How to Handle North Korea?

[Bayou Bum]

We all know that TDD would nuke NK back to the stone age, but for everyone else, what would you do with NK and their threats? With NK threatening war at any response or UN sanction, what do you think Obama's next move should be? Should the US shoot down a missile fired at Hawaii?

[Tavataar]

Originally Posted by Bayou Bum

Should the US shoot down a missile fired at Hawaii?

Obviously yes. If they actually commence with an aggressive action, I think that we should at least defend against it. 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 (circa 9/11).

I have been thinking about this a lot, as well. It seems incredibly silly and childish of NK to be behaving in this fashion. It saddens me that not only individuals, but entire governments feel that they need to result to this level of passive-aggressive (heh or aggressive-aggressive) behavior in order to feel like they are protecting themselves or their nations.

It would seem that if NK persists in this fashion, that the inevitable outcome will be to put together an international force to go in and subdue their aggressions. Or something along those lines.

[Inquartata]

In the words of Deep Thought: "Tricky".

The problem isn't really North Korea. It's China's support of North Korea ( and to a lesser extent Russia's ). Until that can be removed, or at least put in abeyance, nothing serious can really be done.

As things stand Kim's behavior is unfortunately quite rational and productive. It has been winning him concessions and advantages for years, and he has every reason to expect that it will continue to do so.

I think the best that can be done is for someone at the highest levels of power---someone like Obama himself---to state clearly, and publicly, that at least for the next 4 years there will be no further negotiations, no further bribes and no further compromises. Period. Not "until North Korea changes its behavior", not "until it complies with its treaty obligations", not "until it ceases its nuclear enrichment program and allows UN inspections": not at all, period. Like a child who has learned that he can get his way by throwing tantrums, there needs to be a complete cessation of him getting his way, in spite of the certainty that the tantrums will get worse and more frequent before they get better and that life will be hell for the "parents" meanwhile. All sanctions imposed need to be continued unwaveringly, all demands for diplomatic negotiations need to be rebuffed, all threats need to be ignored or met by precautions.

It will scarcely be possible to avoid "provocation", since Kim finds just about everything except abject compliance with his imperious orders to constitute "provocation". We can only tighten the nooses and wait for him to strangle. This means no backsliding, which is what we have been doing for decades with North Korea, in the perennial hope that somehow this time things will be different.

I do not think that any political leader, especially one of our current President's character and weltanschaaung, can bear to do this, alas. I think that the idea that "we must talk" and "diplomacy is the way" will always triumph with them. And as long as they do, Kim wins again. His people may lose, but he wins.

[Hauptman]

While I agree with much of the speculation, if it comes down to actually launching a missile at the U.S. all bets are off.

The real question is how fast or effectively could we respond? We would have to move fast enough to level the NK military and be done before China can respond. Even China would have a hard time defending Kim if he takes a direct military shot at us.

If our military assets are as over-stretched as some believe then we may not be in a position to make the quick response necessary and then China has to respond. I think that's the key; how fast can we hit them and be done? Certainly occupying NK is out of the question for China, but a quick retaliation to a clear attack (not just a provocation) leaves them in the tougher position. How do they respond if we're in and out before they can move?

[erik_blank]

When people start making public announcements of impending attack by outside aggressors, I tend to think that it is often an effort of the announcer to control the local populace and not that of the external 'threat.' It seems to me that Kim is in need of a little extra control over his population in the face of illness and the need to pass on control of his country to his successor, whoever that may be (The Economist has some details - really speculation - of what is/may be happening here: http://www.economist.com/displaystor...ry_id=12209348 )

So here we have a "great Leader" either dead or dying, a fight for succession between three known and any number of unknown parties, and the fact that we have a dictatorial government that needs the fear of the 'others' to keep their population in line. (Remember that xenophobia is credited with the apocryphal stories of infanticide of any mixed race babies during the Korean War.) With this in mind, the proclamations of whoever is really in charge right now that they are standing firm against the foreign devils is completely unsurprising to me.

Will they actually launch against the U.S.? hard to say, but my bet is no, because it does not fit the pragmatists view that I have of these people. They will use fear and loathing of the xeno's of the world, but they know that actually striking back at the hand that is keeping them in power could bring disaster directly to the ruling powers. (They obviously have little to no regard for their general populace.)

As for China: Again, pragmatists there. Just look at what they have done with their economy. Not what I would call Communistic in any form of the word, but their political power structure is still quite autocratic. They also know here their money is kept - in U.S. and other 1st world real estate ventures and 1st world futures. Do they actually want to control the 1st world through direct political control? Maybe, but it is SO much easier to control us through fiscal and corporate means, so having Korea stat a war with us would be VERY counter productive to their current goals - living as high off the hog as humanly possible...

So from this viewpoint, if N Korea actually started a war with the 1st world (remember, they are equal opportunity xenophobes, the U.S. is just a bigger target than others), I suspect that China would fall on the side of the 1st world quite quickly... Possibly through an immediate invasion and occupation of N. Korea to "prevent any further harm" to the global economy.

Just my $0.00002

[Inspector Gadget]

I don't know. We've used alot of manpower on one front, now we're looking at another front - look familiar? Same stories, different haircuts.

Now the media is getting psyched over Iran, with Twitter going mad about their election, and lots of reports and claims that could or could not be substantiated, I really think that we can handle things. The US has everything that it needs to counter whatever the trick is to use the damn stuff when it counts. In the past ten years, we've blasted an asteroid out of orbit, bascially saving the planet earth, I think we could probably hit a flying missle. I am concerned about twitter and other fast-fast blasts of 'news' flying this way and that - it sort of becomes a feeding frenzy of words.

The other thing is... when Gore lost - did anyone protest? Why should 'the world' expect those people to stick their necks out to make the press happy?

But back to NK - they also shot off at Japan, and Japan really didn't do much.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

I think we should invade with kittens. We should airdrop containers of adorable kittens. No one can be mean when there's an adorable kitten mewing to be petted.

[Hauptman]

Good point, Erik!! I didn't even think of that. Any attack by NK would be the perfect excuse for China to "annex" them. It would be very profitable for China, get rid of a major thorn in their side, and keep the troops busy.

[I_luv_saber]

Originally Posted by Hauptman

Good point, Erik!! I didn't even think of that. Any attack by NK would be the perfect excuse for China to "annex" them. It would be very profitable for China, get rid of a major thorn in their side, and keep the troops busy.

This was my thought as well, and another reason I don't think NK will do anything too rash too quickly. They know damn good and well there's a good chance China would use the excuse to pull them in. It's a double win for China... they look good to the rest of the world for stepping in and stopping someone attacking her allies (or at least China will think they look good), so politically good move (again, in their eyes); and they gain NK.

I think NK knows this and will be careful... at this point they are just seeing how many times we're going to draw a line in the sand at let them step over it. Echoing Inq, I think the solution is to draw a line in the sand and make good on it. It doesn't need to be war necessarily (at least not yet), but if they keep getting their way through these methods, these are the methods they will continue to use, as there is no incentive not to.

[thetortfeasor]

Originally Posted by Tavataar

Obviously yes. If they actually commence with an aggressive action, I think that we should at least defend against it. 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 (circa 9/11).

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with this. If NK (or any other country) decides to start dropping bombs/shooting missiles/whatever at us, retaliatory action is definitely appropriate regardless of what the rest of the international community thinks about it. We don't need to ask permission to hit back when someone strikes at us first. "Talking things out" is overrated in some situations, and the hypo that Bayou Bum threw out would be one of them.

[erik_blank]

Originally Posted by thetortfeasor

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with this. If NK (or any other country) decides to start dropping bombs/shooting missiles/whatever at us, retaliatory action is definitely appropriate regardless of what the rest of the international community thinks about it. We don't need to ask permission to hit back when someone strikes at us first. "Talking things out" is overrated in some situations, and the hypo that Bayou Bum threw out would be one of them.

Agreed. If someone actually starts an unprovoked war, then any UN signatory country has the right to defend itself. The question is in what manner, and in how much of a response is appropriate to the situation.

If NK lobs a anti-ship missile at one of our cargo ships, is it appropriate to then make their land glow for the next 3000 years? I we are attacked by a nuke, should we only respond by assassinating their leadership? What is the situation, and what are our options at the time of attack?

[thereom4]

Originally Posted by erik_blank

If NK lobs a anti-ship missile at one of our cargo ships, is it appropriate to then make their land glow for the next 3000 years?

I absolutely think retaliation is appropriate. What form and what level is up to the discretion of those in charge of making such decisions. We don't need to be in another war; but as the saying goes, "you mess with the bull, you get the horns."

I believe in diplomacy first. Why fight when you can talk? But if you can't talk, consider your options. All that being said, Kim Jong Il is absolutely insane. He rules his country with fear and thinks he can extend his heavy hand to the rest of the world. That is not going to work. Rule your own country.

Making threats is one thing. Following through is another. Kim Jong Il threatens not only our security but the security of the rest of the world.

The difference between the mad man running Iran and the mad man running North Korea is "fire" power.

Originally Posted by erik_blank

I we are attacked by a nuke, should we only respond by assassinating their leadership? What is the situation, and what are our options at the time of attack?

If assassinating only their leadership is possible, then yes. As per the situation and our options, hopefully that does not remain to be seen.

[Bayou Bum]

Originally Posted by Tavataar

Obviously yes. If they actually commence with an aggressive action, I think that we should at least defend against it. 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 (circa 9/11).

I have been thinking about this a lot, as well. It seems incredibly silly and childish of NK to be behaving in this fashion. It saddens me that not only individuals, but entire governments feel that they need to result to this level of passive-aggressive (heh or aggressive-aggressive) behavior in order to feel like they are protecting themselves or their nations.

It would seem that if NK persists in this fashion, that the inevitable outcome will be to put together an international force to go in and subdue their aggressions. Or something along those lines.

As you mentioned, NK is acting very much like a child. I think all of this is like an unruly child pushing the limits to see what they can get away with. That is the largest problem with having an administration in Washington that openly admits it will do nothing unless the UN authorizes it. It is about as effective as telling a teenager you are going to tell Santa Clause if they don't do their homework, it has no teeth.

NK is just seeing how much the world will let them get away with. They start working on nuclear technology, no one does anything. They test launch a missile over Japan, no one does anything. They are told not to export weapons so they send a ship acting like it has weapons on it to see if anyone stops it and again, no one does anything. They announce a missile test toward Hawaii and again, no one does anything. It reminds me of Hitler before WWII. It won't be long before NK sends its navy to claim the disputed area of the Yellow Sea and where will it end? Will anyone do anything when NK takes Seoul? Probably not.

We have a president of appeasement. Everyone knows the US won't do anything aggressive. At least with Bush, the world knew he would use the military to protect US interest and allies. IMO, Obama should have announced that any missile launched over or near a US territory or ally would be shot down and then followed through with it. It would have sent the message to the world that we are serious about defending ourselves. Obama's response is a sign of weakness and has made the world less safe. We need to show some strength, board the ship and search for weapons that probably aren't there and openly state that we will shoot down any missile that approaches anywhere near Hawaii, and then do it.

I believe in peace from strength, not peace from bending over. Just a thought, if Obama wasn't bowing to the Saudi King, maybe he was bending over?

[CMiner]

Does anyone know how much foreign aid UN nations are sending to NKorea?

I know that China sends a ton of aid on their own, but I would have thought that the first response by the rest of the UN to NKorea restarting its nuclear weapons program would (read: "should") be to halt any and all aid shipments (If you have money to spend developing nukes, you have money to feed your own people) but I get the impression that shipments have not stopped.

[thereom4]

Originally Posted by Bayou Bum

It reminds me of Hitler before WWII.

I was thinking the same thing.

Originally Posted by Bayou Bum

We have a president of appeasement.

No not a president of appeasement rather a president who recognizes the value of diplomacy. President Obama's refusal to step into Iranian politics for example, is a rejection of the old bang bang shoot em' up way of doing things. You have to think before you act and speak when appropriate.

1. Assess the situation
2. Develop a strategy
3. Implement the strategy

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. So.......

If Kim Jong Il loses all of his faculties and does attack us, I'm sure we'll respond in kind. And not a tit for tat response either but rather a have you lost your mind-we are not playing with you-end of conversation response.

Originally Posted by Bayou Bum

Just a thought, if Obama wasn't bowing to the Saudi King, maybe he was bending over?

Not cool.

[keith]

Originally Posted by Bayou Bum

At least with Bush, the world knew he would use the military to protect US interest and allies.

Even Bush understood that Seoul is only 30 miles from the demilitarized zone. Which leaves a couple of military options;

1) a sufficiently aggressive action that leaves most of South Korea's population centers as piles of rubble (or mildly radioactive).

or

2) an insufficiently aggressive action that leaves most of South Korea's population centers as piles of rubble (or mildly radioactive).


The only solution, as already mentioned, is to make North Korea China's problem.

[Hauptman]

Originally Posted by Bayou Bum

Will anyone do anything when NK takes Seoul? Probably not.

I believe in peace from strength, not peace from bending over. Just a thought, if Obama wasn't bowing to the Saudi King, maybe he was bending over?

Am I wrong or do we have tens of thousands of troops sitting between NK and Seoul?

And I feel much better with President Obama giving a polite bow to the Saudi King than I felt watching President Bush walk around holding hands with him.

When one of the first actions G.W. took after 9/11 was to load up a plane with all of his Saudi friends to get them safely back home I had a sickening feeling in my stomach.

Pick your symbolism carefully.

[thereom4]

Originally Posted by Hauptman

And I feel much better with President Obama giving a polite bow to the Saudi King than I felt watching President Bush walk around holding hands with him.

Bwah ha ha!!!

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Bayou Bum

As you mentioned, NK is acting very much like a child. I think all of this is like an unruly child pushing the limits to see what they can get away with. That is the largest problem with having an administration in Washington that openly admits it will do nothing unless the UN authorizes it. It is about as effective as telling a teenager you are going to tell Santa Clause if they don't do their homework, it has no teeth.

NK is just seeing how much the world will let them get away with. They start working on nuclear technology, no one does anything. They test launch a missile over Japan, no one does anything. They are told not to export weapons so they send a ship acting like it has weapons on it to see if anyone stops it and again, no one does anything. They announce a missile test toward Hawaii and again, no one does anything. It reminds me of Hitler before WWII. It won't be long before NK sends its navy to claim the disputed area of the Yellow Sea and where will it end? Will anyone do anything when NK takes Seoul? Probably not.

We have a president of appeasement. Everyone knows the US won't do anything aggressive. At least with Bush, the world knew he would use the military to protect US interest and allies.

Didn't most of those listed things take place while Bush was president? I'm wondering, what was Bush's "non-appeasing" reaction?

IMO, Obama should have announced that any missile launched over or near a US territory or ally would be shot down and then followed through with it.

What if we missed?

ABM technology is not particularly good at the present time. IMHO, an announced intention to shoot down a missile coupled with a miss is worse than no attempt at all. YMMV.

--Philistine

[erik_blank]

Originally Posted by Philistine

What if we missed?

ABM technology is not particularly good at the present time. IMHO, an announced intention to shoot down a missile coupled with a miss is worse than no attempt at all. YMMV.

--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. The problem comes when there are more targets than available defensive weapons.
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...

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!

*Sigh...*