Suggestions on N. Korea

Just because this hasn't been posted yet.



????????????????????????????????????????



Chris

 

Call up Red China and inform them that we're going to tear up our trade agreements with them, unless North Korea backs down. Watch how fast Kim Jong Ill does a 180-degree turnaround.


Bruce

 

Exploratory Committee???

Form an exploratory committee comprised of:

Chuck Norris
Charles Bronson
Sylvester Stallone
Jean-Claude Van Damme
Steven Segall

Send the committee into North Korea, give them two weeks to accomplish the mission, and if all works according to Hollywood----our problems are solved.

 

Re: Exploratory Committee???

That's not a realistic solution, Russell. Kim Jong Il is crazy, and he's got nukes. We can't hold anything back.

We have to add Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis to the team. Clint Eastwood may be a little old for field work these days, but he'd make a great steely-eyed commander back at headquarters.

Of course, we can always count on our stalwart allies, the Brits. If James Bond can see his way to prying his martini from one hand and his latest babe from the other, we could certainly use his help, kicking North Korean butt in a tuxedo.

 

What to do about North Korea... That's a difficult question. Every alternative seems like a bad one.

1. Leave North Korea alone. Let them build nuclear weapons and ICBM's if they want to.

Unfortunately, these guys are probably the worlds most active proliferators. Their country is an economic disaster and it is on the verge of collapse. All of their resources are diverted into their military and security services. They need hard currency and oil imports badly, and all they have to offer other nations is their military technology.

What's more, I'm not really confident of Kim Jong Il's sanity. He is a thoroughly bizarre figure who rules like a god in his country. (North Korea is probably history's closest approximation to the society pictured in the novel '1984'.) "The Dear Leader" has a history of brinkmanship and intimidation, which he is illustrating right now. If he had operational ICBMs that could hit the US, he most likely would threaten to use them in an attempt to extort concessions from us. And he would probably like it tremendously is other insurgent powers around the world could threaten the West in the same way (they would have little reason to threaten him), so he may give al Quaida or someone like them nuclear weapons purely as a (very profitable) way to stir up shit.

If we let the North keep its nuclear program but clamped a blockade on them to try to prevent weapons exports, they have already told us that they would consider it an act of war.

Whats more, Kim himself probably wouldn't be satisfied if we just tried to ignore him. He's causing trouble precisely to get our attention. And he will continue to push and threaten with every weapon at his disposal until the world bends a knee to him and showers him with aid in exchange for not being killed. He may or may not be bluffing, but the situation becomes more explosive the further it's pushed.

Negotiating a disarmament in exchange for aid deal, like Bill Clinton tried to do, isn't realistic. Obviously Kim Jong Il would never agree to give up his weapons in exchange for that aid, since to him it would be obvious that it was the weapons that got him the aid in the first place, along with any world stature that he has. He has already shown that he will cheat, ignoring his own promises, when he admitted that the North had been conducting nuclear weapons development in violation of the Clinton agreement.

No, a madman with nukes is too scary a prospect for me to be comfortable with appeasement. The benign neglect strategy won't work.

2. Launch a preemptive strike to take out North Korea's nuclear and missile infrastructure.

This is a better option, except that it won't work. It would trigger a new Korean war. That means that a 'Small-preemption' strategy will inevitably escalate into a 'Large-Overthrow the North' situation.

3. Second Korean War.

I think that the North's military is far less capable than most commentators seem to think. Most of its equipment consists of crude knock-offs of Chinese copies of obsolete Soviet designs. Although his forces outnumber the South Koreans and the US forces in Korea combined, our technological advantage is astronomical. Their air force would be swept from the sky in short order, and with air superiority over the battlefield his forces would be at even more of a disadvantage. Besides, the North probably would start having fuel shortages pretty quickly. Except for one thing, this would probably be a slaughter that would resemble the Gulf War.

The wild card is (obviously) weapons of mass destruction. If it is true that the North has a couple of nuclear weapons already, they probably could get one of them 20 miles down to Seoul if they were motivated. Their initial armored rush might penetrate that far, and they could probably get a plane through. If the nuclear bomb is already weaponized into a missile warhead, that would be that. And even without nuclear weapons, there is the spectre of tens of thousands of long range artillery shells falling on Seoul, many containing nerve gas and biological agents. The guns could be silenced, but probably not before the damage was done. We are talking mass casulties here, and the destruction of the South's capital and greatest city.

The South Koreans are not thrilled with that prospect, and combining it with their growing anti-Americanism and with their ethnic solidarity with their Northern brethen (they are kind of proud of Koreans having nuclear weapons and standing tall), they are increasingly embracing the appeasement option.

So if we launched any kind of preemptive strike, the South would oppose it. Of course, when the North crossed the DMZ, the South would immediately jump back into America's arms and start screaming for help.

So...

Do we sacrifice a million South Korean lives now, or do we wait and confront the probability that the situation will unravel even farther, hoping that a miracle like a coup in the North saves us?

I'm glad that it isn't my decision. I'm not prepared to seize either option.

Apparently Bush's response is to sweep it under the rug, downplaying the danger, and to concentrate all the more on his Quixotic campaign in Iraq.

 

THE simplest solution...

might just be what I think the Bushies are up to...

Bring China around to seeing that Kim's more a liability than an asset!

"But how?" you ask.
Fact: last month it was reported that for the first time in history, more Japanese trade was conducted with China than the US. If China values the security of the Japanese export market more than Kim, then perhaps he'll get the Chinese boot!!

Perhaps even more interesting quid pro quos will emerge after the War in Iraq is over....

--Orson

 

Re: THE simplest solution...

No, my question is "why?"

What would "bringing China around to seeing that Kim's more of a liability than an asset" contribute to anything? How would that represent a solution? (Assuming that they don't perceive him as being a liability already.)

It might help to clear the decks for some kind of concerted multilateral action against North Korea, be that sanctions or a military campaign, but we still are faced with finding a course of action that doen't lead to either:

A: further North Korean proliferation of missile and WMD technology, their development of nuclear armed ICBM's and their use of same in attempts to extort protection money from the rest of the world in order to fund their failed regime, or...

B: a war in which a massive number of Koreans die and the city of Seoul is devastated.

How, precisely, would China give him the "boot" without his killing his hostages?

 

When China sees it in their best interest Kim Il Dork would be squashed like a bug.

Unfortunately China probably likes to see America sweat. There are still many outstanding issues between the US and China, such as Taiwan and Tibet.

In any second Korean War, the reaction of China would not be easily predictable.

 

Well, gang, the latest is that Dear Leader, just as Glorious Leader before him, has trotted out his firstborn with a public announcement that he is being groomed for the succession. Perhaps Warm-and-Fuzzy Leader (unlike the others, this title is not yet official in the DPRK) will be amenable to negotiations while Dear Leader maintains face through public displays of stern Stalinist resolve. Or not.

 

While this might be an effective strategy, you must remember the recent US military plane that had an "emergency landing" in China last year. How effective was the US in handling this seemingly simple matter? Totally ineffective. The US has no idea whatsoever about how to deal with China. China won every exchange. The US got (some of) their plane back but what China got was:
1) everything off the plane they wanted
2) interrogation of all "prisoners" during the entire length of the incident
3) an enormousely enlarged sense of how far they can push the US (and still get their way)
I'd agree that China has the most influence over North Korea but imagining that we can "force" China to exert that influence is not simply silly, it's dangerous.
Jack

 

Re: Exploratory Committee???

Sorry Russell, none of these guys have made a decent movie in years (that is, assuming that you subscribe to the American definition of what constitutes a decent movie). These days you might have to go with Jet Li and Vin Diesel.
Jack
BTW, tell Bill that Arnold and Bruce are passe as well.

 

Usually I can agree with Bills analysis but it's entirely unclear to me how he feels that he knows more than the "experts" in this area. If he were willing to offer up his own son in this war then he might not be so quick to write off the north Koreans. They showed some real ability to wage war back in the '50's and their leaders craziness can only be interpreted as dangerousness today. Not wanting to fight a war on two fronts, Bush will turn his attention to NK once Iraq is done (whatever that means). Please believe that a portion of what Bush is doing in regards to Iraq is sending a message to NK. If Bush invades Iraq then the message to NK is, "You're next." With Sadaam gone and the smoke slowly fading over Baghdad, you might reasonably expect to hear some different noises from both China and North Korea.
Jack

 

Re: THE simplest solution...

China will do what China will do. Believing that the US will "bring China around," is foolish and has no precedent. The US hasn't been able to "bring China around" to anything, ever. Sure, the economics are there, but don't forget...while the US government was busting their balls trying to get a military aircraft (shot down by the Chinese) back from China, they were also busy granting to China "most favored nation" trade status. Moral of the story . . .
there's not always a nice close link between US foreign policy and US trade relations. Don't bet that US business interests will support an isolation of China, they'd be cutting their own throats.
"Money makes the world go 'round." Like it or not.
Jack

 

Re: Re: THE simplest solution...

Well, Jack--I do recall the example of a certain US Commander Perry--an offshore example Powell may well have recalled for them this past week when he reportedly said we see eye-to eye (or some such notion).

If China perceives Kim Jong Ill as more liability than asset, then anything is possible: multi-lateral, unilateral action, a coup d'etat, or assasination...Whatever keeps their favorite puppet petable, paletable, or pocketable.

Inscrutable as the Chinese insist on remaining, Kim may even have a sudden "illness"--in true Stalinist style--ending up in many years seclusion before his "death" is discretly announced, while many changes occur to North Korea in the meantime.

--Orson

 

Re: Re: Re: THE simplest solution...

Yes, I agree. It's entirely possible that China will exert influence on North Korea. My point is, they will do so because they are acting in their own self interest, not because the USA "brought them along." (this quoted phrase is the entire point of my posting in this thread, if you'll recall). That phrase implies that the USA has control of Chinas foreign policy. My point is that the USA has substantial difficulty establishing its own consistent foreign policy without claiming control of Chinas.
Jack

 

Bill correctly points out the problem with North Korea. North Korea is also the lesson with Iraq. If they have nuclear capability, they have to be dealt with differently. A war in the area will not work, and what can hit South Korea could probably hit Tokyo. We have probably failed in keeping North Korea from their weapons, and now may face a deadly foe. The problem with a "pre-emptive" strike is that it may not be pre-emptive. If we fire and miss the missles, the most like targets would be Japan or South Korea.

Jack also points out the other problem, China is not friendly and will not do anything we ask. If they perceive Ill as a threat, they will act.

As far as China caring anything about the devastation or loss of innocent life, that is western thinking. Remember Tianamen Square? It is terribly American to assume everyone plays by the same rules we do, or even retains the same value system.

 

TRUE--and we seem to be back to the Old Churchillian line about the Soviet Union, only applied to China: a mystery wrapped inside a riddle inside and enigma. Or am I being obstuse, not seeing their naked self-interest in vexing the US in oder to get to, as they so desperately wish, Taiwan?

Daniel Drezer, Poli Sci at Chicago, opined that everybody was missing the fact that China might be silent about the festering North Korea issue because of a power struggle at the top!
Now Newsweek sums the situation up:

"At first glance, China has undergone historic change with the appointment of Hu Jintao as China’s communist party leader. But in reality, the Bush administration has made little progress....

"Neither Bush nor Powell could get Beijing to exert more pressure on North Korea—at least in public. Powell ought to have stood a better chance than Bush. After all, North Korea has kicked out its U.N. nuclear inspectors and re-opened its frozen nuclear site at Yongbyon. This time....[t]he whole world can see just how badly the North can behave.

"Yet China still refuses to engage Pyongyang in the tough way the United States has been demanding for the last year. After his talks in Beijing, Powell could only hint at some vague 'ideas' the administration would like to see China adopt 'in the days and weeks ahead'.

"Even on the most basic step of how to negotiate with the North, there has been no meeting of minds."

But "reading the tea leaves" is like "seeing" icebergs--there's always more to the story, even if we westerners aren't privy to the details.

--Orson

 

My only difference with Orson here, and it's not really a difference, it's more of an addition, is that it would be a serious mistake to think that Chinas ambitions stop at Taiwan.
Jack

 

Korea Times confirms N Korean Missile in Alaska

This old alarming newstory is now confirmed by Korea Times (March 4,2003):

"NK Missile Warhead Found in Alaska"

The warhead of a long-range missile test-fired by North Korea was found in the U.S. state of Alaska, a report to the National Assembly revealed yesterday.

``According to a U.S. document, the last piece of a missile warhead fired by North Korea was found in Alaska,¡¯¡¯ former Japanese foreign minister Taro Nakayama was quoted as saying in the report. ``Washington, as well as Tokyo, has so far underrated Pyongyang¡¯s missile capabilities.¡¯¡¯

The report was the culmination of monthlong activities of the Assembly¡¯s overseas delegation to five countries over the North Korean nuclear crisis. The Assembly dispatched groups of lawmakers to the United States, Japan, China, Russia and European Union last month to collect information and opinions on the international issue.

The team sent to Japan, headed by Rep. Kim Hak-won of the United Liberal Democrats, reported, ``Nakayama said Washington has come to put more emphasis on trilateral cooperation between South Korea, Japan and the United States since it recognized that the three countries are within the range of North Korean missiles.¡¯¡¯http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/nation/200303/kt2003030417272311970.htm

 

Having served as a commander in South Korea, I'm concerned about North Korea's conventional capabilities--in the short term. Our base (Osan) was about 60 miles from the DMZ. Working in aircraft maintenance, our operating plan was to launch our jets, but not return them. We didn't expect there to be a base for them to return to.

That said, the long-term look would be that the North could not sustain the attack; they don't have the resources, other than a lot of hungry soldiers.

Air superiority would be established almost immediately by the U.S.

Seoul would be destroyed. More than 10M people live in and around it. The refugee situation would be astounding.

The North would be able to push about halfway down the peninsula before being stopped.

The destruction, even without nukes, would be overwhelming.

The difference between that scenario and the one played out in the Korean War is that the Chinese won't get involved--unless we push to the Yalu. They'd object to that, not wanting the U.S. so close to their soil. But there's little reason to think they'd enter the conflict, or even provide support. Especially if, as noted above, we back-channel with them.

Unfortunately, the Russians, Chinese, Japanese, and South Koreans have the most to lose, yet seem unwilling to contain the North.

I prefer the U.S. gets out of there and leaves it to the locals. I also believe that about our permanent commitments in Western Europe and the Middle East. We can be a much better participant in world affairs--and get better allied support--if we stopped trying to police the planet.

We need bases in Aruba, Cancun, places like that. Fun, not guns.