranging from the US, to Russia, to Japan, to the PRC.
Who causes it is not relevant.
What you do about it is relevant.

Who causes it is not relevant.
What you do about it is relevant.
I'd hope that if certain countries would accept responsibility, then they'd also move to take some of the actions that would be required to prevent war.

I think that the world should give them the cold shoulder. As for nuclear weapons, I doubt now that they have them, and are just saying that they do to get what they want. They just want the world's attention, that is all.

I'd hope that if certain countries would accept responsibility, then they'd also move to take some of the actions that would be required to prevent war.

It seems your hope is a form of wishful thinking.

I fail to see how that kind of policy leads to other countries obeying orders.

Let the japanese, that for sure are going to ally with South Korea, own them by conventional means, with a subtle military logistic support by the US...

Let the japanese, that for sure are going to ally with South Korea, own them by conventional means, with a subtle military logistic support by the US...


The last 2 or 3 times that approach was tried, the chinese got involved.
The first time was, methinks, in the days of the Taiko.

Indeed...I think that China will...remain quiet this time...

Who causes it is not relevant.
What you do about it is relevant.
sig'd.

(gives BogMarsh a feather for cap)

Well, the situation is just getting worse, I have to admit when I read about the long range missile crashing into the Sea of Japan, I couldn't help but laugh my arse off.

The missile that was so "big and bad" and could reach the US went up for a few seconds, and then splash...I found it humorous.

But what is not funny (and I cannot blame Japan), is Japan is considering a pre-emptive strike to wipe out North Korea's missile silos. This isn't good at all, North Korea would go (for lack of better word) apeshit.

China is North Korea's closest friend, and China is not on friendly terms with Japan. The whole situation is extremely tense and could explode quickly if you ask me.

Indeed...I think that China will...remain quiet this time...

Why is that?

Trouble in Cho'sun is more likely to annoy them than it would annoy anyone else.

a pre-emptive nuclear strike should make some nice new parking lots for us :sniper: :)

Diplomacy with a dictatorial, paranoid, even demented regime has ( and will have ) no effect whatsoever except encourage them. Can you say, "Parking lot for Japanese cars bound for the rest of the world," boys and girls?
I don't share your zeal for creating new parking lots and I truly think that the rest of the world would think that such actions were "viable" either.

According to the video that I saw, diplomacy was working. It doesn't help when a new President gets elected and declares your country as part of the "Axis of Evil", and then for that President to demonstrate what happens to countries on his list (read Iraq).

Your solution could result in the deaths of millions of South Koreans. You think that that is a "viable" option?

North Korea - What are the viable solutions?
Total annihilation is a realistic option.

because I was soooo serious about nuking North Korea.

Obviously all we have to do is send 15 kids armed with .22's into canada and take that over, and then we got a huge parking lot right next to us instead of all the way around the world!

Total annihilation is a realistic option.
How is that option anywhere near realistic? Do you really think that China is going to sit back and watch the fireworks?

But what is not funny (and I cannot blame Japan), is Japan is considering a pre-emptive strike to wipe out North Korea's missile silos. This isn't good at all, North Korea would go (for lack of better word) apeshit.

China is North Korea's closest friend, and China is not on friendly terms with Japan. The whole situation is extremely tense and could explode quickly if you ask me.
I agree and I believe that Japan needs to sit this one out.

1. Nuke back to stone age.
Not a realistic option.

2. Invade conventionally.
This could possibly result in the deaths of millions of South Koreans. I am sure that they would not like this option.

3. Stage coup.
Besides the fact that this would be very difficult to arrange, what good would that do? The people are totally indoctrinated.

4. Convince the PRC to do those things.
I am sure that China has no desire to fulfil the wishes of the western world on this matter.

I say at this point the world is too nervous to handle any pre-emptive strikes or even sanctions. Think about the effects of economic sanctions. Who does it hurt the most? I'm pretty sure the government officials will see to it that they themselves are taken care of first and the people last. Sanctions is a cruel option.

There's no telling what North Korea and Iran will do if they are struck pre-emptively. The best thing to do now, especially for the U.S., is improve spying and intelligence and hunker down, not firing unless fired upon.

The people are totally indoctrinated.

Give 'em food and free media. They'll soon realise juche is a load of BS.

What do you think are the viable solutions?

No viable "acceptable" solution that would work exists, as far as I can tell.

Diplomacy and other non-military solutions show no signs of having had any effect. A conventional military strike isn't viable fore various reasons (the US is in Iraq and Afghan, Russia and China are unwilling and/or incapable, and Japan and ROK are incapable of carrying out conventional strikes.) The only viable military solution (nuclear strikes) is, at least at the moment completely unteniable.

As far as mention of Japan's "plans fdor pre-emptive strikes, Defence Minister Ishiba's saber rattling, is entierly empty. Japan does not really have the strike capacity to take out DPRK's missiles. An attempt to do so would be as domestically damaging as it would be internationally and militarily.

There isn't much we can do; the best policy is to keep North Korea contained militarily while simultaneously undermining the regime through the expansion of capitalist development and free trade zones within the country. Kim's got more than a few years left but there is no guarantee of what the regime will do after he's gone so we should be working to undermine it now with the hope it will collapse further.

Sanctions aren't going to work and neither will military action.

How is that option anywhere near realistic? Do you really think that China is going to sit back and watch the fireworks?
What part of 'total annihilation' didn't you understand?

What part of 'total annihilation' didn't you understand?

What part of 'realistic' did you not understand?

No viable "acceptable" solution that would work exists, as far as I can tell.

Diplomacy and other non-military solutions show no signs of having had any effect. A conventional military strike isn't viable fore various reasons (the US is in Iraq and Afghan, Russia and China are unwilling and/or incapable, and Japan and ROK are incapable of carrying out conventional strikes.) The only viable military solution (nuclear strikes) is, at least at the moment completely unteniable.

As far as mention of Japan's "plans fdor pre-emptive strikes, Defence Minister Ishiba's saber rattling, is entierly empty. Japan does not really have the strike capacity to take out DPRK's missiles. An attempt to do so would be as domestically damaging as it would be internationally and militarily.
It appears that there was some very constructive dialogue between Washington and NK while Clinton was in office. It might not have been perfect but it was constructive. I noticed that once the Bush administration took office, there was a more hard line stance taken towards NK, and then came the Bush declaration regarding NK being part of the "Axis of Evil".

After that, NK kicked out the UN monitors and cut the seals on the nuclear equipment. Everything seems to have escalated after that especially with the US invasion of Iraq.

I do think that diplomacy is the only viable option, but I am not sure if that is achieveable with the current adminstration in Washington.

It appears that there was some very constructive dialogue between Washington and NK while Clinton was in office. It might not have been perfect but it was constructive. I noticed that once the Bush administration took office, there was a more hard line stance taken towards NK, and then came the Bush declaration regarding NK being part of the "Axis of Evil".

We have to remember, though, that in the early and mid-1990's North Korea suffered a serious and prolonged economic depression that led to the possibility of mass starvation and shrunk their GDP by over 25% during the 1991-1995 period. They were a lot more vulnerable then and needed more aid from the OECD than they do now; in particular, the growth in Chinese/Russia-NK trade has helped keep their economy from collapsing like it did in 1995 and so they are more likely to resist any attempt at diplomacy.

Any attempts to use Japan to end the conflict are likely to end in failure, since a lot of Koreans (and the Chinese) still hold bad feelings towards the Japanese for the world war II thing. Bringing Japan into anything that could resemble indimidation or threats (as diplomacy often is), could result in even further trouble.

China is not an option either, since it's probably Hu (or a member of his govenrment) that's pulling the strings and causing all this to happen. China props NK up. They'll give us a bunch of diplo-speak about how they're going to do something and then not do anything. We've seen it before. No, china is invested in this conflict already, and it's not on our side.

Honestly? I think our (the West+Japan and South Korea) best ally going into this is Russia. Russia has some ties with Korea from the whole Korean war thing, but I doubt that they're as actively involved in Korea as China has been. They've got the clout.

Whether we can convince them to put some pressure on the NKs or not, who can say? But if we did get them on our side, I bet the NKs (and China) would back right down.

It appears that there was some very constructive dialogue between Washington and NK while Clinton was in office. It might not have been perfect but it was constructive. I noticed that once the Bush administration took office, there was a more hard line stance taken towards NK, and then came the Bush declaration regarding NK being part of the "Axis of Evil".



But then in 1994 before the agreements, the Clinton government was busy planning airstrikes on the NK nuclear plants.......

Do'nt blame Bush for the problem... the problem is North Korea and its deranged political system.... and its 'hold on to power at all costs' leadership:(

It appears that there was some very constructive dialogue between Washington and NK while Clinton was in office. It might not have been perfect but it was constructive. I noticed that once the Bush administration took office, there was a more hard line stance taken towards NK, and then came the Bush declaration regarding NK being part of the "Axis of Evil".

After that, NK kicked out the UN monitors and cut the seals on the nuclear equipment. Everything seems to have escalated after that especially with the US invasion of Iraq.

I do think that diplomacy is the only viable option, but I am not sure if that is achieveable with the current adminstration in Washington.

While the current adminitration's approarch has been sprely lacking, Clinton's diplomacy really had little effect on either DPRK or Iran's drive for nuclear weapons. Both are cases of "stop us if you can!" thumbed noses, which the US cannot stop, largely due to the post-cold-war "peace dividend" gutting of the military forces.

Diplomatic solutions are a joke. Over and over again we give them aid for which they agree to play nice – and they don’t. They promised not to develop nuclear weapons if we fed and funded their army, which we did, and they developed nukes anyway. They promised not to test fire any more missiles if we gave them more aid, and we did, and they broke that agreement.

What does Kim have to loose? If he misbehaves he just gets more aid.

North Korea is highly dependent upon aid – which goes to feed and pay a huge standing army. The policy is that the military comes first, so if you want to avoid a humanitarian disaster seeing half the peasants starve, you have to provide for the army first, and then send more to give to the people (of which only diehard loyalists get any food anyway).

Giving him more aid in return for a promise to behave is ridiculous – he behaves like an impetuous child. He has learned that if he throws a temper tantrum he will get whatever he wants.

A military solution is not wise – it will likely spark a war. Saying ‘they wouldn’t escalate the conflict because people will die’ is ridiculous – when a leader doesn’t care about the welfare of his people, basing decisions on how it will effect said welfare is silly. Do you really think Kim cares if he gets a couple million people killed?

The option here is to ignore him and refuse any more aid. No reward for bad behavior.

Currently, the long-range capabilities of NK are laughable – so the only serious threat is to South Korea. So let SK deal with the problem – they know the situation better than anyone else and have the greatest personal stake in the outcome.

If China wants to keep feeding and propping up NK, then let them – but they are to be held responsible. Like a parent is responsible for a child’s destructive misbehavior, China should be responsible for said misbehavior.

If China wants to keep feeding and propping up NK, then let them – but they are to be held responsible. Like a parent is responsible for a child’s destructive misbehavior, China should be responsible for said misbehavior.

So how do you propose to make China responsible?

Your solution could result in the deaths of millions of South Koreans. You think that that is a "viable" option?
Uh ... we were discussing North Korea, I think ... weren't we?? :confused:

It appears that there was some very constructive dialogue between Washington and NK while Clinton was in office. It might not have been perfect but it was constructive. I noticed that once the Bush administration took office, there was a more hard line stance taken towards NK, and then came the Bush declaration regarding NK being part of the "Axis of Evil".

After that, NK kicked out the UN monitors and cut the seals on the nuclear equipment. Everything seems to have escalated after that especially with the US invasion of Iraq.

I do think that diplomacy is the only viable option, but I am not sure if that is achieveable with the current adminstration in Washington.
LMAO!

OMG!!ELEVEN111! Teh ebil Bush iz teh s0urce of a11 problems in teh w0rld!!!ONE111ELEVEN!!!!

So how do you propose to make China responsible?
Sneak a nuclear-tipped ballistic missle into China, fire it at NK, then raise hell about China being irresponsible! Problem solved. :D

I don't see how bombs and bullets, economic sanctions, or a war of words is going to accomplish very much.
And I don't see how this is any of the West's business. Let South Korea, China and Japan sort it out.

Uh ... we were discussing North Korea, I think ... weren't we?? :confused:


I think he meant that any potential invasion of North Korea could cause Mr. Kim to intiate some form of missile (nuclear or otherwise) against South Korea as an act of spite.

Uh ... we were discussing North Korea, I think ... weren't we?? :confused:
Dude, North Korea would attack South Korea if given the slightest opportunity. Think long range artillery with explosive shells possibly containing chemical or biological agents.

And I don't see how this is any of the West's business. Let South Korea, China and Japan sort it out.

But, if they blow each other up, where will we get our high-tech stuff?

Continue with the policy of containment, and let them implode from within.

It really works! :eek:

Sneak a nuclear-tipped ballistic missle into China, fire it at NK, then raise hell about China being irresponsible! Problem solved. :D
Yeah, that'll work, right up to the point Russian and French earth-monitoring satellites measure the fallout signature. At which point the US UNSC representative might as well squeak "I'll get my coat" and vacate the building.

LMAO!

OMG!!ELEVEN111! Teh ebil Bush iz teh s0urce of a11 problems in teh w0rld!!!ONE111ELEVEN!!!!
You really don't think that Bush has any complicity in the recent activity by the North Koreans?

Edit: I do believe that recognizing that the Bush administration is a part of the problem, will go a long way towards finding the solution.

You really don't think that Bush has any complicity in the recent activity by the North Koreans?
He really don't, CH. He really don't.

*sighs*

Oh look, a shiny thing to distract myself with!

I think he meant that any potential invasion of North Korea could cause Mr. Kim to intiate some form of missile (nuclear or otherwise) against South Korea as an act of spite.
Yes, that is exactly what I meant. Millions of South Koreans are in a perilous situation, if the US decides to act militarily against North Korea.

Let China Curb thier dog .

The DPRK is a pretty much independent state. The PRC exercises very little control over Pyongyang, something that they've been trying to get across to the rest of the world - partially to get rid of Pyongyang's horrible human rights record off their back [they've got enough problems with their own], and partially to avoid any serious blows to their friendly relations [more warm than friendly].

Japan attacking North Korea is likely to bring a worse response than anything else. There's a lot of history with Japan as an "imperialist" [back then, they were imperialists - somewhat even today but clearly diminished], and Japan mobilizing - while diplomatically and even militarily understandable - is almost going incite furor from China and South Korea.

Personally, I think the DPRK is going to linger around for a little longer than people expect, partially because China has given them enormous economic support and partially because North Korean society is unusually [for the world] communistic - ironically led by the most imncompetent socialists in the world - who seek to self-serve their own personality cult more than their peoples' bellies. When Kim Jong-il dies, North Korea is going to be at its weakests. Depending on whether Kim Jong-il gets a good heir to follow in his lead or not, the DPRK might just collapse from internal pressure and an inability to provide a successful successor - which would be the best-case scenario. The worst-case scenario involves a war of any sort, because more than likely it will end in some sort of armageddon - either for Korea or for the world.

Continue with the policy of containment, and let them implode from within.

It really works! :eek:

Worked with the Soviets. Only took 44 years of proxy wars. Problem is what if he does send an ICBM toward Hawaii. Then we have to respond. Containment only works if the other side somewhat co-operates.

Here's an idea: modify a Taepodong-2 missile so that it actually works, smuggle it into N Korea and launch it at the US. The warships fire interceptors, shoot it down and everyone will be happy with the US and really really pissed at N Korea. Kim Jong would be wondering wtf happened and even if he did figure out what was going on and told the entire world, nobody would believe him.

And I don't see how this is any of the West's business. Let South Korea, China and Japan sort it out.
In all fairness, the US does have a stake in all of this. Currently there are about 30 to 35 thousand US troops at or near the DMZ in Korea.

I imagine that the posters that are calling for turning NK into a vast parking lot, would deem the US soldiers as expendable or cannon fodder would perhaps be more appropriate?

He really don't, CH. He really don't.

*sighs*

Oh look, a shiny thing to distract myself with!

For some reason A picture of a golden retriever puppy playing with something comes to mind. Makes me laugh.

In all fairness, the US does have a stake in all of this. Currently there are about 30 to 35 thousand US troops at or near the DMZ in Korea.

I imagine that the posters that are calling for turning NK into a vast parking lot, would deem the US soldiers as expendable or cannon fodder would perhaps be more appropriate?

The 36k US troops in Korea would give Kimme pooh hell and some extra.

1. Nuke back to stone age.
2. Invade conventionally.
3. Stage coup.
4. Convince the PRC to do those things.


In other words...bomb the f*** out of them, then claim we wanted peace all along. Very American!!!! First:upyours: , next :mp5: :sniper: , then :fluffle: ...we are getting good at that. Your plan, simple, to the point...makes me smile.

The 36k US troops in Korea would give Kimme pooh hell and some extra.
Do you really think so?

North Korea: The cost of conflict (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/01/21/nkorea.war/index.html)

In 1994, advisers to then President Bill Clinton predicted 52,000 U.S. casualties in the first 90 days of combat alone, Don Oberdorfer, a former Washington Post reporter, wrote in his book The Two Koreas.

To put that figure in perspective, 55,000 U.S. military personnel were killed in the 1950-53 Korean War, and about 58,000 in the 1957-75 Vietnam War.

Some estimates went as far as forecasting a million casualties, not to mention economic damages and war-related costs that ran into trillions of dollars.

Now, the casualty estimates are higher, with North Korea's massive firepower moving closer to U.S. and South Korean forces stationed on the border.

To wage a campaign against North Korea would require hundreds of thousands of extra U.S. troops.

1. Not a realistic option.


2. This could possibly result in the deaths of millions of South Koreans. I am sure that they would not like this option.


3. Besides the fact that this would be very difficult to arrange, what good would that do? The people are totally indoctrinated.


4. I am sure that China has no desire to fulfil the wishes of the western world on this matter.

1. Why not?
2. You do get hung up on the word 'possibly'. Will it or wont it?
Either you have an idea, or you have owt reason to speak up at all.
3. Did I mention the people? I was thinking a General or 2...
4. Have you discerned PRC interests in the area?
Do these coincide with li'l Kim hanging on to power?

I believe the only logical solution is through peaceful, and meaningful negotiations with the ultimate goal of reunifying the people of North and South Korea.

I don't see how bombs and bullets, economic sanctions, or a war of words is going to accomplish very much. If anything, those actions will make the world a far more dangerous place.

What are the viable solutions?



I think yours are.

But we need a bit of Chinese cooperation to put some pressure on negotiations. Which is actually just what NK is doing in reverse with its weaponry programme.

I vote no war (traditional diplomacy encouraged) - and who the hell does BogMarsh think he is to decide the rights to life for so many in the region who would be affected!?

Unification of North and South Korea is in reality, just another phrase for the Annexation of the starving north by the prosperous south.
As in the BRDigung der ehemaligen DDR.
I like that.
li'l Kim won't.

UN intervention!

make them glowing embers and let korea have a no live zone buffer with china
:D :D :D

After watching this video (North Korea - Children of the State (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6951629397402742053)) in its' entirety, I was moved to open this thread.

North Korea has a population of 22 Million, and despite accounts that Kim Jong-Il (Dear Leader) controls a repressive regime, the fact remains that the people are "totally indocrinated" and love their leader dearly.

It would appear that simply removing Kim Jong-Il from power would accomplish very little, and arguably could make the situation far worse.

The fact that North Korea is developing its' nuclear potential, and has enough firepower to turn Soeul, South Korea into a pile of rubble, using conventional weaponry, makes any possible solution to the problem much more difficult.

Also, after watching another video (North Korea Nuclear Documentary (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3787046457101273554)) in its' entirety, I believe the only logical solution is through peaceful, and meaningful negotiations with the ultimate goal of reunifying the people of North and South Korea.

I don't see how bombs and bullets, economic sanctions, or a war of words is going to accomplish very much. If anything, those actions will make the world a far more dangerous place.

What do you think are the viable solutions?

IMHO, all possible solutions end in some degree of massive destruction. The question is, which one ends in the least amount of massive destruction.

snip

What do you think are the viable solutions?

ok..
I think traditional invasion is out of the question. Simply taking into account economic situations, i think most world gov. would rather have Kim in power than huge disruption caused to trade in south east asia.

Some sort of WMD attack on the north, could probably neutralise the northern army (along with countless innocents). But the political ramifications and the hatred towards the perpetrators would make this option political suicide for said nation.

An embargo would really only seriously affect the average person. Also i think with how the propaganda is, i don't see the locals blaming their wonderful leader. There would also be plenty of unofficial trade along the chinese/N. korean border.

Assasination of Kim. Out of all the options stated so far, this would be the most viable. Thanks to Kim's personality cult plus his involvement in all decision making processes in the country he's appears to be surrounded by "yes" men. Whether anyone would be able to take over after him would be questionable, as the next in line is one of his sons who has little to no experience in the gov. Could lead to reunification, more likely a power struggle at the worst a civil war.
Danger with this, would be if the assasin in caught or unsuccesful. Should say the US attempt this option, at least use an operative of chinese dissent to redirect the blame...

Conserted propaganda war by the USA, China and S. Korea. Ok there may not be TV in every home (or even in most) but it would give them a better idea of what's going on outside of their country and might start the ball rolling on local dissent that could lead to change.

USA could sign the non-agression pact. Make it subject to the North signing a similar agreement with the south. Slow increase in trade, diplomatic relations. As the people get slowly richer they'll be more likely to dissent against the gov.

The last option is probably the least exciting, but probably the smartest option in the long run.

The most recent issue of The Economist has some great quotes regarding the fearless leader or whatever the hell Kim calls himself these days.

First, the cover is on the left side of this page.
http://www.economist.com/printedition/

"With it's medieval economy and eccentric leader, the Hermit Kingdom often seems more tragi-comic than terrifying."

"Evil though Mr. Kim undoubtably is, the chief dangers it poses to outsiders are often accidntal..."

"Mr. Kim Claimed that his previous launch--of a Taepodong missile over Japan in 1998--put into orbit a satellite which then warbled patriotic tunes back from space."

"So what is Mr. Kim up to? Miffed at America's recent crackdown on his kleptocratic regime's hard-currency take from dollar counterfeiting, drug running and the like, this week's display was partly a rocket fuelled rapberry at George Bush."

What do you think are the viable solutions?
We must deploy our IGNORE BOMBS to North Korea immediately!

I fear sanctions would be entirely counter-productive in regards to North Korea, and thus my personal inclination would be to incite the North to invade the South, and thus eradicate it upon this pretext.

viable solutions? simple. u.s. stop being wanton international aggressor.

of course not the whole one. sure n.kor. could become one, but we're talking minnow with delusions of becomming a shark versus an orca here.

=^^=
.../\...

viable solutions? simple. u.s. stop being wanton international aggressor.

of course not the whole one. sure n.kor. could become one, but we're talking minnow with delusions of becomming a shark versus an orca here.

=^^=
.../\...
Besides a very, very poor understanding of international politics that you display in the first line, the rest of the post is not particularly intelligible.

viable solutions? simple. u.s. stop being wanton international aggressor.

of course not the whole one. sure n.kor. could become one, but we're talking minnow with delusions of becomming a shark versus an orca here.

=^^=
.../\...

Yet another person who has no idea how the Korean War began.