WHAT WOULD YOU DO ABOUT NORTH KOREA?

Every rational person knows that the real danger of any weapon lies in the person who controls it. There have always been and will always be people who gain political power but lack the mental capacity to use power properly, and become extremely dangerous. In all the world at this time- North Korea tops the list by a wide margin.

North Korea is about the size of Pennsylvania. It's natural resources are very limited, it agricultural potential limited (only about 20% of it's land is tillable) and it's GDP is tiny. It was split from South Korea by the Korean war of the 50's, and the difference in mindset of the North and South is demonstrated by the contrast of the quality of life they have today. While both are about the same physical size- the GDP per capita of the South is $33,000; in the North $1,800. Every statistical ruler we can compare with demonstrates the misery of the North Korean people. They are physically shorter, because malnutrition and starvation have been common for generations. Their life expectancy is shorter by ten years, the infant mortality rate about 6 times higher. Electricity is scarce outside the capitol and usually not available at night. Given this miserable state, why don't the people revolt? Aside from never knowing anything else, this nation has prison camps where several generations of a family may be sent if any one of them become political objectors, and often are never seen again. Protest is extremely dangerous in North Korea.

Despite this extended state of deprivation and poverty, North Korea is expanding it's ability to build and deliver nuclear weapons, and it's leader consistently threatens to use them. It's not the people- they are brainwashed and terrified into submission by a sociopathic and extremely brutal leader, Kim jong-Un. He is the son of the previous dictator who was the son of the dictator before him. This family dynasty of domination and suppression has been in continuous power and control of North Korea since the truce that ended the active combat of the Korean war. The abuse of power and the people have steadily worsened over this time, and that shows no sign of stopping. However, the current dictator seems to think that with nuclear weapons, he can threaten and control the rest of the world too. Armed with nuclear bombs and ICBM missiles, he now openly threatens any in the world who criticize him- and of course dictators must always blame external influence for the internal misery of the people and the reason they need absolute power. Without that, such regimes would probably collapse- so having major "enemies" is essential.

As the conditions before WW II taught us, any concession to a lunatic only encourages his obsession. We have already tried bribes, aid and various concessions as well as sanctions to deal with North Korea, and nothing has proved useful. We are now at tipping point where the weapons held by a lunatic are powerful enough to devastate nations- and the lunatic holding them demonstrates no conscience at all. The danger is imminent as well as extreme and unpredictable. Governments are considering what to do- and it would seem the worst decision is to do nothing.

So- what would you do? Assuming you could write the strategy, how would you want the North Korean threat dealt with?

 

Face to face negotiations.

 

The USG gave the Norks the technology and materials to build and deliver the nukes.
Therefore, the USG should do nothing until these Made By The USG nukes are actually used against the USA. There is no justification for a USG first strike given its complicity in arming NK.

 

Kim Jong-un is a paranoid, dissembling, narcissistic crack pot given to fits of hysteria.

Shamelessly indulge his ego.

Patronize him. Tell him he's the best ever, that everyone loves and admires him. Convince him that you agree that he is always right, and everyone else is to blame when things go wrong.

Stroke his pot belly.

He'll purr like a p___y and behave himself.

 

"Kim Jong-un is a paranoid, narcissistic crack pot given to hysteria"
Change the name and you have a good description of our dear leader.

 

I couldn't possibly comment.

 

Can you clarify how/when the US govt gave the NK nuclear weaponry?

Even if that were true- it would be like stating we trusted this person with a gun, but now he's threatening to kill us- so we must let him shoot first. That logic doesn't seem to be logical...

 

I've written about this extensively before. I'll try to just bullet point my POV for you.

- North Korea has no need for nukes to guarantee its security, and Kim Jong-Un cannot be regarded as a rational actor in possession of nuclear weapons.

- The US should never concede to living under the nuclear shadow of such a nation and leader.

- I would continue to implore the Chinese to act to end the NK nuclear program. But I would make clear to the Chinese that we are just about out of time. And whatever they do must be decisive and it must mean the complete end to NK's nuclear program. I would communicate the absolute urgency of the need for their action.

- I would tell the Chinese that if they don't take that kind of decisive action, we will use military force to end NK's nuclear ability. We would intend to use conventional weapons to this end. I would tell the Chinese that the US will not invade NK with a ground force; we do not seek to occupy; we do not seek to reunify.

- I would tell the Chinese that this would be a unilateral decision by the US as an act of self-defense to an impending threat to the security of the United States. Therefore, .....

- Given that NK possesses the ability to cause great destruction and death to Seoul and the South Korean population, retaliation of that sort by NK will be ended using all of our power at our disposal, if it is attempted. This would also be communicated to the NK government at the time. Yes, "all of our power at our disposal" means what it sounds like it means. In that case, we would seek to end NK's ability to strike at its neighbor in about an hour or two. That would not be a bluff. That would be the plan for that contingency, and all necessary US assets would be in place and ready to act if given the order.



I believe we are at one of those critical points in our history, similar to the Cuban missile crisis when we blockaded Cuba.

Now we must stand and say "no more".

Those who came before us handed to us a secure and strong nation. Now it is our turn to do the same for future generations of Americans.

Seth

 

As long as China protects NK there isn't much anyone can do. That ship sailed back in the 50's with the Korean War and we didn't nuke China when they intervened.

 

Should we take the approach Obama had to "liberate" Libya? Drone the hell out of them and hope for the best?
Worked for Libya. They are now a fully functional democracy and a top 10 contributor to the world

 

See post 9

 

I was being sarcastic. Obviously we wouldn't take the Obama approach.

 

I would bring home all the troops in S. Korea and tell Kim if he steps out of line towards us or S. Korea by as much as one foot we will vaporize N. Korea. When he does, and I suspect he will, evaporate N. Korea. A general said something about: If a lot of people are going to die let's make it over there.

 

I would pull out of South Korea, arm them to the teeth, and say good luck.

I would also hint to NK that nuking San Francisco would not be a bad idea.

 

I'm afraid that Obama can't help you now.

He finished his two popularly-elected terms with 59% approval and is now history.

You must find the testicular fortitude to honestly confront the present, and not flee down your Memory Lane.

 

Overtly, there isn't much you can do and it is 100% the wrong way to go with this.

I think the answer is simple. We need a card to play against the Chinese and Russians (DPRK's only allies) who can put real pressure on the DPRK.

The US should warn China and Russia that if they cannot help de-nuclearize the DPRK we will fund, to the tune of 100's of billions even a trillion dollars (if necessary) to fund state of the art anti-missile tech. If China and Russia think we can shoot down incoming ICBM's the "nuclear deterrent" is off the table for us and they won't like that. Having a mad man like Kim able to lob nukes at us is all the justification we need.

Russia, with a GDP just north of $2 trillion couldn't possibly hope to keep pace with us technologically and China's GDP is just north of $11 trillion, but they have 1.3 billion people to deal with.

So anti missile tech (lasers and anti missile missiles) accomplishes everything we need.

The threat motivates China and Russia, and we work towards the solution if all else fails.

Think about it. Kim is trying to race towards a missile, so we race to beat him by creating the worlds best anti-missile.

In the end, even if the tech proliferates...Fantastic...The threat of ICBM's off the table? I'm all for it. We still have the world most powerful conventional military hands down.

The only other step I can think of is that we must covertly we can do everything we can to undermine the Kim regime.

Cyber warfare is our best bet. We use it covertly, in little steps just enough to maintain deniability but undermine stability in the DPRK.

We had a program in development to launch against Iran. I don't believe for one second, despite the official word, that the program hasn't been turned toward the DPRK...Read here

 

good old fashioned wetwork.

 

There is no good solution. I would continue with the Obama policy, which is what this administration appears to be doing. And I can't tell you what relief it is that they are. I was kinda worried they would go the crazy route.

Sanctions, then use those sanctions as leverage for diplomacy and negotiations. Pressure China and Russia to join in the sanctions and keep their pressure on NK.

When these start working, impose the restrictions that were in place during the Clinton administration and that Bush did away with. But incorporating what we have learned. Especially further restrictions on building ICBMs and on Space Lunches

 

I still think the China card isn't played out yet. We still have a lot of options in the trade arena to pull with China. Some of them will hurt us, but not as much as they would hurt China and clearly we wouldn't be hurt as much by trade decisions as we would be a successful nuclear strike or EMP attack on the US.

If that still turns up nothing, then we threaten to nuclearize the Korean Peninsula. Both South Korea and Japan have large segments of their establishment and population that would oppose that, regardless of the NK threat, but at this point, we would be getting down to the wire. Do they want protection of the US nuclear umbrella or not? If not, there is no justification to keep US troops in South Korea. Pulling them out frees up our hand in other ways, but I think at least Japan might feel threatened enough that they would support that move.

At that point we need to make very public a threat that if North Korea engages in any sort of attack on US territory or US military forces, that we would consider this a resumption of hostilities (technically, we're still at war with North Korea) and that our military goal would the ending the existence of the North Korean state through both conventional and nuclear means.

So it's a difficult problem, but we still have options. They just get progressively worse.

 

Should have been turned to glass years ago. I wouldn't hesitate. Do it now.

 

Mike, I usually agree with you on things, but not this time. These steps you're suggesting allow NK to build a nuclear arsenal that can reach our country in an attack. For me, that outcome is entirely unacceptable. In my opinion, that outcome should never happen. That outcome should be off the table as far as I'm concerned.

 

NUKE EM!!!!

 

Spouting off about North Korea as if there were not serious adverse consequences to rash action is harmless as a frivolous self-indulgence of the impotent but, in the real world, there are complex factors that must be considered and adult behaviour is vital.

Whatever course is taken to mitigate the danger must be perceived by China as being in China's interests. As destabilizing and troublesome as it is to have a lying, paranoidal, temperamentally-unstable narcissist running a country, China does not want a unified Korean peninsula ruled from Seoul and/or 25 million refugees from a devastated North Korea streaming across its border.

Tillerson, despite his now-enfeebled State Department, appears to grasp the complexities, and that is a prerequisite for any comprehensive approach to defusing the potential cataclysm that less balanced individuals might provoke.

And that demands coordinated engagement on the world stage, not a petulant retreat into isolationist brooding about it and/or hysterical threats to lash out.

 

You deflected from my post. Do you think Trump should take the Obama approach and just aimlessly drone people and then leave?

 

So you believe we should replace the threat of ICBM's with some worse?

Like project Thor or project Pluto type weapons? Or motivate our enemies to deploy FOBS systems?