North Korea

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by darksithpro, Jul 31, 2017.

  1. darksithpro macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    #1
    If this ultimatum was directed towards Kim Jong Un






    He's no Saddam. He's much too young and selfish, I honestly believe he would bail and so would people in his inner circle.
     
  2. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #2
    Well, in a normal world - it would always be the US and China talking - not N. Korea per se...both (us and China) have various vested interests that (sometimes) overlap - but neither of us would find any benefit in military action in N. Korea. Hell, China has a vested interest in the USA - to the tune of Billions of dollars of debt and Market-for-goods...Still, Trump...
     
  3. darksithpro thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    #3

    Something has to be done. Can't keep kicking the can down the road until it gets too bad. You guys really want more and more countries getting their hands on nuclear weapons, because of NK? How long until they sell nuclear material to terrorist factions?
     
  4. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #4
    Maybe. And maybe only if China put it to him. If we were still there backing SK and sent him that message, he'd probably attack SK with massive conventional weapons. The big FU. Then what would we do considering we represent either an invader or or a thorn in side on that peninsula, depending if you're NK or China.

    Is it too much to expect China to short circuit this guy? Why is it not in their own best interests to have long since been working on some plan to do that. Even though they look on surface to be supportive of his "right to defend" and all that. They know he's squirrelly. They are in better position to have inflitrated using defectors who went not to SK but into China itself just to get the heck out.

    Not saying your idea wouldn't cause NK leader and supporters to pack up and go live in Macau or someplace. Just wondering if China's preparing to propose that, sooner than they might have figured on, just so this situation doesn't get overblown in the next few years by our illustrious prez tweeting BS into the night. Trump is not likely to sound as rational on Twitter as Bush did in those remarks.

    I think it's possible Obama admin and China might have had numerous private discussions about NK, over time. With Trump it's hard to say. China doesn't know what to make of him any more than we do...
     
  5. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #5
    I get your point. Mine is, that push-come-to-shove, China would deal with N. Korea for us...they have more to lose...
     
  6. darksithpro thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    #6

    I loath war just as much as you do, but inaction seems to be FAR worse than action, just saying man! SK and Japan are already considering nuclear weapons, they have lost some faith in the US. War sucks big time, but if we don't want every nation on earth armed with awful destructive nuclear weapons, we must do something.
     
  7. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #7
    I never thought I'd write this, but if Trump does something reckless with regards to N.Korea- could we see a military coup of sorts? I'm serious...
    --- Post Merged, Jul 31, 2017 ---
    Sun-Tsu would disagree...he was pretty good in this kinda stuff..
     
  8. darksithpro thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    #8

    If we made this type of ultimatum, perhaps that would be the final straw for China to finally pull the plug and intervene, thus removing him and avert a major allied invasion.
     
  9. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #9
    Hmm. I don't see it. True, he is no Saddam, and has had zero experience with actual warfare (unlike Saddam's constant warfare). However, he is a child whose family has ruled that country as a hereditary fiefdom for generations. His family, and all of his advisors and their ancestors, have profited from playing chicken with the United States for decades. They know nothing else.

    I would assume that they would continue to play chicken to the very end. They will continue to assume that the US will back down, and that their allies China and Russia will back them up, because that is what has always happened for them, and for their parents, and for their grandparents, year in and year out, decade in and decade out. It will take more than just an ultimatum for them to believe that the situation has changed.

    And, to be honest, has the situation changed? If we did invade, could we really assume that China would be neutral? China takes the long view a lot more than the US does, and probably treats the concept of an "alliance" much more significantly than Trump does. Would we end up fighting Chinese troops again in NK? And with Trump at the helm, could we expect that this would remain a proxy war, or would he simply extend it to China as well?

    Moreover, would our allies in the region remain allies? South Korea would probably have no choice if the war started up again; but would Japan really want to get involved, if it meant fighting against China? How about the Europeans -- would they want to get involved, or just sit on the sidelines and see what happens?

    And, yeah, what would Russia do? Putin would surely want to squeeze whatever advantage he could out of such a situation. At the very least, he'd probably make inroads in the Middle East and among the states that used to be part of the Soviet Union while the world had its eyes on North Korea. At worst, he might try to worm his way in somewhere, making a "deal" with Trump that helps us in the short term, but forces America to give up something big in the long term...
     
  10. T'hain Esh Kelch macrumors 601

    T'hain Esh Kelch

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2001
    Location:
    Denmark
    #10
    Keep dreaming. That's never going to happen.
     
  11. jpietrzak8, Aug 1, 2017
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2017

    jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #11
    I would agree that China has long since gamed out a variety of solutions for dealing with NK. To my mind, however, the fact that they have never acted on any of those solutions means that they still weigh the costs as being higher than the benefits. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, much of the political impetus for maintaining anti-US client states faded away; China was given the opportunity to make its own decisions in its own neighborhood, essentially free of dealing with how their erstwhile Communist partner would see things. That only left the US for them to worry about; and when W got us entangled in Iraq, that presented the perfect opportunity for China to go ahead and do whatever it wanted, without really having to care about America saying much in response. I would imagine that W would have thanked China for acquiring NK as a shiny new province, rather than say anything about the Koreas being reintegrated (despite the heartburn that would have caused for South Korea).

    But yet, they have never pulled the trigger. They must still see the advantages of a rabidly anti-US client state in the region, keeping the US's military attention focused away from them, as still too useful to give up...

    Sure, with Trump threatening an immediate war, the calculation changes. However, the problem is, if China went in on Trump's side, would that give them a long-term advantage? Presumably, Trump would demand that the Koreas be reunited under South Korea's rule, which would also probably mean US bases and US troops now positioned directly along a wide swathe of China's border. Moreover, we're talking about Trump here; if he just up and invades a country one day because he's unhappy that it has nukes, he could just up and invade another country one day because it has nukes. China has got to assume that Trump might attack them one day, and it might be better if NK was still around when that day happened...
     
  12. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #12
    Honestly I think the only available measures short of war are (1) using serious import tariffs to punish the PRC every time NK engages in some sort of aggressive move (missile launch, nuclear test, cross-border shelling) and (2) announcing a policy like the one Kennedy used for Cuba (namely, any nuclear missile launched from NK will be considered as having been launched by the PRC).
     
  13. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #13
    A "yes but" on that one. We operate as a guest-protector of South Korea and it would be more than unseemly to pipe up that way without consulting with them first. Somehow I think they are not inclined to amp up the mutual bluster factor in current relationships on the peninsula.

    So we would seem better off trying to understand China's current thinking and encouraging them to take their pesky cousin in hand. Part of China's thinking necessarily entails continuing an economic partnership with the USA. China does need that as much as we do. In other words it's not just NK needs a mix of carrots and showing of stick from us. It's also China. And, we already know China has sticks, even as they care to remind us now and then.

    "It's complicated".

    Kim so far seems rational enough to consider his advances in delivery capability a potential threat, not a promise. In a way that makes him a member of the don't tread on me club, not a guy who can hardly wait to marry up the delivery and detonation technology on his gear.

    What I still want to see next is China and NK together backing NK off the "I can and might do this" speech pattern, and acknowledging the "but only if you, the USA, made me go there" part. It's probably the best we could elicit, with China's assistance, as far as NK speeches go anytime soon.

    And we won't get that if Trump tweets threats. NK is not without recourse to all that conventional gear, and we and SK are in his easy reach of it. Who knows what he might do along that line, but it would probably be just calibrated enough not to cause us to escalate if SK didn't choose to. I'd expect measured retaliation and NK to threaten more but change the subject and test another ICBM or something, put on visible drills in the ocean. After all that we'd just end up looking somewhat diminished, which seems poor return on tweeting threats.

    In the end a sovereign head of state must feed and clothe his people. Ordinary people live pretty marginally now in NK. To get that improved without reducing his own comforts would take some pressure off his own regime. After all he must keep them above a desperation level even while he makes sure his inner circle and "the royals" are accommodated and rewarded. That's easier if he can get back to expanding enterprise zones with SK and China, and extending legitimate trade with his partners instead of his under-radar black market swaps of weapons for assorted countries' cash. In everyone's dealings with Kim on that peninsula, the carrots piece of stick-shaking and carrot-dangling seems just as important as reminding the guy he's not the only one with nukes.
     
  14. niploteksi macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2016
    #14
    No one thinks this is complete covfefe? Hand over your weapons of mass destruction and we will make your country safe again? Maybe not that exact same speech.
     
  15. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #15
    It is. But so is 'Keep your nukes even though you're bat**** crazy are are likely to invade SK once you have them. We'll just sit over here with our heads in the sand'.

    I think we'd all agree that the best outcome is that NK stops developing nuclear missiles and that the US provides a strong verifiable guarantee it will not invade NK but will protect SK & Japan. If the the leaders of NK were rational and compassionate, I think this might be possible, even with Trump at the head of the US government. Alas, I fear they are not.
     
  16. niploteksi macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2016
    #16
    Yes, it would be nice if NK didn't pursue nuclear weapons. However, no one would trust any US president if they were shown that garbage video of Bush in advance.

    With Trump in command the US is even less trustworthy than all the fabrications of Iraq. It's on par with Russia and Putin. Using that video as an example shows a great understanding of what went down in the Middle East.

    Keep doing the same thing over and over and pretend it's not insanity, but trusting in Murphy's law.
     
  17. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #17
    Maybe they just need another $4 billion, ala Clinton in 1994.
     
  18. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #18
    You know, compared to the trillions we poured into Iraq, that sounds kinda inexpensive today...
     
  19. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #19
    Except it didn't come close to achieving the objective that Iraq did.
     
  20. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #20
    What objective did we achieve in Iraq? Other than create a failed state, empower Iran to become the most powerful nation in the region, and set up the stage for the Arab Spring (which we subsequently failed to support)?
     
  21. JarScott macrumors 601

    JarScott

    Joined:
    May 19, 2011
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #21
    But they won't do anything. They'll keep saying 'We really condemn these actions. We will impose new sanctions.' They'll keep saying that over and over, all while North Korea works hard on its nuclear program. One day, NK will have some serious ass weapons and the US will be red faced because they didn't do anything to end the regime whilst it was still relatively weak and pathetic.

    Their laziness in dealing with North Korea will come back to bite.
     
  22. noekozz macrumors 6502a

    noekozz

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Location:
    212/201
    #22

    I wouldn't call Iraq an achievement, except for Bush Jr. finishing the job for daddy Bush couldn't by removing Saddam. Now it's a clusterf*&k along with everything else we touch in the ME. China's not going to do any real intervention with NK, we've been down this road for years, if they were serious it would have been done by now.
     
  23. niploteksi macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2016
    #23
    Making some people a lot of money?
     
  24. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #24
    The objective was to remove Saddam and his brutal kids from power, which we did. There's no doubt the aftermath and the strategy afterwards has not been pretty.
     
  25. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #25
    Pretty flawed objective then; the result was certainly not better than what took place under Saddam, as a whole lot more Iraqis have died, been injured, or become refugees under our puppet government than Saddam ever managed to accomplish. Not to mention the strife, death, destruction, and refugee situation in all the neighboring countries after we destabilized the region.

    The Iraq war was a job half done. If you're going to attempt regime change, you've gotta be prepared to implement a new regime. If the point was simply to assassinate Saddam, a drone strike would have been a whole lot less expensive both for us and for the region.
     

Share This Page