Korea Situation

[Telamon]

I know the North Korean regime isn't exactly the most rational out there but perpetuating this idea that they're going to bomb the US the moment they can launch a nuke is ridicilous and dangerous.

Speaking ahead of a classified briefing for senators at the White House, Adm Harris said he believed that North Korea would try to attack the US as soon as it has the military capabilities.
"With every test [Mr] Kim grows closer to his goal, which is using nuclear weapons on US cities," he told the House armed services committee in Washington DC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39720696

Trump is really jumping on this 'crisis' too, apparently arranging an unprecented senate-wide security briefing about it. What better way to distract from domestic troubles than to stir trouble abroad, I guess? North Korea is all talk and always will be. Kim's goal isn't global domination but domestic obedience, and a nuke practically guarantees no outside intervention. Placing carriers off the coast and making threats just plays into the doomsday narrative he and his family have created for the North Korean people. Change has to come from within North Korea, anything else will just be catastrophic.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Except that we really don't know it. If you come to think about it, we're extremely well-informed about the habits of one of the most isolated regime's leader, which is kind of self-contradictory. The reason is that most of these gossips are firstly reported (and sometimes invented) by South-Korean tabloids and propaganda tools and quickly adopted, without any critical examination being deemed necessary, by more respectable media outlets, which hope to appeal to the audience's patriotism and thirst for cheesy events based on the inaccurate stereotypes of dictatorships being inherently irrational, in order to generate more views for their content. A typical example is the rebirth of general Ri Yong-gil, who turned up suspiciously healthy in his party's congress, considering he was supposed to have been executed a few months ago.

Anyway, more on topic, North Korea's nuclear project is a perfectly reasonable initiative from their perspective, essentially designed as a defensive measure. The government is completely aware that the steadily increasing technological gap between her and her enemies means that her conventional military equipment becomes gradually obsolete and useless. Therefore, their only hope of survival is to invest on assymetrical warfare, hence the focus on nuclear weapons, with the goal of preventing any potential offensive operations, on behalf of the United States or South Korea. Theoretically, a second alternative also exists: Namely the abandonment of their nuclear project, in exchanged for a favourable diplomatic deal, whose terms would guarantee a peaceful coexistence. However, the North-Korean leadership has obviously viewed such an option as totally unrealistic, a conclusion stemmed for rather convinving arguments, in my opinion. Once you ditch your only bargaining chip, your geopolitical position becomes very fragile, as the examples of Iraq, which was invaded under a fabricated pretext, and Libya, where Gaddafi was overthrown and eventually lynched by the mob, despite his previous cooperation with the western authorities prove.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Especially the bombing of Libya was absolutely catastrophic not only for the stability of Libya and her neighbors, but also for the United States' international reputation. It is not a coincidence that North Korea's nuclear activity peaked up exactly after the end of operations against these two countries. This is why the current moment is so tense, because we are in a transitional stage, just before North Korea becomes capable of dramatically improving her military efficiency and, consequently, her prospects of survival.

So for the sake of argument I will accept your premise as being true. Now how does that contradict any part of what I have claimed is true.

We know that Kim Jong Un is belligerent as he has threatened to nuke South Korea, Japan and the United States.

He ideologically wants to conquer South Korea and destroy Japan and the USA, this is what they term "re-unification". They have also blamed the United States and Japan for all historical grievances including their failures to grow crops and for their lack of imports which they themselves broke off negotiations for aid when Kim Jong Il took over.

They have been supported by the PROC since the Korean War and is probably the only reason that they still exist, general Peng Dehuai aside.

Whether they are extremely paranoid is up for debate but taking the above into consideration we ought to expect a first strike. Quite honestly I can't see Kim Jong Un being a particularly effective leader or reasonable leader if he has made so little headway in anything. He could at least have talks with the United States about ending the perpetual state of war.

That their nuclear missiles may improve is probably true but they could never be expected to compete with the United States. Best case scenario for them is that they could launch a missile further into the Pacific though they are still a ways off from reaching California.

[Love Mountain]

Why can't we just play hardball. Shoot every missile they send into the sky and park a carrier group in case they get any bright ideas about invading the South.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Why can't we just play hardball. Shoot every missile they send into the sky and park a carrier group in case they get any bright ideas about invading the South.

We should. Why stop there, just invade and wipe out the regime.

[caratacus]

I know the North Korean regime isn't exactly the most rational out there but perpetuating this idea that they're going to bomb the US the moment they can launch a nuke is ridicilous and dangerous.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39720696

Trump is really jumping on this 'crisis' too, apparently arranging an unprecented senate-wide security briefing about it. What better way to distract from domestic troubles than to stir trouble abroad, I guess? North Korea is all talk and always will be. Kim's goal isn't global domination but domestic obedience, and a nuke practically guarantees no outside intervention. Placing carriers off the coast and making threats just plays into the doomsday narrative he and his family have created for the North Korean people. Change has to come from within North Korea, anything else will just be catastrophic.

Thing is in North Korea's case, it doesn't, in fact quite the opposite. The fact that he is not only developing nukes but threatening to target non nuclear countries like Japan and Australia, has made the prospect of armed intervention that much more likely. It also provides the American's a good excuse to maintain a strong presence in South East Asia, not just the Korean peninsula. In fact if you were a cynic like me, you could say that the American governments have been too easy on North Korea for far too long, partly for that reason. However, the fact that conflict hasn't happened so far, stems mostly from the huge number of casualties that would happen by conventional weapons by an American military involvement. And of course not wanting to rupture economic ties with China for Western investors.

Which leads to the question, why have nukes at all. Years ago it was to gain economic assistance because the State couldn't feed its own population, but that plainly isn't the objective now. If Korea were pragmatic they would be rather less aggressive in their posturing and use the nuclear card to negotiate American to withdrawal from the South. But then where would be the bogeymen to provide the excuse for this highly militarized state to function.

Truth is Korea has been locked in a inactive conflict for decades now and the addition of nuclear missiles on the peninsula is not going to make the possibility of that conflict becoming active again any less. North Korea cannot be allowed to develop nuclear capability. Hell, even countries like Pakistan, India and Israel shouldn't even have them. The world should be scaling back the number of warheads not increasing them!

[Copperknickers II]

Thing is in North Korea's case, it doesn't, in fact quite the opposite. The fact that he is not only developing nukes but threatening to target non nuclear countries like Japan and Australia, has made the prospect of armed intervention that much more likely. It also provides the American's a good excuse to maintain a strong presence in South East Asia, not just the Korean peninsula. In fact if you were a cynic like me, you could say that the American governments have been too easy on North Korea for far too long, partly for that reason. However, the fact that conflict hasn't happened so far, stems mostly from the huge number of casualties that would happen by conventional weapons by an American military involvement. And of course not wanting to rupture economic ties with China for Western investors.

Which leads to the question, why have nukes at all. Years ago it was to gain economic assistance because the State couldn't feed its own population, but that plainly isn't the objective now. If Korea were pragmatic they would be rather less aggressive in their posturing and use the nuclear card to negotiate American to withdrawal from the South. But then where would be the bogeymen to provide the excuse for this highly militarized state to function.

Truth is Korea has been locked in a inactive conflict for decades now and the addition of nuclear missiles on the peninsula is not going to make the possibility of that conflict becoming active again any less. North Korea cannot be allowed to develop nuclear capability. Hell, even countries like Pakistan, India and Israel shouldn't even have them. The world should be scaling back the number of warheads not increasing them!

That doesn't change the fact there is literally nothing the outside world can do about North Korea other than follow time honoured diplomatic channels and give them what they want, which is not a nuclear war. Who knows what's going on inside North Korea right now, tbh this started before Trump came to office and Kim is probably also trying to distract people from his own incompetence and weakness as a leader by provoking America into giving them their next news headline: 'Evil yank imperialist swine aim missiles at wonderful motherland Korea!', meanwhile Fox News is running the same thing in reverse (albeit there are notably few North Korean aircraft carriers rocking up outside San Diego). Anyway, the point being, America is the only country which goes around starting wars for no good reason, America and Russia that is, those two countries are the main threats to world peace. North Korea is a distraction and a worry only to South Korea, nobody has a problem with America defending its ally but the idea that what Trump is doing is going to help in any way is deluded. Sometimes it's bettter to sit back and do nothing, rather than do the wrong thing.

[Roma_Victrix]

Senators: Little learned during rare all-hands North Korea briefing

WTF? What's going on here? What was this White House meeting with every US Senator really about, then? Optics? I don't get it.

Trump might actually just stay the course with sanctions as usual. I'm sure it has something to do with China yanking hard on Kim Jong-un's choke chain.

[Harith]

Senators: Little learned during rare all-hands North Korea briefing

WTF? What's going on here? What was this White House meeting with every US Senator really about, then? Optics? I don't get it.

Trump might actually just stay the course with sanctions as usual. I'm sure it has something to do with China yanking hard on Kim Jong-un's choke chain.

He's completely insecure, and inept. It's really sad sometimes watching him trying to be "the big boy" as if so desperately trying to please his dad. I've noticed that his two pinhead kids (Eric and the other weirdo) are insecure as well, but at an even more of a pathetic level. Ivanka seems the only one who's "normal" in the family. I guess that makes her a Globalist too .

He's a showman, a celebrity. He has no business acumen, vision or management ability whatsoever. Nor is he a hard worker like Hillary Clinton. He's entertaining, loves the crowd, the attention and putting on a show. You can see it from his past and now in the way he handles the Presidency where he virtually delegated all forms of effective governance to his donors and relatives and demands outcomes that he can flaunt on TV. He's like the typical ME dictator.

Strange. Never saw that day coming.

[PointOfViewGun]

North Korea marks anniversary with massive artillery drill



Isn't it a good opportunity to take out pretty much the entire artillery capability of North Korea?

[Abdülmecid I]

You can't possibly compare Iran with North Korea. Iran didn't do the deal because they thought that they could deter American aggression with conventional weapons, that's ridiculous. They stood to gain an immense amount from the deal, they are freed from sanctions and are extending their influence throughout the Middle East. What advantage would nuclear weapons have given them in achieving that?

I said the opposite, that Iran signed the deal, because the government was optimist that the geographical location of the country next to the Hormuz straits could guarantee her integrity, when facing American aggression. An advantage that North Korea lacks, which is why obtaining nuclear weapons is so imperative. When you are antogonizing the strongest state in the Earth, your top priority is your survival, not your expansion and North Korea has estimated, probably inspired from the terrible fates of Libya and Iraq, that enhancing her military capabilities is a safer course than negotiating.

So for the sake of argument I will accept your premise as being true. Now how does that contradict any part of what I have claimed is true. We know that Kim Jong Un is belligerent as he has threatened to nuke South Korea, Japan and the United States. He ideologically wants to conquer South Korea and destroy Japan and the USA, this is what they term "re-unification". They have also blamed the United States and Japan for all historical grievances including their failures to grow crops and for their lack of imports which they themselves broke off negotiations for aid when Kim Jong Il took over.

It contradicts what you said in the sense that North Korea considers nuclear weapons essentially as a defensive measure, intending to dissuade the United States from invading the country, not as part of a supposedly "ideologically-based" offensive strategy. In my opinion, you make the mistake of confusing brutality and tyranny with irrationality and megalomania, which distorts the reality of North Korea's foreign policy. Being convinced that North Korea is determined to cause a mino holocaust once she acquires the necessary tools is a hypothesis, undermined by many facts and interpretations made by experts I linked previously, while it also threatens to become a self-fullfilling prophecy, by forcing to commit the United States to an unnecessary war, which would be responsible for a lot of suffering, affecting mainly the Korean people.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I said the opposite, that Iran signed the deal, because the government was optimist that the geographical location of the country next to the Hormuz straits could guarantee her integrity, when facing American aggression. An advantage that North Korea lacks, which is why obtaining nuclear weapons is so imperative. When you are antogonizing the strongest state in the Earth, your top priority is your survival, not your expansion and North Korea has estimated, probably inspired from the terrible fates of Libya and Iraq, that enhancing her military capabilities is a safer course than negotiating.

It contradicts what you said in the sense that North Korea considers nuclear weapons essentially as a defensive measure, intending to dissuade the United States from invading the country, not as part of a supposedly "ideologically-based" offensive strategy. In my opinion, you make the mistake of confusing brutality and tyranny with irrationality and megalomania, which distorts the reality of North Korea's foreign policy. Being convinced that North Korea is determined to cause a mino holocaust once she acquires the necessary tools is a hypothesis, undermined by many facts and interpretations made by experts I linked previously, while it also threatens to become a self-fullfilling prophecy, by forcing to commit the United States to an unnecessary war, which would be responsible for a lot of suffering, affecting mainly the Korean people.

So does every state essentially. That doesn't change the fact that the DPRK has threatened to nuke South Korea, Japan and the USA. The main reason to not launch a nuke is because of mutually assured destruction. They could not conquer South Korea with nukes as conventional means would still be required. The simple fact is that North Korea does not have the capabilities to consistently launch nukes if pressed. It is this concept of MAD that prevents them from having to launch a nuke in the first place. In the time that it takes North Korea to arm another missile, they would probably get nuked several times over. They don't require nukes to severely damage Seoul either since North Korea possesses artillery of sufficient range to bombard Seoul. So in that case you are not technically wrong however your premise and my premise do not inherently contradict. North Korea can want nukes as a deterrent to Western invasion but that doesn't mean that they simply would not use their nuclear weapons if pressed, if push comes to shove then they would be required to use their nukes or they might as well surrender.

But my main issue is that we could consider the premise that North Korea is an irrational regime to be flawed, but why necessarily must it be the case that they are a rational actor? Is there not a precedent that demonstrates quite clearly that North Korea is a foolish state? Taking things like all domestic policies, diplomatic history and the actions of their rulers?
I think that is enough to prove that North Korea cannot be trusted and that they are probably quite literally stark raving lunatics. That they require a nuke to avoid foreign intervention is a given, I would put that at the base of their things to do with a nuclear arsenal list. But increasing their nuclear arsenal does not limit them to only the deterrent option and that is really the inherent issue with North Korea.

[caratacus]

North Korea marks anniversary with massive artillery drill



Isn't it a good opportunity to take out pretty much the entire artillery capability of North Korea?

You don't need to destroy this lot, just render them inoperable. Tanks and armored vehicles use A LOT of fuel! Which leads to the question where is North Korea's oil coming from? Without oil the Country would grind to a halt and gas guzzling military hardware like tanks and rockets would be the first to feel the loss.

The answer, as is anything concerning the survival of this state and the development of its military, is China.

For North Korea, cutting off oil supplies would be devastating
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-no...-idUSKBN17F17L
"China, which supplies most of North Korea's crude, no longer reports its oil shipments to the country, but according to South Korean data supplies it with roughly 500,000 tonnes of crude oil annually. It also exports over 200,000 tonnes of oil products, according to U.N. data.

Analysts said the impact of a full oil embargo on Pyongyang would be so damaging that China, which opposes any measures that could fuel instability in North Korea, would be unlikely to take that step or agree to such a measure in the United Nations Security Council, where it has a veto as a permanent member.

"If China cuts off oil supply, North Korea would not survive on its own for three months and everything in North Korea would be paralysed," said Cho Bong-hyun, who heads research on North Korea's economy at IBK Bank in Seoul. "This could increase the possibility of North Korea's collapse and have an adverse impact on China as well. China would rather consider reducing crude oil supply," he said.

North Korea has virtually no domestic oil production, and has traditionally imported the little demand it has for fuel at its refineries from China and, to a lesser extent, Russia. North Korea has two refineries: the Ponghwa Chemical Factory sits on the river border with Dandong in China, while the Sungri refinery is located on the Tumen River bordering Russia.

Much of North Korea's energy is supplied by abundant domestic coal, but oil is used by the military as well as in transport and agriculture.
"Cutting off all oil for an extended period of time, perhaps indefinitely, is probably the toughest economic punishment that China could impose on North Korea. It is highly unlikely that China would take such a step," said Bonnie Glaser of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

So sell them huge amount of oil, far exceeding their domestic requirements, because if you didn't the nation would collapse. Makes perfect sense to me!

Perhaps China has already taken action to reduce oil supply, because there haven't been any more tests.

No nuclear tests as China cuts off North Korea oil
April 26, 2017
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...6828cacd5929e6
"The website NK News reported yesterday that the oil price to the public had surged 83 per cent in the past week in Pyongyang and in the province of Rason — where petrol access was being rationed — strongly indicating the supply has suddenly been reduced.

Beijing does not publish its petroleum sales to North Korea. However, it is understood that most of the country’s oil needs — about 500,000 tonnes a year — are met by a pipeline from China to a refinery at Pongwha in the northwest of North Korea.
Satellite imagery suggested the facility was still operating, NK News said.
This supply is augmented by half a dozen modest-sized oil tankers that usually obtain their cargoes at Dalian in China’s northeast, with a much smaller amounts coming from ports in Russia’s far east.

North Korea’s west coast tanker fleet — facing China — has been almost idle for two months. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kanga refused to confirm reports that Beijing has reduced oil supplies to North Korea.
“You should listen to the authoritative remarks or statements of the Chinese government,” he said.

Last Friday, North Korean media panned an unnamed “neighbouring country”.
This reinforces the likelihood that Mr Xi is getting tough with North Korea in the most effective way possible, short of military action.
The Chinese publication Global Times has editorialised twice recently about oil sanctions, in the context of strong criticisms of North Korean nuclearisation."

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I would assume that North Korea gets all their oil from Russia and China.

[ggsimmonds]

On the subject of Chinese oil,
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...lmz?li=BBnb7Kz

Why can't we just play hardball. Shoot every missile they send into the sky and park a carrier group in case they get any bright ideas about invading the South.

Because of South Korea. How is a carrier group going to prevent artillery bombardment?

We shot one of their missiles down, they lobbed a few artillery shells towards Seoul. Who got the worse of that exchange? You don't play hardball when one of the sides basically has a hostage

The two things preventing actual military intervention is China and the fear of civilian casualties.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

We would need like two different aerial strike teams, preferably with carriers and ground bases. Followed by a ground invasion in which the border area gets completely overrun so that the North Koreans can't actually attack.

One aerial strike team would bomb missile launch sites and prevent any missiles from being launched. The other would neutralize their artillery near the border. But the main factor would have to be the element of surprise.

[caratacus]

On the subject of Chinese oil,
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...lmz?li=BBnb7Kz

I am doubtful that China has reduced oil supply to North Korea as a way of putting pressure on the regime. It is a nice thought, but wishful thinking.

Remember this oil is in crude form and it is refined inside North Korea at two refineries. Any recent cut in supply would be most unlikely to have an immediate impact on the supply of fuel and its price. It is more likely that the North Korean authorities are stockpiling the stuff, in case of a conflict, which is why consumers are seeing a price rise, as the supply available inside the Country has been reduced.

[ggsimmonds]

I am doubtful that China has reduced oil supply to North Korea as a way of putting pressure on the regime. It is a nice thought, but wishful thinking.

Remember this oil is in crude form and it is refined inside North Korea at two refineries. Any recent cut in supply would be most unlikely to have an immediate impact on the supply of fuel and its price. It is more likely that the North Korean authorities are stockpiling the stuff, in case of a conflict, which is why consumers are seeing a price rise, as the supply available inside the Country has been reduced.

Agreed with the latter, not as much with the former. A decrease in Chinese imports could immediately lead to a rise in prices, but I agree that the more likely explanation is stockpiling

[Ludicus]

South Korea isn't happy with Trump,
Korea Times Trump cannot be trusted on THAAD'

What's clear is it is getting more difficult to predict the U.S. government's next move.

---
Trump tough on South Korea: Threatens free trade deal termination ...

President Donald Trump said that he will either renegotiate or terminate a "horrible" trade deal with South Korea, Reuters reported late Thursday.
The president also said he wants South Korea to pay for the $1 billion THAAD missile defense system, Reuters said.

I have a splendid idea:Ted Cruz's El Chapo Act should pay for the Mexican wall and the missile defense system.
------
And now,
Donald Trump warns of 'major, major conflict' with North Korea

There is a chance that we could end up having a major, major conflict with North Korea. Absolutely.We’d love to solve things diplomatically but it’s very difficult

[Roma_Victrix]

South Korea isn't happy with Trump,
Korea Times Trump cannot be trusted on THAAD'

---
Trump tough on South Korea: Threatens free trade deal termination ...


I have a splendid idea:Ted Cruz's El Chapo Act should pay for the Mexican wall and the missile defense system.
------
And now,
Donald Trump warns of 'major, major conflict' with North Korea

What's Trump thinking here? This is actually big news in South Korea, which has been hit hard by Chinese boycotts over the installment of THAAD. Now Trump is demanding money from them right before a presidential election campaign involving a rivalry between their liberal and conservative parties:

Seoul rejects Trump demand, won’t pay for missile system

Only about 51% of South Koreans were in favor of installing the missile defense system. If the liberal party wins in the election, it will be likely that the whole thing will be overturned, a mere billion dollar deal, but a very symbolic one for US-Korean relations. South Korea has been our ally for decades and Trump doesn't seem to care much about that. What's really going on here, though? Does he have some sort of grand strategy? Or is he just applying the same "Art of the Deal" concepts to a foreign policy scenario where they don't make any sense in terms of geopolitics? Also, South Korea has been paying the US for the installment of the site, in addition to buying billions of dollars of US military hardware. Do you think that's jeopardized now, not just THAAD?

[Exarch]

South Korea has been our ally for decades and Trump doesn't seem to care much about that. What's really going on here, though? Does he have some sort of grand strategy? Or is he just applying the same "Art of the Deal" concepts to a foreign policy scenario where they don't make any sense in terms of geopolitics? Also, South Korea has been paying the US for the installment of the site, in addition to buying billions of dollars of US military hardware. Do you think that's jeopardized now, not just THAAD?

It's all part of the plan to MAGA

saving a billion dollars and earning a billion dollars are the same thing to a business man; lately, Trumpists have been circulating how much money they've saved in the first 100 days as opposed to the obama admin.

Seen in the context of the civil war brewing between Trumpists and Establishment 1%ers, these sorts of things hurt Trump's political opponents as well who have large stakes in military companies; i remember shortly after Trump was elected, how one tweet from trump caused Boeing's shares to drop precipitously.