Everyone has solutions, - lets hear yours: North Korea

[easyt65]

All other methods, diplomatic and economic, have been tried with no progress, and not one other proposal could end the NK nuclear threat or prevent NK from selling its nuclear weapons technology to other countries. Already Iran's missile program has been based on NK's and NK Korea was building a nuclear reactor in Syria before Israel blew it up. At this point, the nuclear option is the last option since all the others have been tried and have failed.

I agree everyone would be pissed at us, even most of our allies, the nations that need the US today, will need the US after the strike. NATO is nothing without the US. Japan can't stand up to China without the US. China's economy would crash if it stopped selling to the US. So while we would have to endure a lot of criticism, there would be no repercussions beyond this.

It is undeniable that such an action would lay down a very,very strong red line on non proliferation, so it could be argued that by ending the NK nuclear threat in the only way possible, we saved the world from a global nuclear threat. This is the argument that would allow most nations to transition from outraged criticism to business as usual.

Not ALL the diplomatic actions have been tried. Like I said, warning China the US will be 'forced' to place missile defense systems and NUKES about 15-20 minute flight time from China because of North Korea's actions, I think China will find new motivation to get something done with N. Korea.

We'll see.

 

[edward37]

So North Korea has missiles.

He has launched them into the Ocean.
- Has any landed in anyone else's International Waters?

So has he broken the law or violated any treaties?



1. "Two treaties restrict nuclear testing as such: the 1963 Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water (Partial Test Ban Treaty, or PTBT),[2] and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT),[3] which has not yet entered into force. However, North Korea is not a party to either of these treaties and thus does not have any direct legal obligations thereunder."

2. "North Korea acceded to the NPT in 1985, but in January 2003 announced that it was withdrawing immediately from the treaty[7] and notified the Security Council of its withdrawal. If North Korea were still a party to the NPT, its testing of nuclear weapons would constitute a clear violation of Article II of the treaty, which states that "[e]ach non-nuclear-weapon State"
--- "Because Article X(1) of the NPT requires that three months notice be given for withdrawal from the treaty, one must determine whether North Korea's statement that its withdrawal was effectiveimmediately rendered the entire withdrawal ineffective."

This will undoubtedly end in a 'He said - she said' stalemate.

3. North Korea's Nuclear Disarmament Declaration
- "The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has addressed the issue of legal obligations stemming from unilateral declarations, in the (coincidentally-named) Nuclear Tests case: When it is the intention of the State making the declaration that it should become bound according to its terms, that intention confers upon the declaration the character of a legal undertaking, the State being thenceforth legally required to follow a course of conduct consistent with the declaration. An undertaking of this kind, if given publicly, and with the intent to be bound ... is binding."

So despite declaring they would no longer adhere to this the Intl Community could still try to hold them to it.


My point in all of this is to ask the question:

HAS NORTH KOREA DONE ANYTHING REALLY 'ILLEGAL' TO MERIT OTHER NATIONS FROM DOING SOMETHING, ESPECIALLY SUCH AS POTENTIAL MILITARY STRIKES?

(Yes, I do know that what they are doing has a direct impact on our 'National Security' and 'National Interest'...)

Perhaps bright people are thinking of what will be in 10 years ,,,,not tomorrow if he continues down his nuclear path

A simple yet elegant solution would be to nuke NK out of existence right now and then turn to Iran and say, "Let's talk." We have so many platforms from which to launch a nuclear strike that the attack would be over before the NK knew it was coming and they would have very limited ability left to retaliate. China's nuclear capability is not very impressive, perhaps less than Israel's, so while the SK would be outraged and the Chinese furious, and the US would have weather a tsunami of criticism from around the world - so what's new? - there would no longer be a NK problem, and this would also send a very strong message to other countries that might be considering violating the non proliferation protocols. So the whole world wins, except, of course, the NK.

Some people might think this is too an extreme a measure, but all the other measures I have seen are about how to endure the NK nuclear threat, not how to end it. If we do allow NK to continue it will sell its nuclear technology and missile technology and then the NK nuclear threat will blossom into a global nuclear threat.

Think we should send the NK leader pictures of what 2 old atom bombs did to japan ? They might get the hint?

Why send a picture when a live demonstration would be so much more effective.

All things in due time

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Stop fucking around with them. Destroy their entire military & political infrastructure. Make sure the leaders die in the first strike.

 

[toomuchtime_]

All other methods, diplomatic and economic, have been tried with no progress, and not one other proposal could end the NK nuclear threat or prevent NK from selling its nuclear weapons technology to other countries. Already Iran's missile program has been based on NK's and NK Korea was building a nuclear reactor in Syria before Israel blew it up. At this point, the nuclear option is the last option since all the others have been tried and have failed.

I agree everyone would be pissed at us, even most of our allies, the nations that need the US today, will need the US after the strike. NATO is nothing without the US. Japan can't stand up to China without the US. China's economy would crash if it stopped selling to the US. So while we would have to endure a lot of criticism, there would be no repercussions beyond this.

It is undeniable that such an action would lay down a very,very strong red line on non proliferation, so it could be argued that by ending the NK nuclear threat in the only way possible, we saved the world from a global nuclear threat. This is the argument that would allow most nations to transition from outraged criticism to business as usual.

Not ALL the diplomatic actions have been tried. Like I said, warning China the US will be 'forced' to place missile defense systems and NUKES about 15-20 minute flight time from China because of North Korea's actions, I think China will find new motivation to get something done with N. Korea.

We'll see.

First, we already have nukes and anti missile systems on ships near China. Second, we have no anti missile systems that can stop an ICBM. Third, if push comes to shove, NK's missiles can be aimed at Chinese cities as well as US or Japanese cities. Fourth, NK provides an anti western buffer between China and western backed nations. Fifth, NK's nuclear program provides an effective diverson of attention and resources from China's very aggressive actions in the region, for example, building artificial islands in disputed waters that become military outposts.

We have no leverage with China on this issue.

 

[easyt65]

First, we already have nukes and anti missile systems on ships near China.

True, but there is something about a PERMANENT Nuclear Missile structure that makes a difference. Ships can be withdrawn. Permanent basing of nukes that close is / could be a 'game-changer' for China.

That could be China's 'Cuban Missile Crisis'.

 

[edward37]

All other methods, diplomatic and economic, have been tried with no progress, and not one other proposal could end the NK nuclear threat or prevent NK from selling its nuclear weapons technology to other countries. Already Iran's missile program has been based on NK's and NK Korea was building a nuclear reactor in Syria before Israel blew it up. At this point, the nuclear option is the last option since all the others have been tried and have failed.

I agree everyone would be pissed at us, even most of our allies, the nations that need the US today, will need the US after the strike. NATO is nothing without the US. Japan can't stand up to China without the US. China's economy would crash if it stopped selling to the US. So while we would have to endure a lot of criticism, there would be no repercussions beyond this.

It is undeniable that such an action would lay down a very,very strong red line on non proliferation, so it could be argued that by ending the NK nuclear threat in the only way possible, we saved the world from a global nuclear threat. This is the argument that would allow most nations to transition from outraged criticism to business as usual.

Not ALL the diplomatic actions have been tried. Like I said, warning China the US will be 'forced' to place missile defense systems and NUKES about 15-20 minute flight time from China because of North Korea's actions, I think China will find new motivation to get something done with N. Korea.

We'll see.

First, we already have nukes and anti missile systems on ships near China. Second, we have no anti missile systems that can stop an ICBM. Third, if push comes to shove, NK's missiles can be aimed at Chinese cities as well as US or Japanese cities. Fourth, NK provides an anti western buffer between China and western backed nations. Fifth, NK's nuclear program provides an effective diverson of attention and resources from China's very aggressive actions in the region, for example, building artificial islands in disputed waters that become military outposts.

We have no leverage with China on this issue.

You left out what NK could do to SK

 

[toomuchtime_]

First, we already have nukes and anti missile systems on ships near China.

True, but there is something about a PERMANENT Nuclear Missile structure that makes a difference. Ships can be withdrawn. Permanent basing of nukes that close is / could be a 'game-changer' for China.

That could be China's 'Cuban Missile Crisis'.

Land based or ship based? That's not much leverage.

 

[toomuchtime_]

All other methods, diplomatic and economic, have been tried with no progress, and not one other proposal could end the NK nuclear threat or prevent NK from selling its nuclear weapons technology to other countries. Already Iran's missile program has been based on NK's and NK Korea was building a nuclear reactor in Syria before Israel blew it up. At this point, the nuclear option is the last option since all the others have been tried and have failed.

I agree everyone would be pissed at us, even most of our allies, the nations that need the US today, will need the US after the strike. NATO is nothing without the US. Japan can't stand up to China without the US. China's economy would crash if it stopped selling to the US. So while we would have to endure a lot of criticism, there would be no repercussions beyond this.

It is undeniable that such an action would lay down a very,very strong red line on non proliferation, so it could be argued that by ending the NK nuclear threat in the only way possible, we saved the world from a global nuclear threat. This is the argument that would allow most nations to transition from outraged criticism to business as usual.

Not ALL the diplomatic actions have been tried. Like I said, warning China the US will be 'forced' to place missile defense systems and NUKES about 15-20 minute flight time from China because of North Korea's actions, I think China will find new motivation to get something done with N. Korea.

We'll see.

First, we already have nukes and anti missile systems on ships near China. Second, we have no anti missile systems that can stop an ICBM. Third, if push comes to shove, NK's missiles can be aimed at Chinese cities as well as US or Japanese cities. Fourth, NK provides an anti western buffer between China and western backed nations. Fifth, NK's nuclear program provides an effective diverson of attention and resources from China's very aggressive actions in the region, for example, building artificial islands in disputed waters that become military outposts.

We have no leverage with China on this issue.

You left out what NK could do to SK

After a massive nuclear attack, very little.

 

[easyt65]

Land based or ship based? That's not much leverage.

Well how about THIS thought on top of having nukes permanently placed just south of them: Ya think China is excited about the possibility of the US and South Korea conducting a regime change in North Korea and having the U.S. RIGHT ON their border?

No. I don't think they want that either.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Land based or ship based? That's not much leverage.

Well how about THIS thought on top of having nukes permanently placed just south of them: Ya think China is excited about the possibility of the US and South Korea conducting a regime change in North Korea and having the U.S. RIGHT ON their border?

No. I don't think they want that either.

Another Korean War? I don't think anyone would want it, certainly not the SK. It is estimated that both sides are so heavily armed that there would be 1,000,000 dead in the first 24 hours and millions more would die as the war rolled on. It would require the US maintain a hostile occupation of the North for years to come, suffering continuing casualties, and if China sent "volunteers" as it did in the last Korean War, America would continue to pay a very high price for this strategy for years to come, and of course, nearly the whole world would be criticizing us for alleged US atrocities every day.

By contrast, a massive nuclear strike would end the problem immediately and the war would be over within a half hour without putting any US of allied troops at risk. We would be harshly criticized but for only one action, not for what we were doing every day for years to come.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Regime change has worked so well for the US in the past...it's worth a try.

Are you sure you mean "regime change?" As an end unto itself, regime change has worked. The U.S. "interfered" and the regime changed more often than it didn't. As part of nation building that includes the sub-goal of replacing a non-democratic regime with a democratic one, not so much.

While it may be nice to imagine nation building or regime change will produce new "Germanies and Japans," few well informed people actually these days expect that sort of outcome. Such triumphalist rhetoric grew especially pronounced in the post-Cold War world, but may have reached its zenith during the Bush administration, which declared in the 2002 National Security Strategy that “freedom, democracy, and free enterprise” constituted the “single, sustainable model for national success,” a formula that is “right and true for every person in every society.” One cannot, however, merely look binarily at regime change and nation building processes and assert their success or failure accordingly. That assessment must be made in terms of where the outcome lands on a continuum of possible returns over periods of time.

Producing democratically controlled nations is not the only goal of regime change or nation building, though it is the ideal final outcome, at least from the U.S. government and corporate POV. Merely replacing one "dangerous" regime with a "less dangerous" one is also an aim of regime change efforts, and to the extent that happens, regime change can be viewed as successful even when it doesn't look that way when measured against the most ideal of ends. Establishing an environment in which the the intervening nation can more ably militarily exert its will is another.

No outcome like the two noted above is going to be openly admitted, but it'd be myopic for any strategist (or "arm chair" strategist) to conceive such morally decrepit goals as beneath the economically/financially driven wielders of global power, especially the Western powers for which the sun rises and sets on the financial cost-benefit calculus, not only that of absolute gains and losses, but also that of who bears the losses and who reaps the gains.

If one insists on defining that as the only way to declare successful a given regime change/nation building endeavor, well, sure, neither has a long track record of success. Seen through the prism of maintaining continuous combat to provide for a continual stream of revenues, regime change assumes a very different end, one whereby fomenting and then managing it and its attendant conflict to a sub-nuclear level is the objective. North Korea with its nuclear rather than conventional sabre rattling is throwing a wrench into that paradigm.

The South Koreans may want to reunite the two Koreas, but the West and China is perfectly content to leave things just as they have been for decades. China because the DPRK provides a buffer against Western troops that China would sooner see farther from its border than closer. That's no different now than it was in the 1970s and '80s.

There's too much stupidity in this thread. None of you have a fucking clue what you are talking about.

Like you do? Mister... Tomahawk missiles can't do damage to "hardened bunkers" and they won't destroy a plane just do a little damage to it.

LOL....On this topic and with that member, it doesn't stop there...

The real governing body in the DPRK is the National Defense Commission.

The NDC is defunct. It has been since last fall. So just how current is the member's knowledge of the DPRK?

The Russian defense industry sells a lot of high tech military equipment to the KPA.

Russian exports to the DPRK don't even rate explicit mention in the detailing of North Korea's exports and it comprises 2.3% of the DPRK's imports.

There has been tension between Russia and North Korea lately, but they are still their second largest trade partner.

North Korea's second largest trading partner is India.

DPRK-Russian trade has seen huge increases:

• In 2015 the imports of North Korean made products in Russia experienced a significant rise .
• imports of manmade filaments rise by 8733%; the imports of railway, tramway locomotives, rolling stock, equipment- by 5283%.

In the overall scheme of the DPRK economy, however, Russia's role is minor, aside from the fact that the DPRK can't really afford to lose a single dollar of revenue and it's quite limited in to whom it can sell what it produces.

Looking at the details of what Russia buys and sells to the DPRK, one sees that North Korea is largely a politically captive/manipulatable source of very, very cheap labor that's comparatively close and largely free of the risk of pirating and easily managed-around bad ocean weather/conditions. According to the Russian Exports National Information Portal:

North Korea exports the following to Russia:

• Fish, crustaceans, molluscs, aquatic invertebrates nes (29%)
• Articles of apparel, accessories, not knit or crochet (27%)
• Musical instruments, parts and accessories (17%)
• Railway, tramway locomotives, rolling stock, equipment (6%)
• Manmade filaments (5%)
• Electrical, electronic equipment (4%)
• Plastics and articles thereof (3%)
• Wadding, felt, nonwovens, yarns, twine, cordage, etc (2%)
• Rubber and articles thereof (2%)
• Machinery, nuclear reactors, boilers, etc (1%)
• Cereal, flour, starch, milk preparations and products (1%)
• Tanning, dyeing extracts, tannins, derivs,pigments etc (1%)
• Milling products, malt, starches, inulin, wheat gluten (1%)

North Korea imports the following from Russia:

• Mineral fuels, oils, distillation products, etc (83%)
• Wood and articles of wood, wood charcoal (4%)
• Cereals (4%)
• Milling products, malt, starches, inulin, wheat gluten (3%)
• Fish, crustaceans, molluscs, aquatic invertebrates nes (3%)
• Pharmaceutical products (1%)

I mean really....Look at that. The DPRK almost exclusively purchases commodities from Russia and almost exclusively sells value-added goods that cost more to produce elsewhere. The only reasons that happens in such such dramatic proportions are:

• In an equitable "arm's length" exchange pattern between equals -- the "value-added" goods producer has an inordinately lower cost of "everything" -- labor, production facilities, and land.
• One party to the exchange is manipulating the other, be it willfully or because the "compromised" party is so "thirsty" it has no real choice but to countenance the manipulation.

Comparative advantage is what it is, but the picture one sees in the trade relations between Russia and the DPRK is abnormal. (It's that way between the PRC and DPRK too.) Apparently, KJU is happier being used and "tilting at windmills" at his people's expense (along with manipulating them), than he is evolving to have a mutually more beneficial relationship with South Korea and the rest of the world.
​

At any rate, that member seems keen to assert everyone else is clueless, yet I've seen nothing -- no facts, not data, no credible or even plausible analysis from him and that would support the notion that he is to any materially relevant degree "clued in" on the DPRK.

My solution....

Create a phony crisis in Seoul that would necessitate an evacuation of the entire city and surrounding areas. Make it large enough to get people scared. A crisis on the order of a nuclear breach of highly toxic radioactive material. I don’t know if Seoul has a reactor near it, but it could be a type of military accident where the entire city had to be evacuated.....

Wow! Notwithstanding what I wrote in response to IDB this post, that's taking "manufactured conflict" to a whole new level.

Tom Clancy's novels because he researched every aspect of the spycraft in his books down to a gnat's ass. That is why they are such good books

OT:
Yes, he did, and he incorporated ideas and plot lines based on every bit of that research into this novels, thus making the later ones often enough Tolstoyic in length. LOL I am not the only one who noticed. Over time, I began to notice fewer and fewer of my fellow passengers cruising through a Clancy novel while on a long flight, most opting for something considerably shorter and that could be started and finished in the course of the trip. LOL

Un and the NK leaders are fanatics. And fanatics want to be heard and treated as relevant. They are incensed at the idea of their self proclaimed military might being ignored as though it were a flyspeck. So Un issues these crack pot statements about going to war, attacking South Korea, etc.

Again, these people are fanatics. There is no possible diplomatic reconciliation with fanatics. So the best way is to ignore them. But with a vigilant eye.

I would tend to agree with you; however, "rattling" a nuclear "sabre" moves things to a wholly different realm. KJU is just the sort of dude who, IMO, would, in the face of international ignominy "act out" by actually launching a nuclear weapon in so-called retaliation for or to preempt threats/offenses real or imagined. I think the time for relegating him to the nation-state equivalent of an "ignore list" has passed.

Send in an assassin. Dude needs to be off'd....then his people might wake up and fight for their freedom instead of being lemmings while they starve.

If by "his people" you mean the DPRK masses, one wonders whether they would or not. The place seems ripe for just about anything other than that happening. It's hard to know just how paranoid DPRK masses are. One hopes that proportionately there are fewer conspiracy theorizing paranoiacs than in the U.S., but how can one be sure of that? Hell, even among the U.S. masses, or even the membership here, look at how few people actually avail themselves of the great wealth of very high quality information available on myriad topics and instead prefer to dwell in the land of innuendo and irrationality. Among the even more poorly and inaccurately informed/educated DPRK citizenry, I would expect a vastly greater share of that sort of willfully ignorant conjecture. Thus, "waking up" is not likely what they'll do, at least not anytime soon.

if it wasn't for China there would be no N Korea

That's quite so.

1. Chronology of U.S.-North Korean Nuclear and Missile Diplomacy
   
2. China’s Last Ally: Beijing’s Policy toward North Korea during the U.S.–China Rapprochement, 1970–1975
   
3. The China-North Korea Relationship
   
4. China's foreign policy toward North Korea: the nuclear issue

How has it failed? Every April they have a Natiuonal Unity Day and bellow threats and loudly fart kimchee. And then every May they go back to doing nothing.

Over the years, there have only been empty threats.

The stated objective has been to prevent North Korea from developing a nuclear ability. Going back to former President Bill Clinton, we have been assured by them that they are not developing them. Now they have them and are developing ballistic missiles. Best estimates seem to be that by the end of President Trump's first term, they will have the ability to reach our West Coast with a nuclear device.

I'd say our ONLY solution is to get China involved Anything we might do could very well end in disaster

See the content at numbered link #3 just above and either of the last two links here. Barring any actual bellicose acts by the DPRK, I can't see any reason for thinking China will become any more involved that it already is.

 

[Markle]

Best estimate? Says who? All they ever do is bluster. Exporting weapons is a different issue.

Yeah, they "BLUSTERED" that they had shut down the nuclear weapon program. How did that work out? They have the nuclear weapons and are obviously testing and learning about ICBM's. Estimates are based on what they are doing, not what they say.

 

[Markle]

There is only one clean solution. Assist China in the assassination of the NK royal family and subsequent annexation of NK.

It's doable.

In your fantasy world.

 

[Markle]

Think we should send the NK leader pictures of what 2 old atom bombs did to japan ? They might get the hint?

Which is why he has built his own and is building the rockets to send them to our West Coast. Probable by the end of President Trump's first term.

 

[Markle]

Not ALL the diplomatic actions have been tried. Like I said, warning China the US will be 'forced' to place missile defense systems and NUKES about 15-20 minute flight time from China because of North Korea's actions, I think China will find new motivation to get something done with N. Korea.

Diplomatic actions have failed since before the Bill Clinton administration.

Threatening China is foolish. We have nukes within 15-20 minutes of China every day. We have nuclear subs on their coast and in the China Sea. We already have missile defense systems.

My idea is one realistic, possible route. With variations of course.

 

[easyt65]

The United States WILL NOT use nuclear weapons against North Korea unless North Korea attempts to / uses them FIRST! NOT going to happen...IMHO.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The United States WILL NOT use nuclear weapons against North Korea unless North Korea attempts to / uses them FIRST! NOT going to happen...IMHO.

Bad etiquette, huh?

 

[Onyx]

Like you do? Mister... Tomahawk missiles can't do damage to "hardened bunkers" and they won't destroy a plane just do a little damage to it.

I wasn't wrong, dipshit. Those shelters are designed to withstand a 200kg bomb. You might of noticed that none of the aircraft shelters in the pictures of the Shayrat aibase had collapsed. It's also evidence that you brainwashed sycophants will absorb whatever lies you are fed, because you have no independent thought or critical thinking skills. You idiots really need to re-evaluate just how stupid you actually are.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

We should lift sanctions and promote trade and tourism. How about that peace treaty that we have been blocking since 1953? I think that is about due. The Korean people have been wanting to reunify for a long time.

No way in hell will the little fat bastard let his people discover the truth about western society.

 

[Votto]

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:

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.​

***********

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.​

**********

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.​

So...how should we approach this latest crisis with NK?

A solution? Tell China if they agree to help take out NK they can have the entire country for themselves.