Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Just Tony wrote:
One rabid squirrel is easy to handle. And just as easy to ignore. And just as easy to get bitten by because you chose to ignore it. Once more, just google pretty much ANYTHING that crackpot has said, and tell me you trust this guy to think logically or long term about ANYTHING, let alone the tiny wang overcompensation high he will feel when turning Japan into the next Fist Of The North Star film location.

Dude, there's a ban on US politics...

Seriously, though. I'm pretty sure he's aware that he'd be flattened if he just started nuking other countries willy-nilly. I know it's easy to talk about bombing them first or dumping 007 in the country or whatever, but I don't think this is a problem that gets solved by spending other people's lives.

Dunno. I'm not the brightest.

Both sides flex their muscles to appear threatening, but I'm pretty sure neither of them want to actually go to war. They know it will cost them a lot. Yeah, even the USA.

 Just Tony wrote:
One rabid squirrel is easy to handle. And just as easy to ignore. And just as easy to get bitten by because you chose to ignore it. Once more, just google pretty much ANYTHING that crackpot has said, and tell me you trust this guy to think logically or long term about ANYTHING, let alone the tiny wang overcompensation high he will feel when turning Japan into the next Fist Of The North Star film location.

What has NK actually done though?

 Frazzled wrote:

No. It actually makes it more important to have an all out first strike on any potential targets.

At the moment, your 'potential targets' amount to the entire Korean Peninsula north of the DMZ. Despite Kim's BS, America would be an international pariah to launch a nuclear attack on that scale. Not the least of which would be for killing their ally, South Korea in the process. Never mind China nuking the US, or Russia also nuking the US, the backlash at home would be staggering once the pictures of half melted children got smeared across the news.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, it would hurt us too. But less than it hurts them. And the point of such a threat is to not have to go through with it(but be willing to go through with it if China doesn't cooperate) because China backs down.

You don't understand the scale of harm to the US from ending trade with China. It'd cost you about 4.5% of your GDP. For reference, the GFC cost 0.98%. Four and a half times bigger than the GFC, as a threat to bully China in to nobody is quite sure what.

It's dumb beyond belief.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:
I have a calendar set aside every year for the express purpose of marking down the day that "other people's money" stops being the default solution to any problem.

As far as how to handle it: infiltrate the country with western operatives that blend in, and when the coup is enacted, then they can guide things into a little more stable democratic direction. It isn't a fast solution, but it's the one that has the least amount of casualties without uselessly dumping tons of money we don't have on someone who will more than likely not even honor any deal made with said money.

My favourite part about this is how your moralistic opposition to using 'other people's money' to buy off the problem suddenly stops when you start talking about covert operatives... who presumably are being with hugs and goodwill.

I mean, we could probably spend some time talking about the endless problems with your plan, where 'completely unknown strategy' is sidestepped by claiming it's long term or something, but really that's just not very interesting. What is interesting, though, is how quickly concerns about spending money disappears when it comes to splashing out money for forceful options. It says a lot about why so many foreign policy debates are so screwed up.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favour of the blood money option, that also sucks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
You may accuse me of being blase on this, but as I said earlier, what are the North going to do?

People in the midst of the Cuban Missile Crisis, far more stable, sane actors than Kim, have spoken afterwards about how close they came to direct nuclear conflict. Pressing the button was an action that both sides considered necessary if things continued to deteriorate. This is because brinkmanship has a habit of taking both parties to places that neither ever wanted to go to in the first place. When both parties have too much to lose from stepping back, then each party in turns keeps that next small step towards conflict.

It is not hard at all to see a scenario where famine or some other hardship requires NK to use nuclear blackmail to get necessary food and supplies, and the US, SK and Japan are unwilling to backdown in the face of blackmail, leading each party to ratchet up the tension, until eventually NK is in a position where stepping down will collapse the regime or at least lead to Kim's overthrow.

This is fething serious dude. There is no good solution, and gak could get wild at any moment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
I don't think the danger is "The North will nuke yo ass!"...

It's the "The North will secretly give this & that nuke to ISIS, or some other bad actors"...

What? Why would NK do that?

The military personnel are already ON the fething payroll. It's not like we'd have some large Asian American draft or something, it'd be using the assets we have. Yes, it's a complex solution, and one that's no longer viable since Fat Man just moved into Pyongyang, but it would have been far better than dropping millions or billions of this endless flow of revenue that half the US and most of Europe seems to believe the US has.

And there's no double standard there. If they wanted to ramp up recruitment for this sort of thing, I'd call that wasteful spending at the very least.

 d-usa wrote:

What has NK actually done though?

Genocide of their own civilians. Holding another country of 51 million people hostage by, quite literally, pointing a lot of very big guns in their direction. And they're about to hold anything in range of their 3rd world ICBMs hostage too.

So nothing that different from many other countries we ignore. We have never given a damn about a country killing their own people, ever. To pretend this is about some moral high ground is silly, if anybody but North Korea was doing the killing we wouldn't care. Heck, look at Syria for a prime example.

And the US is constantly threatening NK, so it's hard to fault them for playing a "the US wants to wipe us out, so we need insurance" game when we are actually constantly threatening NK. They go "we need this, because the US could destroy us without it" and we already have POTUS and SecDef going "we can destroy NK and will do it if we must".

NK isn't going to nuke anyone, their lack of any actual real hostility with conventional weapons demonstrates that.

@sebster

There will be no war with North Korea this year, and you can quote me on that.

I base that on years of reading history books, politics, and my own life experience.

It will be the usual war of words, stalemate, and we'll resolve the situation by throwing them some food aid or something. And we'll be back here next year having this thread again.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Yes, it's a bit of a precarious situation - to boast of striking places like Guam, and then declare you have a H-bomb ready to go into an ICBM, and then to go on firing ICBMs over Japanese mainland without any warning as to your intent.

It's for the benefit of everyone that they start communicating properly. Randomly firing off missiles in the direction of other countries when you have nuclear capability invites retaliation.

You may accuse me of being blase on this, but as I said earlier, what are the North going to do?

Any attack on the USA = wipeout, NATO article 5 getting activated etc etc Even China and Russia would be reluctant to take on the USA and the rest of NATO + Japan. If South Korea or Japan is attacked with nukes, again, the North is wiped from the face of the map.

So the North are reduced to jumping up and down, with a malnourished army, and a nuclear weapon they can't use.

I wouldn't lose a minute's sleep over this.

China has succesfully taken on the US and NATO before. In the 1950's. China is now a whole lot stronger than it was in the 1950's. It won't hesitate to take on the US and NATO if needed. Not to mention they aren't going to be facing all of the US and NATO. They will only have to face whatever America can send across the Pacific and the token support that other NATO members are willing to provide (if they will provide any support at all that is). China is incredibly unhappy with North Korea at the present, but they'd be even more unhappy with US troops on their border. Do not make the mistake of the last Korea War and underestimate China, especially not in its own backyard.
The North has no intention of getting wiped out, but neither has the South or Japan. With an H-bomb, North Korea can inflict such massive damage that it now effectively holds South Korea and Japan hostage. Any hostile actions against North Korea? Bye bye Seoul, sayonara Tokyo. Nobody wants to pay such a price for taking out North Korea, so North Korea is safe. If I had to guess, the North Koreans are following the ancient Roman saying: "Si vis pacem, para bellum".



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@sebster

There will be no war with North Korea this year, and you can quote me on that.

I base that on years of reading history books, politics, and my own life experience.

It will be the usual war of words, stalemate, and we'll resolve the situation by throwing them some food aid or something. And we'll be back here next year having this thread again.

This seems very likely yes

Although with an unstable lunatic at its head, the US in its current state really worries me. Under Trump the US has become more belligerent than ever and now also very unpredictable. A very dangerous situation if you ask me. Let's hope the people around him have some more sense and can keep him in check.

About the only good "out" I could see is agreeing to withdraw US forces entirely in a timely manner from the Korean peninsula in the event of a Korean re-unification, and that would allow China to take action, direct or otherwise, against Pyongyang.

China doesn't really want to keep NK around, they're sick of NK's gak and currently are the greatest enforcer of sanctions against NK and NK has bitten back in rhetoric. What China wants is a buffer between them and US forces. If the need for that buffer goes away, then so does NK's Chinese backing.

Whether the US is willing to commit to that or not is debatable, and under the current administration, is probably impossible.

So basically back out of the region and let China expand into the countries? With the expanding they've been doing in the South China Sea, I could easily see them subjugating the Korean peninsula, and we'd see the Asian continent equivalent of the USSR. That would be the only good "out"?

We can stay to be ready to attack and fight expansion, but then we shouldn't complain when NK wants to up their missiles because we are right at their border ready to attack.

 Just Tony wrote:
So basically back out of the region and let China expand into the countries? With the expanding they've been doing in the South China Sea, I could easily see them subjugating the Korean peninsula, and we'd see the Asian continent equivalent of the USSR. That would be the only good "out"?

I don't think China has ever expressed any indication of desire to invade and subjugate Korea. Only time China ever tried that was more than 2000 years ago in 100 BC, and even then their colonies only occupied a part of Korea.
China doesn't really have need for territorial expansion. As long as it is not an area they have historical claims to (like with the South China Sea) I don't think we will have to be fearing Chinese invasions. And even then, a China-controlled North Korea would probably be an improvement over the current situation...

 Iron_Captain wrote:

China doesn't really have need for territorial expansion. As long as it is not an area they have historical claims to (like with the South China Sea) I don't think we will have to be fearing Chinese invasions. And even then, a China-controlled North Korea would probably be an improvement over the current situation...

I agree with that. China has some bad history with invasions involving islands. They would rather be concerned by securing their borders and all. Besides, I don't believe Korea in itself has that many ressources they are interested in, anyway.

The problem comes if he tries to start using Nuclear blackmail to try and get wheat he wants. If he has a working Nuke and working missile he can then try and leverage etc.

But once he got proven capable. Well threats to Nuke someone Anita gonna be a joke like before.
They are gonna be very serious. And that's the danger because if someone unsure and the risk is potentially surprise nuclear attack.

Umm... Even China will want to reign him in or have a nuclear wasteland on border.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

As long as it is not an area they have historical claims to (like with the South China Sea)

Mind you, China's 'Historical Claims' cover almost the entirety of the eastern and part of the western hemisphere. By the same logic that they would rule the South China Sea, they should also rule South America, Russia and the United States. In fact, I seem to recall the same map gives 'proof' for all of them.

 jhe90 wrote:
The problem comes if he tries to start using Nuclear blackmail to try and get wheat he wants. If he has a working Nuke and working missile he can then try and leverage etc.

But once he got proven capable. Well threats to Nuke someone Anita gonna be a joke like before.
They are gonna be very serious. And that's the danger because if someone unsure and the risk is potentially surprise nuclear attack.

Umm... Even China will want to reign him in or have a nuclear wasteland on border.

Other than "stop threatening NK and leave us alone", what has NK ever really demanded?

 d-usa wrote:

Other than "stop threatening NK and leave us alone", what has NK ever really demanded?

Food and lift of sanctions upon them ?

 Sarouan wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Other than "stop threatening NK and leave us alone", what has NK ever really demanded?

Food and lift of sanctions upon them ?

Which would fall under "leave us alone".

Well we could always agree with China that if they agree to a dismantling of North Korea and having them rejoin the South that we give them a big fat DMZ. Like say the northern half of what is now North Korea. Neither South Korea nor the US could station any troops in that area. Along with a general scaling back of US presence in Korea.

 Just Tony wrote:
So basically back out of the region and let China expand into the countries? With the expanding they've been doing in the South China Sea, I could easily see them subjugating the Korean peninsula, and we'd see the Asian continent equivalent of the USSR. That would be the only good "out"?

Im not saying anyone should ket China expand into Korea, the Koreans would certainly react...violently to that Im sure, north or south. Same way the Vietnamese did.

But making the entire peninsula a DMZ of sorts to the great powers would do wonders for the region. Besides, its not like Japan, a relatively short hop away, is going anywhere...

And, either way, whats worse, playing the game of empire and losing a pawn, or potential nuclear war?

The point was that China is ready for the NK regime to go, their concern is US forces. If that is removed, they have no further use for Kim and his regime.

All the saber rattling certainly isn't helpful. North Korea was on this path for decades and not much was done about it in terms of direct intervention, it seems a little late to start doing that now.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I don't think China has ever expressed any indication of desire to invade and subjugate Korea. Only time China ever tried that was more than 2000 years ago in 100 BC, and even then their colonies only occupied a part of Korea. China doesn't really have need for territorial expansion. As long as it is not an area they have historical claims to (like with the South China Sea) I don't think we will have to be fearing Chinese invasions. And even then, a China-controlled North Korea would probably be an improvement over the current situation...

Yet for most of Korean history in the last millennium it has been a tributary state of Chinese dynasties. Not saying they will invade of course, but China historically has kept Korea in a subservient position.

Look at Tibet, Xinjiang or Manchuria. None of these areas are traditionally Chinese or part of China, they were subjugated by the Qing, in itself not a Chinese dynasty like the Ming. Yet after Mao won the civil war he didn't waste any time in re-annexing what he considered China. Historical claims are whatever China wants them to be, China is whatever the government wants it to be. Most of academia agrees that the 'historical' claims of China in the South China Sea are completely ridiculous. They have no basis in international law, which China wilfully chooses to ignore while simultaneously insisting on others to follow those same laws it ignores. People have already died over China asserting their 'historical' claims in the South China Sea. Yet once you see 'proof', its manufactured historical and archaeological evidence provided by organizations very closely linked to the Chinese government. China's claims are no more historic than its neighbours, yet China does not care. The 'funny' thing is that their 'historical' claims seem to overlap with strategic thinking and Hawaii has already been touched upon as being in Chinese hands in a possible (distant) future.

Of course that all depends if China can sufficiently develop the superpower mindset and possibly transition in a more hegemonic role like the US or the former Soviet Union. Which would make it more active in the affairs of its neighbours. What Chinese academics have been thinking about as a new international system under Chinese management sounds awfully like a new Chinese dynasty, complete with the benevolent leading country and putting aside individuality for the common good.

TL;DR don't believe in historical claims by China, they are as valid as historical claims to the British Empire by the UK or the French Empire by France.

 Just Tony wrote:
The military personnel are already ON the fething payroll. It's not like we'd have some large Asian American draft or something, it'd be using the assets we have. Yes, it's a complex solution, and one that's no longer viable since Fat Man just moved into Pyongyang, but it would have been far better than dropping millions or billions of this endless flow of revenue that half the US and most of Europe seems to believe the US has.

And there's no double standard there. If they wanted to ramp up recruitment for this sort of thing, I'd call that wasteful spending at the very least.

Hang on, you want to run a long term infiltration of NK using existing US government assets? What just parachute them in to the country and have them start applying for government jobs?

I wrongly assumed you were talking about turning existing NK officials, offering up favours, connections and hard cash, like past operations. Turns out I gave your idea too much credit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
So nothing that different from many other countries we ignore. We have never given a damn about a country killing their own people, ever. To pretend this is about some moral high ground is silly, if anybody but North Korea was doing the killing we wouldn't care. Heck, look at Syria for a prime example.

What NK did in the 90s was pretty unique. At the height of the famine the international community put together an aid package that would give millions of NK citizens badly needed food. But the international community knew just handing the stuff over would see much of it sold on the black market, making government officials wealthy but seeing none of the food reach the desperate. NK would not agree to this, they wanted to control the aid, precisely so they could pilfer most of it and make money out of the famine suffered by their people. The issue stalemated, NK was happy to leave its citizens starving and eventually the international community gave in. NK pilfered much of the aid, and the famine was lessened but nowhere near as much as it should have been.

There are plenty of horrible things in the world, but holding your own population to ransom to score a payday is right up there. It really defines NK as not really a government at all, but a mafia operation that happens to control a country.

NK isn't going to nuke anyone, their lack of any actual real hostility with conventional weapons demonstrates that.

NK sunk a SK warship, fired a torpedo out of the blue, killed hundreds of SK sailors. Shortly afterwards they fired artillery on to an island, killed SK soldiers stationed there. They have shown a willingness to take brinkmanship up to the point of actually killing people. From there open conflict is only one step away. And from there nuclear weapons are just one more step along.

And NK has a record of using threats of violence to extort resources, some to keep their broken economy going, and some just to make the leadership rich. There's every indication this will happen again, but this time it will happen with nukes.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well we could always agree with China that if they agree to a dismantling of North Korea and having them rejoin the South that we give them a big fat DMZ. Like say the northern half of what is now North Korea. Neither South Korea nor the US could station any troops in that area. Along with a general scaling back of US presence in Korea.

Does this fantasy solution include any consultation with the Korean people themselves? Take a look at the estimated price tag for the reintegration of the impoverished North (hint: It's in the trillions) and ask yourself who's going to foot the bill for it? You think South Korea would be amicable to a trillion dollar bill after they've just been forcefully disarmed in 25% of their own territory by their so-called ally?

 Just Tony wrote:
One rabid squirrel is easy to handle. And just as easy to ignore. And just as easy to get bitten by because you chose to ignore it. Once more, just google pretty much ANYTHING that crackpot has said, and tell me you trust this guy to think logically or long term about ANYTHING, let alone the tiny wang overcompensation high he will feel when turning Japan into the next Fist Of The North Star film location.

Now you google up and tell me what he has actually DONE. Saying is one thing. Doing is one thing.

It's not that hard to even see why they feel need to have nukes when they have this big convenient foreign enemy(US) that has history of invading other countries without nukes but never one with one. And who has even history of invading country led by former friends.

Kim wants to stay in power. Not end up dead.

tneva82 wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
One rabid squirrel is easy to handle. And just as easy to ignore. And just as easy to get bitten by because you chose to ignore it. Once more, just google pretty much ANYTHING that crackpot has said, and tell me you trust this guy to think logically or long term about ANYTHING, let alone the tiny wang overcompensation high he will feel when turning Japan into the next Fist Of The North Star film location.

Now you google up and tell me what he has actually DONE. Saying is one thing. Doing is one thing.

It's not that hard to even see why they feel need to have nukes when they have this big convenient foreign enemy(US) that has history of invading other countries without nukes but never one with one. And who has even history of invading country led by former friends.

Kim wants to stay in power. Not end up dead.

He's not going to stay in power long if he keeps blasting missiles over Japan.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
So basically back out of the region and let China expand into the countries? With the expanding they've been doing in the South China Sea, I could easily see them subjugating the Korean peninsula, and we'd see the Asian continent equivalent of the USSR. That would be the only good "out"?

I don't think China has ever expressed any indication of desire to invade and subjugate Korea. Only time China ever tried that was more than 2000 years ago in 100 BC, and even then their colonies only occupied a part of Korea.
China doesn't really have need for territorial expansion. As long as it is not an area they have historical claims to (like with the South China Sea) I don't think we will have to be fearing Chinese invasions. And even then, a China-controlled North Korea would probably be an improvement over the current situation...

China doesn't have any need for territorial expansion?

No disrespect Iron captain, but have you ever heard of Tibet?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MarsNZ wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well we could always agree with China that if they agree to a dismantling of North Korea and having them rejoin the South that we give them a big fat DMZ. Like say the northern half of what is now North Korea. Neither South Korea nor the US could station any troops in that area. Along with a general scaling back of US presence in Korea.

Does this fantasy solution include any consultation with the Korean people themselves? Take a look at the estimated price tag for the reintegration of the impoverished North (hint: It's in the trillions) and ask yourself who's going to foot the bill for it? You think South Korea would be amicable to a trillion dollar bill after they've just been forcefully disarmed in 25% of their own territory by their so-called ally?

On the plus side, their economy would be booming for years with growth due to all that new stuff needing built in the north.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
One rabid squirrel is easy to handle. And just as easy to ignore. And just as easy to get bitten by because you chose to ignore it. Once more, just google pretty much ANYTHING that crackpot has said, and tell me you trust this guy to think logically or long term about ANYTHING, let alone the tiny wang overcompensation high he will feel when turning Japan into the next Fist Of The North Star film location.

Now you google up and tell me what he has actually DONE. Saying is one thing. Doing is one thing.

It's not that hard to even see why they feel need to have nukes when they have this big convenient foreign enemy(US) that has history of invading other countries without nukes but never one with one. And who has even history of invading country led by former friends.

Kim wants to stay in power. Not end up dead.

He's not going to stay in power long if he keeps blasting missiles over Japan.

Doubt NK's people are throwing him off for that. Or rather generals replacing him.

US isn't going to invade since that would result in destruction of 2 countries(NK and SK) and quite a damage to 3rd(Tokyo). And that's without assuming nukes in use which could result even more damage to Japan and even to US.

MAD has basically worked there for a long time. It isn't going to change. NK is satisfied by having hostile enemy that doesn't invade, US&co aren't willing to sacrifice NK civilians, SK and plenty of Japan to get rid of Kim. Status quo maintained.

edit: Ironically most effective way for getting rid of Kim might actually stop being enemy for them. Lack of external foreign enemy and NK leadership would struggle to maintain their position. Albeit that makes it hard to stop being enemy when NK is hell bent on ensuring they have enemy.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
So basically back out of the region and let China expand into the countries? With the expanding they've been doing in the South China Sea, I could easily see them subjugating the Korean peninsula, and we'd see the Asian continent equivalent of the USSR. That would be the only good "out"?

I don't think China has ever expressed any indication of desire to invade and subjugate Korea. Only time China ever tried that was more than 2000 years ago in 100 BC, and even then their colonies only occupied a part of Korea.
China doesn't really have need for territorial expansion. As long as it is not an area they have historical claims to (like with the South China Sea) I don't think we will have to be fearing Chinese invasions. And even then, a China-controlled North Korea would probably be an improvement over the current situation...

China doesn't have any need for territorial expansion?

No disrespect Iron captain, but have you ever heard of Tibet?

Annexed by the Qing, far removed from the Maoists that currently rule China. It has been a Chinese territory ever since, apart from a short interlude in the early 20th century when the Qing collapsed and China entered a period of anarchy and war that lasted until the Maoists defeated all rival factions and established control over most of the Qing dynasty's former territory including Tibet, giving rise to the modern-day Chinese state.

Saying China might invade Korea because they once invaded Tibet is like saying England might try to invade and annex France because some English king once upon a time annexed Scotland.
Just because a previous government centuries ago engaged in territorial expansion does not mean the current, modern-day government wants more territorial expansion. Every modern country has engaged in conquest and annexation in the past. By your logic, because of those past territorial expansions, now all countries in the world would want to invade Korea?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MarsNZ wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well we could always agree with China that if they agree to a dismantling of North Korea and having them rejoin the South that we give them a big fat DMZ. Like say the northern half of what is now North Korea. Neither South Korea nor the US could station any troops in that area. Along with a general scaling back of US presence in Korea.

Does this fantasy solution include any consultation with the Korean people themselves? Take a look at the estimated price tag for the reintegration of the impoverished North (hint: It's in the trillions) and ask yourself who's going to foot the bill for it? You think South Korea would be amicable to a trillion dollar bill after they've just been forcefully disarmed in 25% of their own territory by their so-called ally?

West Germany was willing to absorb East Germany, even though the latter was much poorer (and remains so to this day).
I don't know much about Korea and whether South Koreans would be willing to pay up for reunification, but it is not without precedent.