How to Handle North Korea?

[telkanuru]

There are a couple of things in play here.

- North Korea has not weaponized its nuclear capability yet. It is still in the process of developing the missiles.

- China's main concern is stability on its border. It is obviously unimpressed with its neighbor and has taken action in the Security Council. It is unlikely that China would support the DPRK in a war, especially one they provoked.

- Any conventional war with the DPRK would be amazingly bloody, especially in terms of civilian casualties. There are approximately 10,000 North Korean artillery pieces in range of Seoul (attempting to find citation). This war would also almost certainly have a nuclear end game play by the DPRK as they were defeated.

- The DPRK can't really be considered an expansionist threat. Any offensive action they might take would likely result in high casualties, but would also result in their utter destruction.

- The analogy to 1930s Germany in moronic, which is evident to anyone who's actually studied the scenario. There are no territorial concessions or Anschluss. The DPRK is fully armed and mobilized and cannot be easily crushed.

My conclusions are that the leadership of the DPRK is basically creating their own little internal reality. They will either continue to bluster bombastically until they either believe their own delusions of grandeur and start something they can't finish or peter out into obscurity. Their threats, while they merit some attention, are not a cause for concern or alarm. The proper policy is to allow them to shout as much as they'd like, since the noose is around their neck and they're on the trap, but we'd better keep our hand on the lever.

[Philistine]

While I agree with you on most of this, as long as it is only one or two missiles then even with a 90% accuracy with each attempt, our arsenal should be able to shoot it or them down.

I think a 90% accuracy figure is wishful thinking, at best. Testing of the land-based GMD has not been particularly great, and that against known targets. Sea-based Aegis systems are slightly better, FWIU, but still not even close to being an operational system.

{snip}
From what little that I have heard about NK, while they are trying desperately to build a lot of missiles at the moment, they are currently not at the saturation point for our defenses...

Beyond that--the Taepodong-2 is even less reliable than our ABM system, and isn't actually likely to come near Hawaii.

What worries me more than a launch of a missile or war plane deployment of a WMD is the simple importation of the same via freighter. Nothing like FedEx to deliver your GPS triggered device to the pentagon!

Yeah. If someone actually wanted to make an attack on the US, a single (or a few) missile(s) is not the way to go. Beyond the fact that a container ship carrying a warhead into port is a much more reliable method of getting something there (and there are many major US port cities), it's much easier to hide where it comes from. An ICBM launch, not so much.

--Philistine

[Philistine]

There are a couple of things in play here.

{Points snipped}

Good points, all.

The major threat from North Korea has always been Chinese entanglement. NK can't be easily bluffed by US/Western threats because they could effectively lay waste to Seoul by massive artillery (and 40% or so of the SK population is within 20-30 miles of Seoul).

China, however, seems to be out of patience.

--Philistine

[Rockstar44]

I do not think that we should then result to an immediate retaliation without the good will and blessings of the rest of the international community.

Let me get this straight. If I walk up to you and punch you in the nose, you are going to take a poll of the bystanders to see what they think you should do before you defend yourself?

By the time you finish that, I will have already beaten you into submission. It wouldn't matter how big and strong you are, if you just stand there waiting for a consensus, you're dog meat.

Fine for you if that's what you want. For the rest of us, though, I think it's best to defend oneself.

[Bayou Bum]

Unfortunately, dealing with crazy dictators is a lot like playing poker. If you have most of the chips and he knows you will call his bluff, he is unlikely to go all in on a losing hand. If these crazy dictators knew the US would take whatever action was necessary to defend our interests, they wouldn't be pushing the limits like they are. We are currently admitting we have a losing hand while raising the stakes in the hopes that they eventually fold. We should call their bluff.

I disagree on the damage if we miss with the missile defense. First, I don't think that is the issue. Second, at least it would show that we have the intention of using whatever means are necessary to defend our interests. What message are we sending now? We have the technology but we aren't sure it will work or that it will work but we aren't willing to use it. Just like our nuclear arsenal, what use is it as a detriment if we announce that we will not use it under any circumstance. And what message is Obama sending when he increases spending on everything in the world except our missile defense which he severely cuts?

[Capt. Slo-mo]

And what message is Obama sending when he increases spending on everything in the world except our missile defense which he severely cuts?

OK, just so I get the scorecard right: if Obama spends public money reforming the missile defense system for all Americans, that's flag-waving, snap-off-a-crisp-salute territory; but if he spends public money reforming the health care system for all Americans, that's sucking on the public teat?

While nuclear proliferation is no laughing matter, at the moment, worrying about heart attacks seems more immediately important than North Korean missile attacks.

[Philistine]

{snip}I disagree on the damage if we miss with the missile defense.

It's certainly a debatable issue--reasonable minds can disagree--I just don't think the upside is big enough versus a potential spectacular failure to stop a single missile.

Second, at least it would show that we have the intention of using whatever means are necessary to defend our interests.

What interests do we need to defend from a test firing of a missile?

What message are we sending now? We have the technology but we aren't sure it will work or that it will work but we aren't willing to use it. Just like our nuclear arsenal, what use is it as a detriment if we announce that we will not use it under any circumstance.

It's not that we won't use it under any circumstances. I think it should be used if a real attack is threatened, or even suspected. But that's not this case. I'm just unconvinced it's really an actual deterrent to anybody in its present format.

And what message is Obama sending when he increases spending on everything in the world except our missile defense which he severely cuts?

That he is concerned about real threats, and not just going to do things that look good but provide very little actual security for a huge outlay of money.

--Philistine

[jeff]

For goodness sake, it's not like we haven't been here before. NK has been playing brinksmanship for decades with administrations from both parties. Neither party, and no other country, has figured out a magic method to overcome NK sabre rattling, so to blame the current president is just plain silly. It's not as if Obama got dealt a different hand of cards than Bush before him.

NK plays the belligerence game very carefully and very well, as Inq pointed out to their self-interest. They have no interest in provoking a nuclear war, but they sure want to rattle everybody else into bribing them to pretend to not develop weapons so they will walk as close to the line as they can.

The NK government also cares less about feeding their own people than the outside world does, so they use their own people as pawns for manipulating aid.

EDIT: The one think I think may be changing is China's attitude, but that remains to be seen. I don't think they have any interest in taking over an impovershed basket case of a country like NK, so I don't think that's a likely scenario. Now, if they could install their own pawns and use it is a buffer state without having to own it, that might be a situation they would like.

[Hauptman]

Unfortunately, dealing with crazy dictators is a lot like playing poker. If you have most of the chips and he knows you will call his bluff, he is unlikely to go all in on a losing hand. If these crazy dictators knew the US would take whatever action was necessary to defend our interests, they wouldn't be pushing the limits like they are. We are currently admitting we have a losing hand while raising the stakes in the hopes that they eventually fold. We should call their bluff.

I disagree on the damage if we miss with the missile defense. First, I don't think that is the issue. Second, at least it would show that we have the intention of using whatever means are necessary to defend our interests. What message are we sending now? We have the technology but we aren't sure it will work or that it will work but we aren't willing to use it. Just like our nuclear arsenal, what use is it as a detriment if we announce that we will not use it under any circumstance. And what message is Obama sending when he increases spending on everything in the world except our missile defense which he severely cuts?

What action exactly do you mean by calling their bluff? What are you advocating?

And am I wrong or did both President Obama and Secretary Gates clearly state that we are prepared and would act if NK launches a missle at us?

Finally, any major military budgeting and restructuring has been proposed by Bob Gates who was appointed by President Bush. And didn't Rumsfeld also call for major reductions and restructuring of the military while he was Secretary of Defense?

This constant attempt to paint President Obama as weak and dangerous is just...well... weak and dangerous. Biased critiques are biased.

[Inquartata]

For all we know there could be a plan in the works on how to deal with NK. If we knew exactly what those plans were then NK would know too.

You know, much the same arguments were made with regard to Iraq. They were pretty much roundly rejected by everyone who disliked or disagreed with the Bush Administration.

Turn about is fair play...

- North Korea has not weaponized its nuclear capability yet. It is still in the process of developing the missiles.

It has weaponized its fissile material, or it would not have been unable to conduct successful detonations.

It almost certainly has not been able to put both a warhead and a decent guidance system onto any but short-range missiles, if those. It could almost certainly load a device onto a bomber, though.

- China's main concern is stability on its border.

Yes. It has been very nervous at the prospect of having droves of starving North Koreans coming across its borders even in the absence of active hostilities with the South, which is probably why it (a) gives NK as much aid as it does, and (b) builds defenses on its border with NK. I agree with Jeff that it is unlikely to have any interest at all in annexing NK, much less to be awaiting an excuse. Especially with the problems it is having feeding its own rural population...

It is unlikely that China would support the DPRK in a war, especially one they provoked.

As in entering such a war on its side...perhaps not. OTOH I think it very probable that it would foreclose a large number of Western options, such as invasion or occupation, and of course it would not stand for the use of Western nuclear weapons that close to its borders, even in retaliation for a NK first strike. I think that the number of options foreclosed would make it impossible for us to accomplish much of anything militarily.

- Any conventional war with the DPRK would be amazingly bloody, especially in terms of civilian casualties.

Maybe...but this was predicted for Iraq as well, you may recall---both times. There was much talk about the size of the Iraqi military, about the Republican Guards, about the "Werwolf" brigades imagined to have been created by Uday and Qusay Hussein prior to the second war, and so on.

My conclusions are that the leadership of the DPRK is basically creating their own little internal reality. They will either continue to bluster bombastically until they either believe their own delusions of grandeur and start something they can't finish or peter out into obscurity.

Or, which is more likely given feckless Western leadership on both right and left, they continue extracting concessions out of the West with empty promises and crossed-fingers negotiations ad infinitum...

OK, just so I get the scorecard right: if Obama spends public money reforming the missile defense system for all Americans, that's flag-waving, snap-off-a-crisp-salute territory; but if he spends public money reforming the health care system for all Americans, that's sucking on the public teat?

National defense is a proper public good and a legitimate state purpose; health care is not. ( That is, it is not a public good, and IMO not the legitimate business of the state---however, if the citizenry decides it will have it anyway, economics alone cannot well gainsay them in practice. )

I have yet to have anyone explain satisfactorily just why it is the business of government to give people health care, apart from "because they want it to do so". There seems no rational case for it otherwise...

[thereom4]

Turn about is fair play...

It absolutely is. But there is a marked distinction between what went on in Iraq and what is going on with North Korea.

North Korea has threatened to take off us the map. Iraq not so much. Saddam may have been crazy but he wasn't insane.

Yes Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator, but so is Omar Hasan Ahmad al-Bashir (Sudan). They had weapons (machine guns, machetes, and other killing machines) of mass destruction (massive loss of life-death toll unknown-conflicting figures). Yet we mostly did nothing. If we were to spread "freedom" anywhere it would have been there.

[Sins of the Fleche]

Yes Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator, but so is Omar Hasan Ahmad al-Bashir (Sudan). They had weapons (machine guns, machetes, and other killing machines) of mass destruction (massive loss of life-death toll unknown-conflicting figures). Yet we mostly did nothing. If we were to spread "freedom" anywhere it would have been there.

If I recall correctly, I believe Saddam's government attacked the Kurds with chemical weapons, and I believe it's been accepted that his police forces were torturing alot of suspects and political dissidents if they wound up in custody. While I'm not saying he was committing Darfur-levels of violence in the recent past, Saddam did commit many actions reminiscent of the Sudanese conflicts in the past. While Saddam may have not had the big-league WMD's Bush was looking for, he had plenty of truncheons, guns, and other implements used to destroy those inside his borders. While I know most of that was pre-Gulf War No. 1, he did do alot of nasty things. So, when interpreting the morality/validity of the overthrow of Saddam, I guess it depends on what you consider the statue of limitations on such things.

While I know Darfur is now and Saddam's worst stuff was in the past, I'm just pointing out Saddam did have his Mass Destruction moments as well.

North Korea though is a different animal though than Iraq and Darfur. We went into Iraq due ostensibly due to a threat perceived to national security. While the stated threat we were attempting to ward off was never realized, that was the original pretext for war. The whole "spreading freedom" thing and liberating Iraq from Saddam came about after the lack of WMD's came to be. If one were using the original line of thinking for the Iraq war, that of warding off threats to American safety and interests, then we shouldn't get involved in Iran or Darfur. Those are (currently) domestic conflicts that don't offer immediate threats to the American state (Iran arguably, since they haven't been proven to have nukes, WMD's, etc. right now, but anything can happen).

North Korea on the other hand has proven and touted the fact they have nukes. Given their track record this is both a perceived and realized threat to American interests. That's how its different from Iraq and Darfur in my opinion. A possible threat has been clearly demonstrated.

Going to Inq's statement about why should government provide healthcare, the government has long had a place of providing health services. Divorcing the government completely from providing some health services that it has for a long time, like quarantine enforcement, disease modeling, or drug regulation, would be a nightmare. While I don't think that what Inq means by giving people health care, I'm just saying there are certain health services that only an organization as large, authoritative, well-funded, and well-armed as the government can provide. However, those are all services that are for "the good of the public as a whole," as quarantines keep the national populace at large safe, drug regulation keeps the entire market safe, and so on. And that's where I agree with Inq, because the government health plan won't be helping the entire public, just those who accept the plan; that's why I don't think the government should tax those who aren't going to be using it.

[Inquartata]

If we were to spread "freedom" anywhere it would have been there.

Why?

If you were President, your preferences might rule. If I were, maybe I'd look at someplace else.

But AFAIK Sudan has never tried to develop nuclear or biological weapons, and was not immediately after an attack on the US by terrorists linked to said terrorists, even if only by suspect evidence...

[Capt. Slo-mo]

National defense is a proper public good and a legitimate state purpose; health care is not. ( That is, it is not a public good, and IMO not the legitimate business of the state---however, if the citizenry decides it will have it anyway, economics alone cannot well gainsay them in practice. )

If having a healthy population is not in the best interest of the government, then why the FDA, EPA, Centers for Disease Control and others? After all, it's not exactly "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" if you're coughing up wads of mesothelioma-infested lung tissue while peering through the grimed window at the impenetrable murk caused by the smokestack-free coal fired power plant, between unpleasant trips to the facilities after ingesting the salmonella-laced peanuts you bought on the way back from the memorial service for the 1.2 million city residents felled by the latest outbreak of ebola, washed down by the tap water laced with DDT and PCPs.

So why is it a big stretch to add government intervention aimed helping its citizens gain access to affordable health care?

I have yet to have anyone explain satisfactorily just why it is the business of government to give people health care, apart from "because they want it to do so". There seems no rational case for it otherwise...

"Give" people health care? Don't most of the public plan scenarios involve coverage that costs its consumers money?

[Inquartata]

If having a healthy population is not in the best interest of the government, then why the FDA, EPA, Centers for Disease Control and others?

Well, it may be in the interest of the government, indeed.

But what I said was, it's not a legitimate purpose for government action. It's not a legitimate function of government, in the way the provision of nonexcludable public goods like national defense may be...

After all, it's not exactly "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" if you're coughing up wads of mesothelioma-infested lung tissue while peering through the grimed window at the impenetrable murk caused by the smokestack-free coal fired power plant, between unpleasant trips to the facilities after ingesting the salmonella-laced peanuts you bought on the way back from the memorial service for the 1.2 million city residents felled by the latest outbreak of ebola, washed down by the tap water laced with DDT and PCPs.

Note the word pursuit. It is the pursuit of happiness which we are guaranteed, not the reality of happiness. Just as we have only the right to try to get a job, NOT the guarantee that the government is going to give everyone a job.

And we all have the right to go out and get health care, if we can afford it---just like every other good the marketplace affords us the opportunity to obtain. This does not mean that we have the right to have those things given to us, or even to have their prices artificially forced down to where we can afford them.

"Give" people health care? Don't most of the public plan scenarios involve coverage that costs its consumers money?

Well, they pay taxes. Some of them. Alas, many don't even do that.

All these national health care schemes seem to be are new wealth redistribution methods...

And you know---with other goods, I get to choose how much I want. If I so choose, I can buy a steak every day or none at all. Under the terms of the planned national health insurance plan, though, I will not have that option. The government will decide how much I get, and "none" will not be an option. Or rather, I will still be able to choose none, but I will still have to pay for some whether I want or need or use it or not.

Yeah, there's freedom for you.

[thereom4]

Why?

Because human life means something.

[Philistine]

{snip}
Note the word pursuit. It is the pursuit of happiness which we are guaranteed, not the reality of happiness.{snip}

What about the "life" portion of it?

Government, after all, being instituted for the purpose of securing (among other things) life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

And we all have the right to go out and get health care, if we can afford it---just like every other good the marketplace affords us the opportunity to obtain.

Sure. Reminds me of the quote, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

{snip}Under the terms of the planned national health insurance plan, though, I will not have that option. The government will decide how much I get, and "none" will not be an option.

That doesn't appear to the be current proposal, AIUI.

Or rather, I will still be able to choose none, but I will still have to pay for

--Philistine

[jeff]

Philistine beat me to it - the "life" portion of what government was instituted for. And I hadn't thought about the wise reminder about how we are all prohibited from sleeping under bridges. Well done, as always.

Even Hayek and Friedman supported a social safety net. The question is "what does where do you draw the line. But the principle has been established - that material support for the essentials of life is also in play - whether you want to call it a "right" or use some other word can be in the purview of government under the direction of the will of the people. Not that I give special obedience to Milton Friedman's opinions (by and large I think living according to his precepts would be a disaster) but if he gives support to the idea of extending the rights in this way, then the idea is accepted by almost everyone in the political landscape

http://pl.atyp.us/wordpress/?p=864
http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/20...eraltarianism/
http://www.robert-h-frank.com/PDFs/ES.11.23.06.pdf

[Cupcake]

Let me get this straight. If I walk up to you and punch you in the nose, you are going to take a poll of the bystanders to see what they think you should do before you defend yourself?

By the time you finish that, I will have already beaten you into submission. It wouldn't matter how big and strong you are, if you just stand there waiting for a consensus, you're dog meat.

Fine for you if that's what you want. For the rest of us, though, I think it's best to defend oneself.

This analogy has always bothered me. If you punch me in the nose, chances are I'd make an effort to break your arm, but that has nothing at all to do with military conflicts where thousands of lives are at stake.

Also, I seem to remember how the whole "You're either with us or against us" thing worked out last time. Maybe we should try to cooperate next time, it seemed to work in the 40's.

[I_luv_saber]

And we all have the right to go out and get health care, if we can afford it---just like every other good the marketplace affords us the opportunity to obtain. This does not mean that we have the right to have those things given to us, or even to have their prices artificially forced down to where we can afford them.

Yes, but what we currently have is a scenario of a man selling water in the desert (regardless of supply) at $50 a glass. Profits are high because they know that's what they can squeeze out of people, and people don't really have any other option aside from simply going without healthcare. I'm all for leaving things in the private sector, but when the private sector is abusing it's position of power (as it tends to do when it's IN a position of significant power) it needs to be regulated so it doesn't continue to do so.

Now, I don't think insurance companies are solely at fault. Pharmaceuticals have been keeping the market in their favor for years with supply manipulation. Not to mention the legal reform that is needed to drop medical cost as a whole...

Also, I appreciate the core of what the public option is designed to do, in it's attempt to foster competition... I just don't think it's the most efficient or cost-effective way of doing it. I think we could accomplish the same goals with less direct government involvment, and more indirect involvment. At least it should be tried first... jumping in with both feet, especially when it comes to government, is not usually a good idea.