Does US want to help Koreans unite or to attack them?

[asahi]

@XT

Kind of circular logic then. Your ‘He’s calculating that he can build a nuclear arsenal that would make the US think twice about an assault’ is an assertion I’ve seen a lot, but unless one is crazy AND stupid it makes no logical sense. We haven’t assaulted them in over 60 years, much of that time they didn’t have nuclear weapons.

Right, but there was a relative state of stability in the region. And as you correctly pointed out in a previous post on another NK thread, there were other factors that came into play as well (i.e. the Soviets). There are differences between now and the 1980s, which we’ve already discussed in several threads.

@XT

They don’t want nukes to be safe from a US invasion or attack, they want them to blackmail and, probably, because they see them as a potential tool to reunite Korea under their banner.

“Blackmail” for what purpose? To loosen up the sanctions and the pressure on their regime, and to establish firm limits on what America can do without facing grave consequences. So yes, if you want to call that “blackmail”, then I would agree. I tend to call it “leverage” but we can call it blackmail if you want.

I see a different trend on the horizon. I don’t think the US is interested in invading and occupying North Korea; rather, we would simply blow it to pieces and figure out what to do with it later. This wouldn’t be another Iraq. Any war with North Korea would be result in the the complete annihilation of a perceived threat, and it would also serve as a stark, terrifying warning to others. My guess is, we’re moving away from nation building and probably just as likely to engage in nation destruction.

It’s this outcome in mind when I argue that North Korea wants nuclear weapons to protect itself. I’m not the only one who believes that a war with North Korea would be apocalyptic; North Korea believes this as well and they’re preparing for it. That’s why it wants nuclear weapons. Right now, all North Korea can say is “Fuck with us, and we’ll take out Tokyo and Seoul - and maybe, if we’re lucky, Guam or Hawaii.” What it would like to say is, “Fuck with us, and we’ll take out Los Angeles, New York, and Washington - and your bread basket for good measure.” There’s a world of difference in those two statements.

[XT]

@asahi

Right, but there was a relative state of stability in the region. And as you correctly pointed out in a previous post on another NK thread, there were other factors that came into play as well (i.e. the Soviets). There are differences between now and the 1980s, which we’ve already discussed in several threads.

Sure, but the biggest difference is the current attitude from China. The main thing that shielded the NKs from some theoretical US attack (after, say, one of they myriad escapades such as sinking an SK warship, shelling an SK village or sneaking across the border to murder SK citizens or soldiers…to name a very few) was China. And the reason that’s changed at all is directly due to their nuclear and missile weapons program. So, you see, they have made themselves MORE vulnerable than they were by pursuing both, not increased their security.

“Blackmail” for what purpose? To loosen up the sanctions and the pressure on their regime, and to establish firm limits on what America can do without facing grave consequences. So yes, if you want to call that “blackmail”, then I would agree. I tend to call it “leverage” but we can call it blackmail if you want.

Well, IMHO you’d be wrong, just like they are if they actually believe this (which I doubt). Let me ask you…why would the sanctions magically disappear if they got nuclear weapons? Let’s take a look…they got them in 2006 (officially…they almost certainly had something years before that and were working on it a decade or so before most likely). Have the sanctions gone away? They have successfully tested a missile that, at least in theory could reach the US with, at least in theory a nuclear weapon bolted on. Have the sanctions gone away?

No, they aren’t going to be able to use these things to ‘leverage’ their way out of sanctions, since, historically it hasn’t done anything for them (why would it change now?), nor use them to halt the next way of sanctions (assuming there is one and that the current ones calm down sometime) when they come for doing whatever they do next time. What the ‘blackmail’ would entail is using them, somehow, to force the US out of South Korea. How they think they would do that is a mystery, but so much of this plan is so stupid and counterproductive it’s hard to say what THEY think they can do.

I see a different trend on the horizon. I don’t think the US is interested in invading and occupying North Korea; rather, we would simply blow it to pieces and figure out what to do with it later. This wouldn’t be another Iraq. Any war with North Korea would be result in the the complete annihilation of a perceived threat, and it would also serve as a stark, terrifying warning to others. My guess is, we’re moving away from nation building and probably just as likely to engage in nation destruction.

The biggest trend I see is a US that is now more focused on that region, whereas in the recent past we were almost completely focused on the ME to the exclusion of all else. Of all the counterproductive things the NKs have done, this is probably the most destructive to their (and the Chinese) plans. I don’t think the US is going to invade or attack…I think the US is going to push the NK regime and the Chinese until the NK regime either conforms (which is unlikely in the extreme) or breaks. We will push them until their backs are to the wall and they will either have to attack and be destroyed or they will fold…and drop a humanitarian crisis on the region and the world either way. The only way this softens is if we get that orange haired idiot out of the office, assuming this situation can last until after 2020.

It’s this outcome in mind when I argue that North Korea wants nuclear weapons to protect itself. I’m not the only one who believes that a war with North Korea would be apocalyptic; North Korea believes this as well and they’re preparing for it. That’s why it wants nuclear weapons. Right now, all North Korea can say is “Fuck with us, and we’ll take out Tokyo and Seoul - and maybe, if we’re lucky, Guam or Hawaii.” What it would like to say is, “Fuck with us, and we’ll take out Los Angeles, New York, and Washington - and your bread basket for good measure.” There’s a world of difference in those two statements.

Well, we shall have to agree to disagree I guess. I don’t believe that NK wants those weapons to protect itself. If it was interested in actually protecting itself as it’s primary goal it would have stayed with the status quo and it’s relationship with China and used the leverage it actually already had from having some to win concessions from the rest of the world by demonstrating it’s willingness to dismantle further production and it’s various missile programs. By doing what they have done they have actually done the exact opposite of making themselves more secure since at this point China is an unknown, where once it was solidly on the NK side and would have been there to shield them if nowhere else than in the UNSC with it’s veto.

[asahi]

@XT

Sure, but the biggest difference is the current attitude from China. The main thing that shielded the NKs from some theoretical US attack (after, say, one of they myriad escapades such as sinking an SK warship, shelling an SK village or sneaking across the border to murder SK citizens or soldiers…to name a very few) was China. And the reason that’s changed at all is directly due to their nuclear and missile weapons program. So, you see, they have made themselves MORE vulnerable than they were by pursuing both, not increased their security.

In one sense, yes, they have made themselves more vulnerable. You could argue that to a certain extent. But does North Korea want to remain reliant upon one nation, China, forever? What if China’s economy collapses? Then what? With whom do they do business? I’m not sure North Korea fears a Chinese collapse anytime soon, but the question remains: is it smart to depend so heavily on one power? Or do you try to get the attention of others?

@XT

Let me ask you…why would the sanctions magically disappear if they got nuclear weapons? Let’s take a look…they got them in 2006 (officially…they almost certainly had something years before that and were working on it a decade or so before most likely). Have the sanctions gone away? They have successfully tested a missile that, at least in theory could reach the US with, at least in theory a nuclear weapon bolted on. Have the sanctions gone away?

Because maybe North Korea, once it feels confident enough that it has established its nuclear might, actually approaches the United States to make some sort of deal. There’s some face-saving involved here, but also it goes back to leverage. If you’re North Korea, which is probably a better bargain: do you approach the United States and agree to stop your nuclear weapons program before you have even one single solitary ICBM? Or, do you establish the fact that you probably have 10-25 ICBMS, with a high degree of probability that at least one of them can reach an American city, and then approach the US with a proposal to stop building them, and to agree to some sort of limited scope treaty? Who knows what that treaty might involve, but at this point North Korea is offering the world a chance to stabilize the region and, I think, quite possibly in a position to offer the United States a peace that might allow both sides to save some face. This is somewhat similar to Mao’s China warming up to Nixon’s America, which is not to say that these are congruent examples, but that some similarities do exist.

I think you (either you or Cory El, can’t remember) raised a valid question or point earlier, which is how does North Korea (and the world) deal with its ideological disaster? How does a country like North Korea, which governs by cult, become ‘normal’? I don’t have the answer, and no treaty with the United States will address that question. North Korea will still be obsessed with controlling its people for years to come, but perhaps China might provide some sort of example on how to transition from a cult of personality regime to a more ‘normal’ authoritarian state

[XT]

@asahi

In one sense, yes, they have made themselves more vulnerable. You could argue that to a certain extent. But does North Korea want to remain reliant upon one nation, China, forever? What if China’s economy collapses? Then what? With whom do they do business? I’m not sure North Korea fears a Chinese collapse anytime soon, but the question remains: is it smart to depend so heavily on one power? Or do you try to get the attention of others?

Well, a couple of things here. First off, they have been absolutely dependent on one state or another (despite their Juche rhetoric) basically for the entire history of their country. Second, ‘want’ isn’t a factor…they have zero choices. They ARE completely dependent on China and there is no reasonable or realistic pathway away from that for them. In order to not be dependent on China, they would have to join the international community, and that is simply not going to happen for a variety of reasons. If China’s economy collapses then they are basically fucked. They have a minuscule amount of trade with anyone other than China, and they have already pushed their various criminal escapades and slavery as far as it will go wrt getting hard currency…and their nuclear and missile antics have closed off what little other options they might have had.

I’m unsure what ‘attention’ of others you are speaking of. Or how, no matter how skewed one’s perspective is they could believe that this sort of attention would possibly make them less dependent on China or position themselves for self-reliance. If anything, this push for nuclear weapons has, basically across the board, made them more vulnerable, more isolated and put a spotlight on how dependent they are not only on China but on, ironically, the US and South Korea.

I think you (either you or Cory El, can’t remember) raised a valid question or point earlier, which is how does North Korea (and the world) deal with its ideological disaster? How does a country like North Korea, which governs by cult, become ‘normal’? I don’t have the answer, and no treaty with the United States will address that question. North Korea will still be obsessed with controlling its people for years to come, but perhaps China might provide some sort of example on how to transition from a cult of personality regime to a more ‘normal’ authoritarian state

Probably Cory El, since it’s a good point. Basically, it’s the fundamental question that has no real answer since the aims and the reality are mutually exclusive. The earlier Kim’s tried to walk the tightrope between maintaining and strengthening their image and the projection of self-reliance and the reality that they can’t possibly actually make it work without connections to international markets, especially China, the US and South Korea. This is why they have gone through a series of famines, and they are going through one yet again (of course, mismanagement and just clueless fuckups also play a big part, as always in a Communist system).

As for China’s example, well…as dysfunctional as it is, I don’t think it will work for North Korea. The Kim’s have built a dynastic cult of personality that is very different than even Mao’s mantle (or Xi’s today). They have also taken disinformation and the rewriting of history to whole new levels…they CAN’T allow even the Great Wall of China levels of censorship and historical change. Hell, TODAY they heavily guard against information dissemination from CHINA, one of the most censored and controlled countries on earth, leaving aside North Korea of course. Even that exposure is felt to be too much in North Korea, even though they have to accept that some transfer will happen if they have even rudimentary trade connections with the country. China has to accept a certain level when connecting via trade to the rest of the world, and they spend a hell of a lot of money trying to control that and control the message. And they can, to an extent, because they are such a huge market. North Korea will never be that market, nor would they be able to command those sorts of controls. The very thing that could save North Korea (or at least lower they dysfunctionality to that of, oh, say Vietnam or China itself) would destroy the grip of the Kim family on the country (and probably the entire elite power base as well).

[constanze]

@Corry_El

Again I’d recommend the article in link above, and suggest you find a direct refutation of its argument if you can, rather than the rather hackneyed argument you just gave.

I did read the article, but I don’t find it convincing. The main Point is about “conventional war” against NK, and how nobody wants that.

But that is not what NK is afraid of. The rhethoric, back during Bush already, among the Hawks in US, was to “bomb a Country to glass” - using nuclear, not conventional ground troups. Because US has always favoured bombing, no matter how many foreign civilians die, over having to loose one US soldier.

The Assertion of one advisor, described as Hawkish, that NK wants to use the nuclear Arsenal not just for bargaining, but to actually re-unify South Korea, is not proven in any plausible way. The only reasoning is “US never has and doesn’t want a conventional conquering of NK, so the nukes must not be in deterrence of that, but for another purpose”

Only I have never heard that Argument. The Argument is that US would bomb NK with nukes if they think they can get away with it. (And with Trump, they would bomb NK if he’s upset about his twitter or wants to distract).

And kind of irrelevant one also. What did the Iraq War prove about the US from a NK view that the Korean War didn’t already?

The Korean War proved that a stalemate, with fixed steps of sanctions - talks - Lifting sanctions - could be maintained.
Iraq threw all of that out of the window, because Saddam was following the same script, and then Bush got his panties in a Twist, the hawks wanted Money (and there were pallets full of Money “lost” after the war for the contractors), so the cycle changed to a war.

Where all rational people knew the answer was that forcing regime change is NK with conventional military force was basically impractical. And the Iraq War said nothing about a US willingness to make preemptive nuclear attacks either.

Rational People warned that the Iraq war was a bad idea, wouldn’t work, yet Bush went ahead anyway. He could afford to use easy ground fource because Saddam had voluntarily pulled his own teeth (and there were different Groups in the Country, some of which were opposed to him).

Because most People know that conventional war wouldn’t work in NK, and because since Bush the Hawks have always said “Therefore, NK must be bombed to the ground before they become a danger to us”, NK is more worried after Iraq than before. It showed that a rabid-talking POTUS didn’t listen to rational People, but to the Hawks.
Since Kim is probably not entirely sane, either, and some of his Generals are also hawkish, escalation is the worst direction.

*despite the cottage industry in playing up the ‘big US reversal, from ally to enemy!’ of either of these countries the reality was not a huge amount of historical US relationship with either compared to NK.

The big reversal is not because of the historical US-NK relationship. It’s because since the NK-US war, there was Tension; and on top of that, Iraq showed that no matter what hoops a foreign Country jumped through, nobody was safe. It was no longer the established pattern, both sides hoping to convince the other side of their Errors. Instead, it meant that all threats by US hawks were not played up for effect, or lunatic Outsiders, they could become real.

Which is not a good mesage to send to a paranoid, maybe slightly outside reality, Person.
If negotiations won’t work, because the US wants to destroy him - not Change the Regime, not invade NK, just destroy the whole Country - then he might as well go out with a bang.
The only reason why US hasn’t used nukes so far seems to be that they don’t want fallout on South Korea; or because they are not in a hurry to destroy every Country on their hitlist, they want to Keep the reliable enemies for sweep weeks.

[constanze]

@asahi

My guess is, we’re moving away from nation building and probably just as likely to engage in nation destruction.

What “Nation-building”? The US has a Long history of meddling in other countries (esp. South America) to further their own short-term Goals, even helping with the overthrow of democratic elected governments by aiding a dictator just to help US Business or out of commie fear.
The only Nation building I can think off of the top of my head is the Marshall plan - and the main Motivation for that was fear that a hungry and poor Europe would be easy Prey turning communist.

[constanze]

@XT

What the ‘blackmail’ would entail is using them, somehow, to force the US out of South Korea. How they think they would do that is a mystery, but so much of this plan is so stupid and counterproductive it’s hard to say what THEY think they can do.

That, to me, is the biggest unknown: do Kim and his advisors / Generals think that they can force a succesful Takeover of South Korea (with the leverage of Nuklear to Keep US away?) On one Hand, it seems like an impossibly big endeavour, to try and control the non-brainwashed South Koreans, or use his starving soldiers to Keep well-fed prosperous citizens under control and from rebelling.
On the other Hand, maybe he believes his own Propaganda by now (I feel reminded of East Germany: in the early years, while criticizing the System itself was not allowed, specific instances of doing things wrong was allowed, even encouraged to improve; and everybody knew that the numbers reported were fake. But in the last decades, the upper Level members of Politbüro started believing the fake numbers, and any criticism at all was disallowed, leading to a disconnect that meant the protests surprised them, and leaving them unable to quickly deal with crisis).

[asahi]

@constanze

What “Nation-building”? The US has a Long history of meddling in other countries (esp. South America) to further their own short-term Goals, even helping with the overthrow of democratic elected governments by aiding a dictator just to help US Business or out of commie fear.
The only Nation building I can think off of the top of my head is the Marshall plan - and the main Motivation for that was fear that a hungry and poor Europe would be easy Prey turning communist.

True, American behavior in many places is more like ‘police action’ than nation building. I would argue that Iraq and Afghanistan were (half-assed) attempts at nation-building. Bungled attempts. Incompetent attempts. Foolishly under-resourced attempts. But they were at least attempts to remake these countries into something other than what they were before. Or if you don’t accept that, then at minimum, they were occupations in an attempt to exploit for political and economic control. Americans entered those conflicts with massive troop and resource deployment in anticipation of having land and people to control. One assumption that has been made is that we’re not anywhere close to a war with North Korea because we’re not witnessing now (and probably never will ) a build-up, to which I say, North Korea is going to be different.

Again, I don’t have a crystal ball. I’m not saying a conflict is inevitable, but it’s a hell of a lot higher than people believe, and it is going to be unimaginably horrific if it happens.

[XT]

@asahi

True, American behavior in many places is more like ‘police action’ than nation building. I would argue that Iraq and Afghanistan were (half-assed) attempts at nation-building. Bungled attempts. Incompetent attempts. Foolishly under-resourced attempts. But they were at least attempts to remake these countries into something other than what they were before. Or if you don’t accept that, then at minimum, they were occupations in an attempt to exploit for political and economic control. Americans entered those conflicts with massive troop and resource deployment in anticipation of having land and people to control. One assumption that has been made is that we’re not anywhere close to a war with North Korea because we’re not witnessing now (and probably never will ) a build-up, to which I say, North Korea is going to be different.

Again, I don’t have a crystal ball. I’m not saying a conflict is inevitable, but it’s a hell of a lot higher than people believe, and it is going to be unimaginably horrific if it happens.

Only if you think (like constanze there) that the US would launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike on North Korea does a military option make any sense. As I’ve said earlier if we are talking about any sort of sane military option we simply don’t have the forces in place to do anything substantial wrt North Korea in an offensive capacity…we are geared and positioned for deterrence and defense, not offensive opperations or a large scale humanitarian crisis. Even if we assume that the US would in fact just pre-emptively use nukes, however, we still don’t have the logistics to support even the post-nuke occupation, so you’d have to assume we’d entertain a strategy of nuke and then shrug and allow the entire nation to disintegrate, flying apart in all directions with starving refugees fleeing across both borders and us with nothing we could do about it in the short term. Even if you think we are both evil and stupid enough to entertain that, you’d also have to believe that the US would do something like this despite knowing that China and South Korea (as well as most if not all of the rest of the world) would look, um, unfavorably on such an action. And I’m not talking about the protests wrt the Iraqi invasion level of unhappiness either…this would be way beyond that, and from our closest allies…this doesn’t even consider what China and the other regional unaligned powers would think.

That’s why no one is taking such assertions seriously. It’s simply beyond the realm of possibility. A US retaliatory strike after an NK attack? Yeah, that could happen, assuming the NKs are stupid enough to do something like that. But a US first strike with nukes? No way. And pretty much everything else reasonable is off the table thus far, since we aren’t positioned for it. If I squint REALLY hard and go out on a limb wrt how divorced Trump et al are from reality, I could maybe see a conventional surgical strike…but I seriously doubt the military play along, knowing that even there we aren’t positioned for what would come next, whether it succeeded or failed.

[DinoR]

@asahi

“Blackmail” for what purpose? To loosen up the sanctions and the pressure on their regime, and to establish firm limits on what America can do without facing grave consequences. So yes, if you want to call that “blackmail”, then I would agree. I tend to call it “leverage” but we can call it blackmail if you want.

It’s not just looking at the situation from a defensive mindset for them - limiting US threats to the regime. There’s an offensive piece for the Kim regimeas well. A major goal of the regime, since it’s inception, is the unification of Korea under Pyongyang. They came close once, even with early US involvement, and haven’t abandoned the goal. The US presence while presenting a threat also provides deterence to them pursuing their offensive goals. Nukes can be a lever to shift the balance of power on the peninsula. If they can convince the US that security guarantees to South Korea aren’t worth it, or even just make South Korea doubt them, the current strategic stalemate ends.

The strategic shift if the US backs away, doesn’t necessarily result in peaceful coexistence. Neither side’s all that attached to coexistence as separate nations. One side, by both word and deed, has a demonstrated willingness to consider reunification by force of arms. Your strategic proposals also come with some real risks of triggering the war you want to avoid.

[constanze]

@XT

Only if you think (like constanze there) that the US would launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike on North Korea does a military option make any sense.

Which the “advisor” in the linked article proposed as best solution, because otherwise Kim would use the Nukes as Lever to get the US to hold still while annexing South Korea.

The Problem is partly that (As Watzlawick wrote back about the cold war) it’s not about what one side would actually do in real life; it’s what the other side believes the first side would do.

And the Impression of US governments, Bush and Trump, is that they don’t care about Facts, reality, sanity, sensible plans, risks - they act even if 90% of the US disagrees with them.

Even if we assume that the US would in fact just pre-emptively use nukes, however, we still don’t have the logistics to support even the post-nuke occupation, so you’d have to assume we’d entertain a strategy of nuke and then shrug and allow the entire nation to disintegrate, flying apart in all directions with starving refugees fleeing across both borders and us with nothing we could do about it in the short term.

Again: Iraq showed that the US was ready to go to war without any plan in place on what to do afterwards. There was no plan on infrastructure, who to call for provisional government, what structure to give the government - no plan at all, yet Bush went ahead.

Also, would the US object to South Korea just taking in the refugees? Eh, they are all Koreans anyway…

Sure, it would be terrible for South Korea’s economy to feed so many People, and re-integrate them into their Society with the brainwashing and lack of modern life skills, but I don’t believe the US leaders would care about that (Again, see Iraq: it fell apart, and nobody cared).

A US retaliatory strike after an NK attack? Yeah, that could happen, assuming the NKs are stupid enough to do something like that.

It’s not like the US has a record of provoking “first strikes” (back then conventional) in order to shoot back legally…

If I squint REALLY hard and go out on a limb wrt how divorced Trump et al are from reality, I could maybe see a conventional surgical strike…but I seriously doubt the military play along, knowing that even there we aren’t positioned for what would come next, whether it succeeded or failed.

Trump as POTUS is commander in Chief of the Military, last time I looked. So when he says “Jump” the Military can only say “how high?”, right? It’s not like a lot of Generals refused orders during the Iraq war, either, despite the experts saying without a plan this would end in chaos.

[XT]

@constanze

Which the “advisor” in the linked article proposed as best solution, because otherwise Kim would use the Nukes as Lever to get the US to hold still while annexing South Korea.

And there were probably a dozen other ‘advisor’ types that said the ‘best’ solution was something completely different. From basically every perspective a US first strike using nukes would be the worst and least likely action, regardless of what this ‘advisor’ did or didn’t say is ‘best’.

The Problem is partly that (As Watzlawick wrote back about the cold war) it’s not about what one side would actually do in real life; it’s what the other side believes the first side would do.

Well, the North Korean’s don’t seem to be taking this particular threat very seriously, as they also haven’t changed their own stance substantially. So, not sure where you are going with this. Neither side, based on their ACTUAL actions as opposed to their rhetoric, seem to be thinking there is a likelihood of a war. US actual actions, in particular, don’t support this, as we wouldn’t be moving carriers to the region if we were going to do a pre-emptive nuclear strike.

And the Impression of US governments, Bush and Trump, is that they don’t care about Facts, reality, sanity, sensible plans, risks - they act even if 90% of the US disagrees with them.

I’d say that, especially wrt Trump (though Bush II as well), it’s the reality…facts and reality seem far down the list. But there are limits to all things, and Trump isn’t either king nor god emperor and can’t do whatever he likes how he likes it. As we’ve clearly seen.

Again: Iraq showed that the US was ready to go to war without any plan in place on what to do afterwards. There was no plan on infrastructure, who to call for provisional government, what structure to give the government - no plan at all, yet Bush went ahead.

No, you are absolutely wrong and this actually makes you case look worse to anyone who knows even the first thing about it. Iraq is the best evidence that the US is, in fact, doing dick all wrt actually preparing for an invasion of North Korea, or even preparing for a surgical strike. We built up for Iraq for months, and we clearly were STILL doing an invasion on the cheap. We did have a plan for the occupation, but the goals were different, and it was unrealistic and stupid…but we spent literally months preparing, building up and getting all the pieces in place. We aren’t doing any of that here.

It’s not like the US has a record of provoking “first strikes” (back then conventional) in order to shoot back legally…

Debatable, but, again, if we are trying to get them to shoot first so we can ‘legally’ shoot back we aren’t preparing very well for it. We’ve done dick all to have the things we’d need to shift over to offensive operations once we get them to shoot at us first, so either we are evil AND stupid or this is all a fantasy. I’m going with Occam on this one and calling fantasy. YMMV.

Trump as POTUS is commander in Chief of the Military, last time I looked. So when he says “Jump” the Military can only say “how high?”, right? It’s not like a lot of Generals refused orders during the Iraq war, either, despite the experts saying without a plan this would end in chaos.

No…not right. The US President is neither king nor emperor and he or she can’t simply do anything they want.

[asahi]

@DinoR

It’s not just looking at the situation from a defensive mindset for them - limiting US threats to the regime. There’s an offensive piece for the Kim regimeas well. A major goal of the regime, since it’s inception, is the unification of Korea under Pyongyang. They came close once, even with early US involvement, and haven’t abandoned the goal. The US presence while presenting a threat also provides deterence to them pursuing their offensive goals. Nukes can be a lever to shift the balance of power on the peninsula. If they can convince the US that security guarantees to South Korea aren’t worth it, or even just make South Korea doubt them, the current strategic stalemate ends.

The strategic shift if the US backs away, doesn’t necessarily result in peaceful coexistence. Neither side’s all that attached to coexistence as separate nations. One side, by both word and deed, has a demonstrated willingness to consider reunification by force of arms. Your strategic proposals also come with some real risks of triggering the war you want to avoid.

There is no way that North Korea will ever unify Korea under its regime – ever. South Korea is more than capable of defending itself in a conventional conflict and it has the resources and technology to make itself a nuclear power rather quickly (as does Japan). There’s no way in hell North Korea unified the Korean peninsula under its banner. People who believe that this is what’s on North Korea’s agenda are seriously underestimating South Korea’s capabilities.

[asahi]

@constanze

The Problem is partly that (As Watzlawick wrote back about the cold war) it’s not about what one side would actually do in real life; **it’s what the other side believes the first side would do. **

This is so very true. We almost had a full-on thermonuclear war in October of 1962 precisely for this reason. The circumstances are not entirely dissimilar to now, either. Russia wanted American missiles out of Turkey. The US said “Um, no.” Russia said, “Okay, well, guess what? Two can play that game!” To most Americans, the outcome of the Cuban Missile Crisis was that “JFK won” and the Ruskies moved their missiles out of Cuba. What most Americans don’t remember is that we agreed to move our missiles out of Turkey first. Again, nuclear weapons are leverage.

Nuclear weapons were leverage for China, too. The Chinese said “Hey, America, guess what? We have a bomb.” America said “Ah, bullshit. There’s no way you backwards ass people could have a bomb.” To which China said “Oh yeah? Watch this!” China proceeded to blast nuclear weapons - not just underground but above ground. They wanted to make damn sure that America realized they weren’t just talking about a bomb; they HAD a bomb. That was in 1964 or 65. By 1973, China and America were actually on speaking terms despite decades of bitter feelings over China’s communism and their intervention in Korea.

But here’s something else that Americans tend to forget: sanctions aren’t just sanctions. Sanctions are a form of war. Americans’ failure to understand this is perhaps the most dangerous miscalculation of all. The assumption is that sanctions can weaken a regime and destabilize a foe’s internal situation to the point where the “good” citizens of country X will rise up and fight their oppressors and “liberate” them, and become fast friends with the “leaders of the free world.” This is dangerously naive thinking. What sanctions represent to Kim Jung Un (and to Vladimir Putin for that matter) is the exact same thing that the oil embargo represented to Japan’s Hirohito. Economic war, information war, or a war fought with bombs and bullets, it’s all the same. War is war. Something to think about: Putin and Kim know that an uprising means not just a loss of power; it means spending their final days of life in captivity, before being murdered and having their corpse tossed on the steps of some governmental office. That’s what sanctions mean to them, and that’s why they’re desperate to take extreme measures against the United States, and the fact that we’re so ignorant to not understand this reality is a dangerous form of ignorance.

@constanze

It’s not like the US has a record of provoking “first strikes” (back then conventional) in order to shoot back legally…

This is all it would take: regardless of how horrific a war with North Korea would be, it has already been framed as a war to defend the American homeland. All one has to do is to look at what happened in Hawaii 2 weeks ago, when residents ran through the streets terrified. That was more than just a ‘false alarm’, that was evidence that Americans view the outside world as a menacing place. It would be very, very, very easy to sell a nuclear first strike on North Korea to the American people. It’s very easy to bend reality - Christ just look at what has happened in our most recent presidential election and what has happened since. And in 2003 - WMD’s anyone?!

@constanze

Trump as POTUS is commander in Chief of the Military, last time I looked. So when he says “Jump” the Military can only say “how high?”, right? It’s not like a lot of Generals refused orders during the Iraq war, either, despite the experts saying without a plan this would end in chaos.

I’m not even sure that Trump himself would be the strongest advocate for a war with North Korea - he could absolutely be convinced to go along with it for sure. But I suspect that there are already plenty of people in the Beltway - think tanks, retired generals, and even old Cold Warriors in the Pentagon - who believe a first strike on North Korea is warranted. And even if they don’t believe in striking first, there’s an equally disturbing and realistic scenario, which is that we assume the worst about KJU and conclude that he’s “crazy”. If we actually believe that Kim Jung Un is, in fact, “crazy” and not moored to reality…then it obviously invites a preemptive attack.

[madsircool]

@asahi

This is so very true. We almost had a full-on thermonuclear war in October of 1962 precisely for this reason. The circumstances are not entirely dissimilar to now, either. Russia wanted American missiles out of Turkey. The US said “Um, no.” Russia said, “Okay, well, guess what? Two can play that game!” To most Americans, the outcome of the Cuban Missile Crisis was that “JFK won” and the Ruskies moved their missiles out of Cuba. What most Americans don’t remember is that we agreed to move our missiles out of Turkey first. Again, nuclear weapons are leverage.

Nuclear weapons were leverage for China, too. The Chinese said “Hey, America, guess what? We have a bomb.” America said “Ah, bullshit. There’s no way you backwards ass people could have a bomb.” To which China said “Oh yeah? Watch this!” China proceeded to blast nuclear weapons - not just underground but above ground. They wanted to make damn sure that America realized they weren’t just talking about a bomb; they HAD a bomb. That was in 1964 or 65. By 1973, China and America were actually on speaking terms despite decades of bitter feelings over China’s communism and their intervention in Korea.

But here’s something else that Americans tend to forget: sanctions aren’t just sanctions. Sanctions are a form of war. Americans’ failure to understand this is perhaps the most dangerous miscalculation of all. The assumption is that sanctions can weaken a regime and destabilize a foe’s internal situation to the point where the “good” citizens of country X will rise up and fight their oppressors and “liberate” them, and become fast friends with the “leaders of the free world.” This is dangerously naive thinking. What sanctions represent to Kim Jung Un (and to Vladimir Putin for that matter) is the exact same thing that the oil embargo represented to Japan’s Hirohito. Economic war, information war, or a war fought with bombs and bullets, it’s all the same. War is war. Something to think about: Putin and Kim know that an uprising means not just a loss of power; it means spending their final days of life in captivity, before being murdered and having their corpse tossed on the steps of some governmental office. That’s what sanctions mean to them, and that’s why they’re desperate to take extreme measures against the United States, and the fact that we’re so ignorant to not understand this reality is a dangerous form of ignorance.

This is all it would take: regardless of how horrific a war with North Korea would be, it has already been framed as a war to defend the American homeland. All one has to do is to look at what happened in Hawaii 2 weeks ago, when residents ran through the streets terrified. That was more than just a ‘false alarm’, that was evidence that Americans view the outside world as a menacing place. It would be very, very, very easy to sell a nuclear first strike on North Korea to the American people. It’s very easy to bend reality - Christ just look at what has happened in our most recent presidential election and what has happened since. And in 2003 - WMD’s anyone?!

I’m not even sure that Trump himself would be the strongest advocate for a war with North Korea - he could absolutely be convinced to go along with it for sure. But I suspect that there are already plenty of people in the Beltway - think tanks, retired generals, and even old Cold Warriors in the Pentagon - who believe a first strike on North Korea is warranted. And even if they don’t believe in striking first, there’s an equally disturbing and realistic scenario, which is that we assume the worst about KJU and conclude that he’s “crazy”. If we actually believe that Kim Jung Un is, in fact, “crazy” and not moored to reality…then it obviously invites a preemptive attack.

Do you have any cites for any of this speculation and historical interpretation?

[constanze]

@XT

And there were probably a dozen other ‘advisor’ types that said the ‘best’ solution was something completely different. From basically every perspective a US first strike using nukes would be the worst and least likely action, regardless of what this ‘advisor’ did or didn’t say is ‘best’.

I’m using this advisor because the linked article - based on this one advisor - was cited in this thread earlier as “proof” of the real intentions of NK and therefore the only course of Action for US to Counter.

Well, the North Korean’s don’t seem to be taking this particular threat very seriously, as they also haven’t changed their own stance substantially. So, not sure where you are going with this. Neither side, based on their ACTUAL actions as opposed to their rhetoric, seem to be thinking there is a likelihood of a war. US actual actions, in particular, don’t support this, as we wouldn’t be moving carriers to the region if we were going to do a pre-emptive nuclear strike.

I didn’t say war is likely to break out the next day. But with nukes, the US doesn’t Need to move anything, just Trump pushing a button.

I’d say that, especially wrt Trump (though Bush II as well), it’s the reality…facts and reality seem far down the list. But there are limits to all things, and Trump isn’t either king nor god emperor and can’t do whatever he likes how he likes it. As we’ve clearly seen.

What I have seen are many Executive Orders issued by Trump. What I have seen is Trump ordering a (conventional) bombing (elsewhere despite no declaration of war for that area) and the Military obeying without any “are you sure?” question.
And does Trump have the nuclear suitcase, or not? If he pushes the button, things happen, even if it violates the rules of the constitution that congress Needs to declare a war. (And the past has shown that the easy way around that is declaring things “Police Action” or similar: if it’s not a war, congress isn’t necessary.)

No, you are absolutely wrong and this actually makes you case look worse to anyone who knows even the first thing about it. Iraq is the best evidence that the US is, in fact, doing dick all wrt actually preparing for an invasion of North Korea, or even preparing for a surgical strike. We built up for Iraq for months, and we clearly were STILL doing an invasion on the cheap. We did have a plan for the occupation, but the goals were different, and it was unrealistic and stupid…but we spent literally months preparing, building up and getting all the pieces in place. We aren’t doing any of that here.

Again, I’m not saying that war is imminent. I’m saying that with Trump especially, the whole Situation is dangerously unstable and could flip any Moment.
And Iraq needed at least Military planning precisly because it was conventinal war - troops on the ground Need to be moved. Meanwhile, Missiles with rockets simply fly, no matter where US ships are currently at.

And the lack of planning for afterwards Show that the US is ready to go ahead with Military Action (war) regardless of what happens afterwards.
It also Shows that once a President has decided on a course, nothing can deter him. Yes, it might take a few months to move the troops and bribe his “coalition of the willing”, but there was no Action the other state could have done to stop the buildup.

Since any strike against NK will likely be nuclear from beginning - to avoid their rockets hitting US - and since that can be done without buildup; and since any warning to them would defeat the whole purpose of “pre-emptive” strike I expect it to be suddenly.
Trump reads his twitter in the morning that Mueller is Close, and decides to push the button, because all his pals agree that nuking foreigners from Orbit is the only way to deal with evil. Even if congress would act (unlikely with current Republicans) what exactly could they do afterwards?

Debatable, but, again, if we are trying to get them to shoot first so we can ‘legally’ shoot back we aren’t preparing very well for it. We’ve done dick all to have the things we’d need to shift over to offensive operations once we get them to shoot at us first,

That’s why I said US is saving NK for sweep weeks. It doesn’t take Long to either move a ship/ plane there - heck, there are US troops in South Korea now - to provoke a second “Gulf of Tonkin” reason; or to produce one “high-ranking defector with really good intelligence, the best intelligence, of NK preparing a nuke strike against US” and press the button to shoot nukes first.

so either we are evil AND stupid or this is all a fantasy.

Just Trump and his advisors. The rest of you can do what, exactly, to stop him?

No…not right. The US President is neither king nor emperor and he or she can’t simply do anything they want.

He can give orders to Military even without explicit declaration of war, because he already did order a bombing (not of NK) which was carried out without any delay or questions.
He has the nuclear “Football” because nuclear war is so quick that congress can’t be in the chain of command. Again, who can stop Trump if he decides to press the button? I’m sincerely curious, because I have not heard anybody give security procedures in place to stop a drunk/ demented POTUS in General from pressing the button. (And given the circumstances if a nuclear war breaks out for real, any security measures that delay reaction would be difficult).
Maybe the Details can’t be shared for security reasons (so as not to circumvent them) but I haven’t head People e.g. from previous Administrations saying “We can’t give Details, but accidents can’t happen”.

[constanze]

@madsircool

Do you have any cites for any of this speculation and historical interpretation?

The actual timeline for the Cuba crisis - not with the Russians in Cuba, but with US Missiles in Turkey; and the behind-the-scenes negotiations where JFK sent his brother Robert as trusthworthy to secretly make concessions to the Russians, that is, removing the US Missiles - are well documented, especially with government protocols being released. Watzlawick also cited this behind-the-scenes communication - because back then there was no red telephone - in one of his books as example on how to use mis-communication deliberatly during negotiations.

It has also recently come to light that during the Blockade, knowing that Soviet nuclear Subs were in the area, which had orders to attack if provoked (and which the US captain should have assumed, since he had similar orders) still thought it a good idea to drop depth charges onto the Sub to provoke them. The Soviet Sub captain would have been fully in the right, both with regards to his orders, and under international law, to answer this attack with nukes, which would have triggered a full nuclear war.
Thankfully, he brushed it off as “idiot Americans trying to provoke him”.

There’s also the Story of one lone Soviet soldier preventing a full nuclear war when there was Instrument error - he could believe that the US would strike first, but not that it would use only 5 Missiles (Stanislav Petrov - Wikipedia)

As for the US sanctions pushing Japan into a Corner that they felt war was inevitable, and the only way to rescue themselves during WWII - that’s also given as Standard theory. Sure, experts might debate how much it contributed to the final decision compared to other factors - but it was a large amount of additional powder in an already volatile Situation of nationalism/ jingoism/ militarism.

[constanze]

@asahi

But here’s something else that Americans tend to forget: sanctions aren’t just sanctions. Sanctions are a form of war.

Well - yes and no. Used right, sanctions can be a finely used leverage for small concessions. Used right, the rest of the world stops selling weapons to not escalate the Situation, but allows e.g. medications.

Used bluntly, however, they quickly escalate.

Americans’ failure to understand this is perhaps the most dangerous miscalculation of all. The assumption is that sanctions can weaken a regime and destabilize a foe’s internal situation to the point where the “good” citizens of country X will rise up and fight their oppressors and “liberate” them, and become fast friends with the “leaders of the free world.” This is dangerously naive thinking.

Right, this is a delusion. In a dictatorship, the leaders are already telling the Population “the rest of the world is our enemy, we Need to stand together to defend against them!” (Putin, Erdogan, Hitler - all the same rhethoric). So sanctions only confirm to the Population that they Need the leader with his army to protect them.
However, since a dictatorship will lie to its citizens anyway, that should not stop correct sanctions. (Not selling weapons to Erdogan is right; he will call names anyway).

Putin and Kim know that an uprising means not just a loss of power; it means spending their final days of life in captivity, before being murdered and having their corpse tossed on the steps of some governmental office. That’s what sanctions mean to them, and that’s why they’re desperate to take extreme measures against the United States, and the fact that we’re so ignorant to not understand this reality is a dangerous form of ignorance.

Yes. It’s impossible to buy-out dictators peacefully (The world will pay you 1 Million if you go into Exile in Swiss and retire), because there is no way to make a trustworthy offer.

It would be very, very, very easy to sell a nuclear first strike on North Korea to the American people. It’s very easy to bend reality - Christ just look at what has happened in our most recent presidential election and what has happened since. And in 2003 - WMD’s anyone?!

As a reminder: even Hitler, who was quite open about why a war was necessary, and who had 6 years of total Propaganda to brainwash his citizens, still found it necessary to “prime” the People - there were reports about “brutal crimes by poles against german citizens” for months in the summer of 1939 in German newspapers - and then stage an attack with enemies’ uniforms to justify “Seit 5:45 wird zurückgeschossen”.

Even Hitler wanted the justification of Shooting back, and arranged it. And Gulf of Tonkin was good enough for US Population. The fake Story (That woman was not a Kuwait nurse, but working for an US PR company) of Iraqui soldiers throwing preemies out of their incubators was good enough in UN to start the “counter-attack” during the Iraq-Kuwait war

I’m not even sure that Trump himself would be the strongest advocate for a war with North Korea - he could absolutely be convinced to go along with it for sure. But I suspect that there are already plenty of people in the Beltway - think tanks, retired generals, and even old Cold Warriors in the Pentagon - who believe a first strike on North Korea is warranted.

Since Bush, except for Obama, there has been the continious rhethoric from White House and many many Republican politicans on how a nuclear strike in General is the only way to deal with “evil” states. (Calling another Country evil is in itself a sign of how far things have gone, and how extreme they are ready to use).

And then we get an article by an “advisor” on how he’s a bit sorry, but there’s just no other possible Explanation for Kim having nukes than using them for conquest of South Korea for re-unification, and while he doesn’t like it, he can only come to the conclusion that US must strike first to prevent this, because otherwise, US would look bad.

And even if they don’t believe in striking first, there’s an equally disturbing and realistic scenario, which is that we assume the worst about KJU and conclude that he’s “crazy”. If we actually believe that Kim Jung Un is, in fact, “crazy” and not moored to reality…then it obviously invites a preemptive attack.

Under Trump, it doesn’t matter if Kim is crazy, only that Trump believes he is. Since Trump is not connected to reality, and Kim is a foreigner (who are weird anyway, who can understand them?), that’s an easy step for him to make.

[constanze]

@asahi

But here’s something else that Americans tend to forget: sanctions aren’t just sanctions. Sanctions are a form of war. Americans’ failure to understand this is perhaps the most dangerous miscalculation of all

Actually, I think the most dangerous delusions of US in General, but especially US politicans (selling it to the Population) are

US are the good guys because, so no matter what we do, it’s okay
There are evil countries, who can’t be reasoned with
Everything is a zero-sum-game, so one side must win and the other loose.
The Needs of every other Country come way way after the Needs of the US.

This means
that diplomatic Solutions that favour all sides are not considered because they are outside the Framework.
that countrys being neutral and just wanting to be left alone, not an enemy or a backyard for exploitation by US, is inconceivable.
That countries having just as much right to their Needs as the US is inconceivable.
That countries who have previously been screwed over by the US legally, economically or Military carry a grudge and will try any way to retaliate is not considered (because everybody loves the US!)
that building Long-time stable reliable relationship and helping countries achieve Long-time stability is in everybodys interest is inconceivable.

The linked article gives a good example - everything is framed only in Terms of what it means for the US. A solution that benefits South Korea is not mentioned, because South Korea is only a strategic Partner to put troops there.

[asahi]

@madsircool

Do you have any cites for any of this speculation and historical interpretation?

I’m not going to respond to a half-assed post just because you mention the word “cite” in it. If you want to challenge something specifically, by all means, go ahead and we can debate it.