- Moderator
- #1
I decided to split this from the Syria solutions thread.
North Korea.
A fanatically secretive paranoid nation, closed off to the outside world, ruled by a spoiled fat boy dictator. NK, as a nation "is in a perpetual state of near-war in which their very large military is poised to fight en masse at even a minor provocation".
American approaches to North Korea have typically been along the line of "best of bad choices" using a carrot and stick approach with sanctions, aid and active military exercises designed to intimidate.
The problem with NK is it is sandwiched in between China and SK. It can now threaten our allies in the region and possibly us. The only country that seems to have ANY influence (and that may be limited) - is China.
Why not bomb their nuclear facilities? Quora has some interesting responses to that:
***********
**********
Another article asks the question - should we really be so afraid?
So...how should we approach this latest crisis with NK?
North Korea.
A fanatically secretive paranoid nation, closed off to the outside world, ruled by a spoiled fat boy dictator. NK, as a nation "is in a perpetual state of near-war in which their very large military is poised to fight en masse at even a minor provocation".
American approaches to North Korea have typically been along the line of "best of bad choices" using a carrot and stick approach with sanctions, aid and active military exercises designed to intimidate.
The problem with NK is it is sandwiched in between China and SK. It can now threaten our allies in the region and possibly us. The only country that seems to have ANY influence (and that may be limited) - is China.
Why not bomb their nuclear facilities? Quora has some interesting responses to that:
Such a strike would prompt immediate large-scale retaliation, and the millions of civilians in Seoul who are in range of a massive array of North Korean artillery would find themselves being shelled, possibly with chemical weapons. A human tragedy of a scale we haven't seen in generations would result, and in (very) short order a (very) major war would break out.
The north quite possibly would scramble to use their existing nuclear weapons, all of Asia would shift to a war footing, asian markets would panic, and the major superpowers would by necessity find themselves squaring off.
It's a "World War III" scenario, and nobody wants that.
The north quite possibly would scramble to use their existing nuclear weapons, all of Asia would shift to a war footing, asian markets would panic, and the major superpowers would by necessity find themselves squaring off.
It's a "World War III" scenario, and nobody wants that.
***********
There are many layers to this issue. China has an interest in keeping the North Korean state viable (and Chinese intervention in the Korean War swung the balance back against the US and UN forces) and a major attack, esepcially by the US could be construed as a direct attack on Chinese interests.
Also, North Korea might decide that such an attack is a prelude to degrading her armed forces prior to a final attack in the future, such as what happened over the 1990's in Iraq. Their leadership might decide it was worth it to then attack South Korea in response.
There are probably many other nuances that involve the other regional players such as Russia and Japan as well. Basically I'd suggest that the potential blowback isn't worth what might be gained in an attack. The nuclear bombs North Korea has tested are not exactly huge strategic weapons and they certainly don't have sufficient numbers of weapons, nor the ability to efficiently deliver those weapons in a way that is an existential threat to Japan, the US, etc.
Also, North Korea might decide that such an attack is a prelude to degrading her armed forces prior to a final attack in the future, such as what happened over the 1990's in Iraq. Their leadership might decide it was worth it to then attack South Korea in response.
There are probably many other nuances that involve the other regional players such as Russia and Japan as well. Basically I'd suggest that the potential blowback isn't worth what might be gained in an attack. The nuclear bombs North Korea has tested are not exactly huge strategic weapons and they certainly don't have sufficient numbers of weapons, nor the ability to efficiently deliver those weapons in a way that is an existential threat to Japan, the US, etc.
**********
Another article asks the question - should we really be so afraid?
First, a reality check: the North Korean nuclear programme is less a madcap scheme than a clear and deliberate strategy. Its leaders have closely watched what’s happened to other countries that have backed away from nuclear arsenals, and two in particular: Ukraine and Libya.
Ukraine gave up its massive Soviet-era nuclear arsenal in 1994 when it signed the Budapest Memorandum with Russia, the US and the UK, on whose terms it traded nuclear weapons for a formal reassurance to respect its sovereignty; 20 years later, Moscow invaded and annexed the Crimean peninsula, and a pro-Russian insurgency in the east is still rumbling. As for Libya, Muammar Gaddafi renounced his weapons of mass destruction programme as part of an opening to the West only to be forcibly removed from power by the same countries some eight years later.
Along with the Iraq War, these spectacles taught the North Korean regime that it’s hard for a relatively small, isolated country to survive without the military hardware to guarantee it. Pyongyang has duly shown great diplomatic skill in drawing out nuclear negotiations, buying itself both time and financial aid as its programme moves forward.
Ukraine gave up its massive Soviet-era nuclear arsenal in 1994 when it signed the Budapest Memorandum with Russia, the US and the UK, on whose terms it traded nuclear weapons for a formal reassurance to respect its sovereignty; 20 years later, Moscow invaded and annexed the Crimean peninsula, and a pro-Russian insurgency in the east is still rumbling. As for Libya, Muammar Gaddafi renounced his weapons of mass destruction programme as part of an opening to the West only to be forcibly removed from power by the same countries some eight years later.
Along with the Iraq War, these spectacles taught the North Korean regime that it’s hard for a relatively small, isolated country to survive without the military hardware to guarantee it. Pyongyang has duly shown great diplomatic skill in drawing out nuclear negotiations, buying itself both time and financial aid as its programme moves forward.
So...how should we approach this latest crisis with NK?
