The North Korea Thread

The "we will take care of it" made stop at the grocery store and pick up some non perishables and water. How can they have no damn plan or script for when this was going to happen. Everyone knows Trump is an idiot, he isn't going to deter jack when he tries to be a bully.

 

Wasn't there some kinda framework in the 90s that was helping to prevent this? What happened again?

 

The calculation is quite simple. Countries with nuclear weapons do not get invaded; their dictators do not get deposed by outside forces (including the US). Countries without them are often invaded; their dictators are often deposed (Libya, Iraq, et. al.) So we can easily see why they go down this route.

 

I can't say I blame them one bit. It seems like an eminently rational calculation.

 

At various times, we’ve tried to pay them off (Clinton). We’ve tried Sanctions (Bush). And we’ve tried doing nothing (Obama). But there was no appetite for regime change, given the pain South Korea would feel.

In retrospect, the best solution would have been to finish the Korean War by taking Pyongpen. This was considered by Truman. You must recall, China was not yet a nuclear power. But ultimately the decision was made to stand pat at the 38th parallel.

 

The question remains whether they can actually mount a usable nuclear warhead, and then launch the missle with accuracy to a target.

 

Actually, the prospect of a North Korean conventional ICBM is not a huge deal, because it's not a remotely serious idea. How could such a weapon possibly be of any practical use for NK?

The only point of a North Korean ICBM is to deliver a nuclear warhead. Even if they haven't mastered that step yet, it's a pretty safe bet that they will soon. And if the regime feels a need to prove that they've mastered it (in order to bolster their credibility), they might opt for an atmospheric nuke test with an actual missile. Short of outright war breaking out, that's the most immediate and scary possibility on the horizon.

https://www.npr.org/sections/parall...-nuclear-tests-could-get-even-more-terrifying

 

Of course this decision was made after US troops had actually been in Pyongyang in late 1950 but were driven by the end of the year by the Chinese. The war stalemated not long after that and neither side wanted to pay the cost in men that breaking the stalemate would have taken. While the Chinese didn't have nuclear weapons, the Soviets did.

 

Hindsight is 50-50, but the Soviets were not willing to risk outright war with the United States over Korea. They in fact only supported North Korea’s invasion based on the understanding that Korea wasn’t important enough to the United States to provoke a nuclear response.

 

They didn't have to risk it because they were successfully able to get China to intervene on their behalf. If this didn't happen I doubt that the Soviets would have countenanced US troops right on their border if the US decided to take all of NK.

 

And if China hadn't intervened, they would have stood pat and done nothing. They Russians wanted the best of both worlds--an invasion of South Korea with Chinese support but without Soviet risk. The Soviet's refusal to take more significant measures in this war was one of the first events precipitating the break between China and Russia. Mao felt that Stalin hung him out to dry.

 

Rodney had the answer:

(NSFW)

 

Excellent editorial from Journal de Montreal that I've translated in english:

Les États-Unis ont perdu la guerre
http://www.journaldemontreal.com/2017/12/01/les-etats-unis-ont-perdu-la-guerre

Translation:

The United States lost the war

The United States lost the war against North Korea. North Korea has not really won this war, since it is now facing China, which risks turning it into a vassal state. It's China that won this war.

A war that reveals to the world the weakness of American leadership. A war that has been fought without great armed clashes, but whose result is decisive.


1. Did the Americans really lose this war?
For the first time since the beginning of the Cold War, an enemy country of the United States managed to make nuclear bombs capable of striking the American territory. Nobody ever thought that the United States could stop the Soviets when they decided to build nuclear weapons. The case of North Korea is quite different. This is a shabby military dictatorship, a poor country, not very populous, without great resources and located in a place not very strategic. In theory, the US government could easily have prevented North Korea from manufacturing atomic weapons. It did not succeed. Now, North Korea is directly threatening the American continent. This direct nuclear threat against the United States is the worst that the Americans have faced since the fall of the USSR. And this, despite all the diplomatic, economic and military efforts they have made against North Korea.

2. Why did the Americans lose this war?
At first glance, it is the contempt for their opponent which explains the Americans' defeat. US leaders never thought that North Koreans could so quickly develop an effective nuclear weapon. Even today, some American leaders are wondering whether the last North Korean missile would have such a long range with a real nuclear charge or could enter the atmosphere without disintegrating. What does it matter if such a North Korean weapon can do it today or in a few months? North Koreans are very close to their goal. Nobody can see what could prevent them from reaching it, without risking the lives of tens of millions of people, many of them Americans.

3. What are the deeper causes of the American defeat?
More deeply, the United States lost this war because, after President Nixon's trip to China in 1972, they decided to arm China against the Soviet Union. China benefited greatly from all Western military technology transfers until 1989, during the Tiananmen era. China is now competing with the United States. North Korea would never have been able to develop the atomic bomb without the indirect political and economic support of China.

4. Why does China have an interest in North Korea being a nuclear power?
China's long-term goal is to drive Americans out of Asia. A nuclear North Korea encourages neighboring countries to arm themselves more and discredit a US nuclear response. This will encourage American allies in the region to break away from the United States.

5. What does this defeat means for the future?
North Korea shows the way forward to become militarily independent. Other countries threatened by the United States will follow this path, starting with Iran. In the long run, the whole American security architecture in the world is in question.

 

Blaming Nixon for arming China is a HUGE stretch, borderline ridiculous. How does it follow that arming China enabled the "political and economic support of China?" The re-engaging with China and resulting deescalation was quite clearly a net positive for world relations. And it successfully played the Russians and Chinese against each other.

Deng's reforms are the proximate cause for what spurred China to what it is today, but ultimately it was probably inevitable, given China's historic status as an advanced world power. They just went through a dark ages at a very inconvenient time, as western industrial might was just powering up.

 

Another reason why this article is ridiculous--it never once mentions the real reason preventing us from stopping North Korea: the immense destruction Seoul would have suffered. How can you pretend to provide any conclusive analysis about this issue without accounting for this basic fact?

The moralistic tone is sad. The French author feels free to take potshots at American foreign policy, while at the same time benefiting from the security blanket provided by the US since 1945.

If you think this is a "great article" on foreign policy, you have a lot of studying to do, and a lot of anti-American bias to shed. There are real criticisms to be had, but this is filtered through a very distorted lens.

 

The author is Canadian, not French. Though that misperception probably explains why you're torqued enough to obsess on it all afternoon.

 

He's not putting blame. He's just analyzing events that explains North Korea's status today. He's correct.

 

Wow.... Why so sensitive? There's no anti-americanism in his analysis nor blame. It's just him explaining why China is the winner in all of this and he's on point.

 

Apologies if I came across butt hurt.

On the article, I gave several reasons why his rationale is critically flawed. In regard to winners and losers, China “wins” only in the sense that NK still exists as a buffer with S. Korea/American aligned states. But NK has grown to be a huge headache for China. As China continues to grow into the role as a world leader, it will be increasingly difficult to openly support such a retrograde, destabilizing regimes.