North Korea Crisis

[shelter]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

Then it is also easier to either "for" or "against" something than doubt whether we should or not. So yeah that's why international relations are such a mess.

The debate in this thread is good

Probably there's such a mess regarding North Korea now because there's a merging of two different but related issues: how the "foreign" world should react to North Korea's nuclear ambitions, and how to handle a civilian population largely held captive by the state.

One possible way to deal with North Korea's nuclear ambitions might probably simply to ignore their leader's showboating. It seems quite obvious that he enjoys making the watching world anxious by either pulling out of Six-party talks, or firing a warhead every few months or so. Maybe he just wants attention? An interesting note is that the present North Korea situation intensified while the U.S was making overtures to Iran, the "other state with nuclear ambitions".

There are several proponents of this foreign policy (ignore, instead of engage), including this guy who an editorial to a local paper.

While the argument for ignoring Mr Kim (and the reasons why) sound quite rational, they ultimately don't solve the 2nd aspect of the North Korea issue which, unfortunately, is more social than political.

[LeoXiao]

Nothing can really stop North Korea from getting nukes at this point, I think/ They've been swaying to and fro over the last ten years with regards to the nuclear reactor issue, and most likely they've spent that time making their nukes (and missiles)work as well. We can pressure the DPRK all we want, but they don't really care since most of the world already sees them in the darkest of lights anyhow. The only way, short of war, to prevent NK from getting nukes, is for China to clearly and loudly threaten Kim-Jong Il. Everyone says that "China doesn't want North Korea to have nukes" or "China finds North Korea embarrassing," which do hold some truth, but if that were entirely the case, China would be cutting off all materials to that nation and making clear threats. IMO China wants to give the impression that it is undecided, because it does not want to anger the 1st World nations it does business with, but at the same time it finds North Korea to be a nice buffer state/ally.

tl;dr: North Korea will get a nuke b/cuz it doesn't care what the USA says and the only country that does matter to it, China, isn't going to say anything because they're allies.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by shelter

The debate in this thread is good

Probably there's such a mess regarding North Korea now because there's a merging of two different but related issues: how the "foreign" world should react to North Korea's nuclear ambitions, and how to handle a civilian population largely held captive by the state.

One possible way to deal with North Korea's nuclear ambitions might probably simply to ignore their leader's showboating. It seems quite obvious that he enjoys making the watching world anxious by either pulling out of Six-party talks, or firing a warhead every few months or so. Maybe he just wants attention? An interesting note is that the present North Korea situation intensified while the U.S was making overtures to Iran, the "other state with nuclear ambitions".


There are several proponents of this foreign policy (ignore, instead of engage), including this guy who an editorial to a local paper.

While the argument for ignoring Mr Kim (and the reasons why) sound quite rational, they ultimately don't solve the 2nd aspect of the North Korea issue which, unfortunately, is more social than political.

i agree with article, it is time the world just ignore NK and cut off aid.

[LeoXiao]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

i agree with article, it is time the world just ignore NK and cut off aid.

I agree. Not that it will really change anything, but, then again, isn't that the point?

[Doraneko]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

The only way, short of war, to prevent NK from getting nukes, is for China to clearly and loudly threaten Kim-Jong Il. Everyone says that "China doesn't want North Korea to have nukes" or "China finds North Korea embarrassing," which do hold some truth, but if that were entirely the case, China would be cutting off all materials to that nation and making clear threats. IMO China wants to give the impression that it is undecided, because it does not want to anger the 1st World nations it does business with, but at the same time it finds North Korea to be a nice buffer state/ally.

Second that. But I also think that the world takes the so-called PRC-DPRK alliance too literally. Indeed, just like Washington and Tokyo, Beijing finds Pyongyang a pain in the ass.

China did have pretty good relationship with NK during maybe Mao Zedong's era, to the extent that Mao mobilized millions of PLA and his own son to fight for NK. But by the time of Deng Xiaoping, the billateral relationship, at the very core, has already deterioated a lot.

In the 80s, Deng made a trip Pyongyang. Seeing the Chinese financial aid got used on extravagant buildings and statures for promoting cult worship of Kim, but little was done on real infrastructures and economic development, he literally lectured the then DPRK leader, Kim II-Sung, on the spot. Since then, Pyongyang got bitter with Beijing, and China has significantly cut down the aid. At the same time, the improvement of trade volume between China and the world has rendered its relationship with NK largely obsolete.

Kim Jong-II, who succeeded his father, continued to criticize Deng's "revisionism" of the socialist system. It was not until the 2000s that he retracted his statement and started praising "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics," create a (failed) carbon copy of the capitalistic Shenzhen, and made a few visits to Beijing to repair the relationship. Still, from time to time, Kim tries his age-old attention-grabbing techniques like blocking Chinese tourists.

To China, currently she cares little about the Kim administration at the very core. The only reason that it continues to prop up DPRK despite of all the embarassment and fiscal pain is that the collapse of DPRK and the reunification of Korea may mean the following. And at the moment there is no viable substitute to Kim.

- Millions of refugees getting across the border
- US army stationing right at the Chinese border
- The reconstruction bill

Rumours are that Beijing has a few backup plans in case the DPRK collapses, like setting up a puppet government there by supporting certain military generals to organize a coup and seize control, but without military intervention and bill paying.

Pyongyang also understand Beijing's stance on the issue, and probably does not dare to make real moves to embarass/provoke Beijing. But it also has to from time to time remind the world of its presence and assert its "military pwness", because any sign that it is painlessly replaceable is a kiss of death to its survival.



EDIT (out-of-topic): Has anyone gone to NK for a trip btw and how's that? Somehow I really want to grab the last chance to see the world's last socialist state before it collapses or reforms itself . But the cost of going to Pyongyang once is equivalent to going to Akihabara 4-5 times...

[Spectacular_Insanity]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

I agree. Not that it will really change anything, but, then again, isn't that the point?

Well, yes and no. I don't think anyone really know what will happen if we cut off aid, since it hasn't happened yet. I would speculate that it would hasten the collapse of the regime, though obviously I don't know that for certain. I mean, even if North Korea has working nukes at their disposal, would they dare to use them? They should know that if they did, it would spell their own doom, for obvious reasons. The US could easily dominate N. Korea's laughable military. The only reason we don't is because it doesn't really stand much of an immediate threat to anyone except Japan and South Korea (of the US's major allies in Asia). Maybe Hawaii, but I'm not sure of the range of ICBMs these days.

Anyway, my point is that cutting off aid would either make N. Korea do one of two things: either collapse or go to war. And since it wouldn't even be able win such a war, the outcome is inevitably the same. If we were to go to war with N. Korea (again), there would be no stalemate this time around. We would definitely win, hands-down.

[solomon]

My Kissinger-esque realist classmate also proposes straight containment of the DPRK. I disagree with China's middling around on the issue (due to objectively important geo-politcal worries) but Russia escapes me. What is their relationship to the DPRK, and is the Kremlin just waving that veto power around just to strut their stuff?

[Spectacular_Insanity]

Originally Posted by solomon

My Kissinger-esque realist classmate also proposes straight containment of the DPRK. I disagree with China's middling around on the issue (due to objectively important geo-politcal worries) but Russia escapes me. What is their relationship to the DPRK, and is the Kremlin just waving that veto power around just to strut their stuff?

Well, to be honest, there's not much anyone can do about China. They kind of do whatever the hell they want. But Russia as the USSR was a big influence on Korea in the past (back when it was a single nation, after WWII and before the Korean War). They were a large part of the cause of the Korean War, but that doesn't mean much nowadays since the USSR no longer exists. I don't know what interest Russia would have in N. Korea now, though. It doesn't hold much significance other than being a hotspot for international conflict and debate. It could just be, as you say, Russia trying to show a presence on the political scene.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Spectacular_Insanity

Well, yes and no. I don't think anyone really know what will happen if we cut off aid, since it hasn't happened yet. I would speculate that it would hasten the collapse of the regime, though obviously I don't know that for certain. I mean, even if North Korea has working nukes at their disposal, would they dare to use them? They should know that if they did, it would spell their own doom, for obvious reasons. The US could easily dominate N. Korea's laughable military. The only reason we don't is because it doesn't really stand much of an immediate threat to anyone except Japan and South Korea (of the US's major allies in Asia). Maybe Hawaii, but I'm not sure of the range of ICBMs these days.

Anyway, my point is that cutting off aid would either make N. Korea do one of two things: either collapse or go to war. And since it wouldn't even be able win such a war, the outcome is inevitably the same. If we were to go to war with N. Korea (again), there would be no stalemate this time around. We would definitely win, hands-down.

I don't think it would be possible to win that easily, no matter how big or advanced US's military is. Like what Napoleon said, "There are two forces on the battlefield, the sword and the spirit. In the long run the sword will always be conquered by the spirit." The North pretty much has artillery that can strike to another end of the South, taking that out would be pretty much a pain even with the strong SpecOps assets US has.

I will elaborate when asked. It seems quite obvious how the battleplan might pull out of all sides.

[iLney]

But it depends on how deep the sword wills to cut. If it were me, by the time the 1st phase of the war is over, there would be no spirit.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I don't think it would be possible to win that easily, no matter how big or advanced US's military is. Like what Napoleon said, "There are two forces on the battlefield, the sword and the spirit. In the long run the sword will always be conquered by the spirit." The North pretty much has artillery that can strike to another end of the South, taking that out would be pretty much a pain even with the strong SpecOps assets US has.

I will elaborate when asked. It seems quite obvious how the battleplan might pull out of all sides.

Are you considering missiles as part of that artillery? It takes some damn big guns to even reach Seoul, like alone areas further south. Please elaberate though. I'm interested in seeing how you'd think things would go too.

[Zippicus]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I don't think it would be possible to win that easily, no matter how big or advanced US's military is. Like what Napoleon said, "There are two forces on the battlefield, the sword and the spirit. In the long run the sword will always be conquered by the spirit." The North pretty much has artillery that can strike to another end of the South, taking that out would be pretty much a pain even with the strong SpecOps assets US has.

I will elaborate when asked. It seems quite obvious how the battleplan might pull out of all sides.

Napoleon might have held a different opinion if he ever saw a modern air force cutting lose

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Zippicus

Napoleon might have held a different opinion if he ever saw a modern air force cutting lose

There are places the air force can't reach through, current situation is Iraq for e.g.
Then his quote should not be taken so literally. B52 was used since Vietnam War and will still in service till 2040. However, remember how few video footage are enough to trigger the vanishing all those B52+500,000 troops+supports into thin air (out of the country actually),and by the time it finished, the war fought for more than 10 years, ended within few months.

Similar here. In modern warfare, a mistake is cost by thousands lives. And if US ever make one and by some crazy chance NK can exploit that (even with heavy cost) + good uses of propaganda, the war may be considered as ended(or for US at least)

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Are you considering missiles as part of that artillery? It takes some damn big guns to even reach Seoul, like alone areas further south. Please elaberate though. I'm interested in seeing how you'd think things would go too.

Ever heard of the Stalin's Wagon? The range of the rockets could probably reach the edge of Seoul, and North has got plenty of those.

Yes I also included artillery missiles like the Scud and FROG SRBMS. With chemical warheads they can prove to be fatal.

Besides it isn't just about the size of the gun, it is also about the chamber reaction and the shell that allows it to reach its desired range.One example would be ST Kinetics' Pegasus 155mm Howitzer. it is lightweight and small yet it can throw a shell over 30 kilometers when others of its caliber could only do half its distance (e.g - US's M114 155mm Howtizer has a max range of 14.6km). Most artillery use jet-assisted shells to hit longer distances, and the payload is pretty free-for-all, could be high explosive, chemical, thermobaric, etc. Another thing is that Korean is not a signee of the submunitions treaty, which means that they can use beehive rounds to shred people to pieces.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Ever heard of the Stalin's Wagon? The range of the rockets could probably reach the edge of Seoul, and North has got plenty of those.

It's highly debatable if katyushas have the range to hit Seoul. They certainly lack the accuracy to do much damage. Unless you're referring to something else?

Yes I also included artillery missiles like the Scud and FROG SRBMS. With chemical warheads they can prove to be fatal.

They can be intercepted by the patriot family of missiles. Patriots have been refined since 1991 when they saw marginal success against Iraqi scuds fired at Israel and Saudi Arabia, and at the ranges we're talking about here, the North Korean scuds shouldn't break up as frequently as the Iraqi scuds did, something which greatly limited the patriot's effectiveness. Frogs shouldn't have that issue at all.

As for using chemical weapons, that's a great way to get a bad end for the North. The US may consider using nukes in response. North Korea's chemical sites are going to be high proprity targets too, so unless they use them quickly, they might not get a chance to at all.

Besides it isn't just about the size of the gun, it is also about the chamber reaction and the shell that allows it to reach its desired range.One example would be ST Kinetics' Pegasus 155mm Howitzer. it is lightweight and small yet it can throw a shell over 30 kilometers when others of its caliber could only do half its distance (e.g - US's M114 155mm Howtizer has a max range of 14.6km). Most artillery use jet-assisted shells to hit longer distances, and the payload is pretty free-for-all, could be high explosive, chemical, thermobaric, etc. Another thing is that Korean is not a signee of the submunitions treaty, which means that they can use beehive rounds to shred people to pieces.

There's only so much you can do to extend the range before you simply need a bigger gun. I highly doubt the North's 155mm and smaller guns are going to be hitting Seoul from their positions on border. Of course I'm sure there are civilian population centers closer that they certainly can hit with those, but they'd be more effective used against border fortifications. Of course I fully expect the North to focus on causing civllian casualties rather than pure military effectiveness i hopes it'll stop the enevitable.

[LeoXiao]

If there's a war I doubt the North Koreans will try to win; they'll just try to cause as much shit as possible. So chemical warfare is not unexpected IMO.

[Terrestrial Dream]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

i agree with article, it is time the world just ignore NK and cut off aid.

Yep, all the country should ignore NK and cut off all the aid. Yes there are people who are suffering in the country but the aid doesn't go to them and there are already millions that are dead and suffering despite the aid.

Originally Posted by Doraneko

EDIT (out-of-topic): Has anyone gone to NK for a trip btw and how's that? Somehow I really want to grab the last chance to see the world's last socialist state before it collapses or reforms itself . But the cost of going to Pyongyang once is equivalent to going to Akihabara 4-5 times...

You can't go to Pyongyang only place you could go is Kumgangsan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gumgang-san_Tourist_Region
I am not sure if this is still going on.

Originally Posted by Spectacular_Insanity

Well, yes and no. I don't think anyone really know what will happen if we cut off aid, since it hasn't happened yet. I would speculate that it would hasten the collapse of the regime, though obviously I don't know that for certain. I mean, even if North Korea has working nukes at their disposal, would they dare to use them? They should know that if they did, it would spell their own doom, for obvious reasons. The US could easily dominate N. Korea's laughable military. The only reason we don't is because it doesn't really stand much of an immediate threat to anyone except Japan and South Korea (of the US's major allies in Asia). Maybe Hawaii, but I'm not sure of the range of ICBMs these days.

Anyway, my point is that cutting off aid would either make N. Korea do one of two things: either collapse or go to war. And since it wouldn't even be able win such a war, the outcome is inevitably the same. If we were to go to war with N. Korea (again), there would be no stalemate this time around. We would definitely win, hands-down.

Well giving them aid haven't solved anything, so far all the policy are just keep going around circle without any progress. I would prefer to take a risk by crippling NK doing so let the SK have influence in NK's economy as a bargaining deal in which exchange will provide some aid. With that gradual democratization with supervising from the UN or SK and change in their education might lead to better NK that is more suitable for reunification of those two country.

And if there was a war, which I wanted never to happen as it will damage the economy of SK through the aftermath effect, I want China, Russia, and Japan to stay out. The only country that should have influence after the war should be SK and little from US just because of the strong economic relationship between SK and the US.

[Doraneko]

Originally Posted by Terrestrial Dream

You can't go to Pyongyang only place you could go is Kumgangsan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gumgang-san_Tourist_Region
I am not sure if this is still going on.

Pyongyang tourism predates Kumgangsan for a long time. Kumgangsan is the only new addition without the bureaucratic troubles (say US nationalities getting banned), as you don't need to directly deal with the NK government in getting a visa. Basically, any tourist to SK can directly cross the border to Kumgangsan, a restricted region in NK in itself.

One of my friends who has been to both places found Pyongyang much more interesting. Kumgangsan is basically a natural resort; and you can find much better ones across Asia and Europe.

A bit of info on non-Kumgangsan NK tours:
http://www.seenorthkorea.com/
http://axisofeviltour.com/nk-trip1.htm
http://www.travelpod.com/blogs/0/Kor...Pyongyang.html

Sorry to talk so much on NK tours when the topic is the crisis related to it .

Originally Posted by Terrestrial Dream

And if there was a war, which I wanted never to happen as it will damage the economy of SK through the aftermath effect, I want China, Russia, and Japan to stay out. The only country that should have influence after the war should be SK and little from US just because of the strong economic relationship between SK and the US.

Realistically, I find it impossible for China and Russia to completely stay out, if the scale of US operation is equivalent to the size of those against Iraq and Afghanistan.

It may be a good idea to think from Russia, China and Japan's point of view. Hypothetically, if Cuba got rampant and Russia sent troops over there, even if the US was told/threatened to "stay out", you wouldn't expect her to gladly sit and watch either, would you?

The whole issue is so complicated and involves so many stakeholders is the very reason why the talks involve six parties, instead of merely two or three.

P.S. even from the view of trade instead of geopolitics, US is still not the only influential side either:

SK major trading partners: China, U.S., Japan, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia (2004).
NK major trading partners: China, South Korea, Japan, Thailand (2004).

[Spectacular_Insanity]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I don't think it would be possible to win that easily, no matter how big or advanced US's military is. Like what Napoleon said, "There are two forces on the battlefield, the sword and the spirit. In the long run the sword will always be conquered by the spirit." The North pretty much has artillery that can strike to another end of the South, taking that out would be pretty much a pain even with the strong SpecOps assets US has.

I will elaborate when asked. It seems quite obvious how the battleplan might pull out of all sides.

The US Air Force and Navy would take care of that problem. Stealth bombers would take care of any anti-air and artillery they might have, then the US simply brings in whatever heavy stuff they need by boats, or helicopter/aircraft carrier. Or they could use their destroyers to pelt them with artillery from the sea. Why would they advance by land? That would mean going through the DMZ, which would be retarded to say the least. The US military is technologically and tactically superior in all regards to North Korea.

The South Koreans themselves, with UN support, could defeat North Korea. Maybe not easily, but they could eventually. The reason they haven't is because it would be long and bloody. North Korea is basically alone, unless China decided to get involved. I seriously doubt the North Koreans would be able to sustain a prolonged conflict given their limited food and natural resources. I mean, I would say they're barely getting by now and WE'RE GIVING THEM AID. If a war were to start, they wouldn't be able to last simply because they would have massive food shortages.

[Zippicus]

Originally Posted by Doraneko

Well, the US is always free to start any war on the other side of the globe as they reckon that enemy missiles and rockets will never reach them. But how about Japan, Russia and China, if NK's sole intention is to cause much more shit instead of winning?

I find it not very responsible to continue taking a US-centric worldview to exclude the interests and security of all other stakeholders, when the non-US side will obviously be much more badly affected when shit hits the fan. It is cool to talk random politics comfortably in front of your computer desk, but it is not as simple as Red Alert where you don't need to care much about collateral damage.

Realistically, I find it impossible for China and Russia to completely stay out, if the scale of US operation is equivalent to the size of those against Iraq and Afghanistan.

It may be a good idea to think from Russia, China and Japan's point of view. Hypothetically, if Cuba got rampant and Russia sent troops over there, even if the US was told/threatened to "stay out", you wouldn't expect her to gladly sit and watch either, would you?

The whole issue is so complicated and involves so many stakeholders is the very reason why the talks involve six parties, instead of merely two or three.

If any kind of conflict broke out it would be really hard to pin the blame on anyone other than North Korea. Their leadership seems to delight in pissing off the international community. I can understand their position as far as the UN is concerned but they tend to display an amazing lack of tact when dealing with them. There's a right way and a wrong way to tell the UN where they can stick it and how far, they tend to go for the wrong way