No, the real threat from the Pentagon’s point of view is that the United States loses credibility as a protector in Asia. If North Korea is able to present a credible nuclear threat - particularly if they can convince experts that they really could destroy Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York - then meanwhile they can fire missiles over Japan and harass South Korea and there’s not a fucking thing the United States can do to stop them without risking taking on massive losses of civilian life. Imagine if it were Russia firing missiles over the UK - does anyone think the United States would threaten to blow Russia off the map? Pffff…lol. They’d be looking for peace and Russia, in return, would be looking for an end to economic sanctions and for a relocation of American troops and missiles - far enough away so that they’re no longer perceived to be a threat. And you know what? They’d probably get what they want. And that’s what North Korea wants. And you know who else wants that? China and Russia – it’s not a coincidence that they’re violating UN sanctions to aid North Korea.
Going back to why the situation is dangerous now – it’s dangerous because there are probably some in the Pentagon who now believe that, for the moment, they still have some military leverage over North Korea. There are probably some in the Pentagon who believe that there is still time to stop North Korea before it develops the capabilities to make the US feel pain. It’s running out of time. Sanctions aren’t working. Threats of war aren’t working. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the rhetoric has intensified and that we’re hearing talks of “bloody noses”. Conversely, the sanctions are probably taking a real toll on North Korea. There are more and more defections. The North Korean regime could be a failed crop cycle away from a coup. It’s also forcing countries like Japan to reassess whether or not they should develop their own capabilities. We’re entering very dangerous territory here.
Maybe I’m misreading you, but your train of logic seems to be skipping over some non-obscure factoids.
a) Russia can fire a nuke over the UK. Is there some reason to doubt that, that I’m unaware of?
b) Russia is currently being sanctioned, and the sanctions are growing not lessening.
For good or ill, I don’t see a way out of this that does not involve war, and I think it may be soon. Let’s face it, if Kim really does get a serious nuclear capability, there’s not much else can be done.
At 11:45am on the first business day of each month, Hawaii tests its tsunami-warning system. Last month for the first time since the Cold War, they added a wavery-sounding nuclear-attack warning.
They could - they absolutely could. They just don’t because they’re not trying to establish themselves as a credible nuclear threat. They already are an established nuclear threat. It’s a thought exercise. If Russia were to test fire missiles and fly them over a US ally like, say, the UK, would Trump or any US president be threatening fire and fury against Russia? No, of course not, because we wouldn’t want to ratchet up the tensions with established nuclear powers. And that’s the thing to remember here: North Korea knows that. The Kim regime knows that the United States doesn’t fuck with nuclear capable countries…which is why the Kim regime wants nuclear weapons. Sanctions and threats aren’t going to stop the Kim regime from developing a credible nuclear threat that could actually inflict massive civilian losses on American soil.
Right - see, Russia has the exact same problem with the United States that North Korea does. Russia, China, and North Korea have one thing in common: they have reason to fear American support of popular uprisings in their country. They see American power as a direct threat to their interests, which is why they will not allow the United States to dictate a resolution to the nuclear standoff.
I doubt most Americans really understand what I’m saying, though, because we tend to view the Kim regime as “crazy” and Vladimir Putin as a “bully”. It’s simplistic American jingoism that inhibits our ability to understand why authoritarians behave as they do.
These nominees have been languishing for awhile, they still aren’t officially employed by the State Department yet, so no, we still don’t actually have ambassadors to those nations. And you’ll note in your article about the South Korean ambassador nominee that he was just nominated on Dec 11th, 2017…almost a YEAR into Trump’s presidency.
That’s it, in a nut.
I’m quite sure that anyone that’s capable of having his family members murdered is a paranoid, insane person.
You’re right…if you were an insane, brutal, unstable dictator with a nation that destabilizes your region and is seeking nuclear weapons, and you see the US topple other evil, destabilizing dictators, yes…you should worry. And Kim is the nuttiest of them all, not the least of which is his atrocities committed against his own people and family, but because of the wacky demi-god status he, his father and his grandfather have foisted upon their nation as “dear leaders” and turning their country into a single-minded fortress.
Dude…we’ve been in South Korea en masse since the end of the Korean war, almost 70 YEARS AGO. We are a credible protector of Asia. Can I introduce you to the world’s most powerful Navy, with the most ships the planet has ever seen? Also, if Russia started doing stuff like what you describe, yes…it would eventually lead to war. The UK is our staunchest ally. We wouldn’t sit idly by.
Here’s another difference in your scenario: we’d be more cautious with Russia because Putin (also crazy and brutal, he just has better PR) controls a vast nuclear arsenal that can utterly destroy the planet, just like the USA does. A war with North Korea involving nuclear weapons that they fired first, is survivable by the US but not for them. They’d be literally eliminated from existence.
Look, given your penchant for making wildly incorrect claims, I’m not sure it’s worth my time to try to carry on a conversation with you, so I’ll let you have the last word.
It appears you are right about China and Japan. I think I may have misquoted someone from another thread. But the thing about the South Korean ambassador is correct. ETA: nope, it appears my googling did suck. Not sure where I came up with the China and Japan thing…
From the article, dated December 17th:
“The fact that the Trump administration is moving forward with the ambassadorial appointment is surely welcome news in Seoul and other regional capitals. Nevertheless, coming nearly a year into Trump’s term, it also highlights the administration’s lack of awareness of even the most basic foreign policy needs. The crisis surrounding North Korea’s nuclear and missile program arguably has been the most pressing issue the new administration has faced. Yet it has done so without the constant presence of the official representative of the president, the ambassador, in South Korea. Although Cha’s potential appointment was first reported in late August, it is only now moving forward.”
That has been the case in the past. What we see now is a message being sent to NK and to Russian and China, that the status quo will no longer be tolerated.
I don’t believe for one second that Russia or China is going to risk a nuclear war with the US to protect KJU/NK.
Does it matter why the behave as they do? Are you saying we should be more tolerant because they have a ‘condition’?
Clinton sent Carter over to make a deal with NK, which NK then broke, so he didn’t do much. Bush talked tough and imposed sanctions, which led to a deal, which NK then broke. So he didn’t do much. Obama imposed sanctions and talked tough, so NK started cyber-attacks and continued building weapons. So he didn’t do much. Trump is pursuing sanctions and talking tough, which won’t do much.
THat’s just it…we’re not powerless. We’re dickless, or, caught in a no-win situation. Trump wants to prove he has a penis and he wants to wave it in Kim Jong Un’s face.
The US is not powerless at all. The US is very powerful, but with no option that anyone really wanted to use. The further back you go in time, there were more and better options that no one wanted to use then either, because they were being judicious in the use of the military or because they didn’t have the onions to use the military, depending on your political allegiances I’d guess. No matter where you stand politically, Bush had 8 years and could find a solution, and Clinton had 8 years and couldn’t find a solution either.
Bottom line is this: Does the world want to accept NK as a nuclear power? In my opinion the level of crazy that you give to NK determines this. Do I think their leadership is bat s**t crazy? No. But if there comes a time when that regime falls, could I see the last order being to launch the 50 nuclear weapons that they then have? Yes I could.
North Korea is no threat at least from the point of view of deploying a nuclear weapon. That’s because he’s not suicidal. He understands that to do so would ensure the destruction of his nation and the end of his regime. He would be totally obliterated.
The real threat is Donald Trump. He is so unstable, and so easily manipulated that it is anyone’s guess what he might decide to do.
What I’m responding to is the original post, which asks to gauge the threat. I think the threat of war with North Korea is not necessarily inevitable but it’s much, much higher than people believe. Moreover, I don’t think it’s not just the threat of an accidental war or a mistake to be concerned about, but there’s also a credible danger of a war started by either side as a result of miscalculation.
Oh, I think you’re actually quite correct: I think that is indeed the message. The Pentagon is not messing around here. They don’t want a war - I’m not saying that the Pentagon is mad or crazy. I think what the Pentagon wants is to find a way to discourage Kim from getting long-range nuclear deterrent because it would be a game changer. One reason - not the only one but an important one - that the United States has been able to avoid war with NK is that both sides understood that it would be disastrous for pretty much the entire region and also for US forces in the region. But simultaneously, it’s also been understood that the United States would eventually emerge with its civilian population and homeland largely unscathed. Kim’s long range nukes change that dynamic - big time. American presidents can’t be quite so smug as to say “Well if there’s a war it would be the end of North Korea” anymore because the US would be taking on massive civilian losses of its own. I think the Pentagon (and whoever else is involved at this point) is hoping that extreme pressure will force North Korea to seek a face-saving way out.
Unfortunately, I don’t think that they’re accurately assessing Kim’s regime. Kim saw what happened to Saddam Hussein. He saw what happened to Gadaffi. He saw the Arab spring. He’s watching Iran right now. He believes he needs nuclear weapons - not just a bomb but a credible global threat - to force the United States and/or other nations to bargain on terms that are more favorable to North Korea. He’s not going to give up his weapons program – period. It’s a matter of his survival as far as he’s concerned. At the same time, from our perspective, nuclear weapons means that Kim takes away the power of the United States to sanction a regional pariah. His nuclear threat doesn’t weaken American military power – we’ll still have our carriers, our cruise missiles, our nuclear subs, and our ICBMs, all of which are a deterrent to hostile action against us and our allies. But Kim’s global nuclear threat limits our ability to go on offense, and to impose our will on “rogue” regimes. This is one reason why our interventions - particularly in Iraq - were disastrous. Not only did we not succeed in remaking the Middle East in our image but we encouraged North Korea to make a global nuclear weapons program a top priority.
They wouldn’t see an intervention as “saving North Korea” so much as protecting their own interests. If the US were to initiate a war on this scale, then from China and Russia’s point of view, they have a dangerous threat in their neighborhood. You’re seeing everything from our point of view and failing to understand how our actions would be perceived to regimes that don’t trust the US as a stabilizing political force in the region - certainly not now. From their point of view, they would see the United States as the aggressor and the country that is threatening nuclear war. I find it difficult to believe that two of the world’s largest militaries would simply let the United States finish off North Korea without any involvement. That’s certainly not what the historical record would suggest. You may recall that China fought the US over North Korea at a time when the US had already nuked two cities and when China had zero nukes. China obviously doesn’t want a nuclear war with anyone but they’re not going to let a fear of getting nuked prevent them from acting in their best interests. Neither will Russia. I think you (like most of of us, I’m afraid) are seriously miscalculating the situation. More worrisome, I think leaders at the highest levels of government are guilty of the same.
There’s a really good documentary by Errol Morris about Bob Macnamara titled “Fog of War” which delves into the kinds of subject we’re talking about now. Check it out of you’ve got the time.
You mention what happened to Hussein, Gadaffi and Iraq as if you’re talking about your grandmothers. Hussein was a brutal dictator who are responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. It’s not as if the US was targeting Japan and Norway for God’s sake.
As has been discussed previously, the United States hasn’t been actively at war with NK since 1953, well over 60 years. In that time many American Service men have been killed by NK, a US warship was captured by NK, and still the US didn’t invade or actively work to overthrow NK. NK has been looking into nuclear weapons since the 1960s, so US conduct in the middle east over the last 16 years didn’t start this. So I disagree with your contention that if only the US had left poor old NK alone, the US wouldn’t be in this fix.
Bottom line is that NK is a bad state, with a horrendous human rights record that, with a regime in a perfect world would be overthrown. And even at that, the US has made virtually no effort to topple it over the last 60 years. In so far as NK is more threatened by the US now than it has been in then past, that’s wholly the doing of NK.
In the case of NK, I’m not sure that it does. Shit, the idea of a strictly conventional war on the ground with NK to the US strategists is probably more bloody and unthinkable than just glassing the country over with our own nukes in the event that they attempt (however successfully) to launch a long range, nuclear tipped missle towards Guam, Alaska or however far anyone can predict they go towards the US in a first strike. The doing that gives us the excuse to annihilate them with nukes of our own.
This is a weird stalemate. In involves so many other countries and there’s no easy way out.
I think we’re all hoping for way out short of war.
First, we’ve never tried to remake the middle east in our image. You’re thinking of what the British did.
Second, it’s not a matter of whether NK having nukes weakens us or not. It’s a matter of the regime, specifically KJU, being highly unstable and having a long list of bad acts going back decades. This issue didn’t just pop up… but now that he has nukes it’s much more serious and, imo, requires action beyond mere words.
Trust me, their ‘interests’ will magically vanish like a fart in a hurricane if/when we bow up. They know we’re not going to invade them. Too many people seem to think that we have to cower to Russia and/or China. We don’t and we’re not going to. They don’t want a war with us anymore than we want one with them… that said, NK is a problem that needs fixing. China could do it, but they have chosen not to, so we’re gearing up to. Perhaps they’ll change their mind before things get physical. I hope so.
I’ve seen it. I just don’t agree with your take on the matter at hand.
I think you’re misinterpreting what I’m saying here. I’m not downplaying Kim’s barbaric regime. It’s just a matter of whether or not we would want to have a war with North Korea. As odious as he is, I don’t think war with NK is in our best interests and it’s probably avoidable if we can understand the nature of the threat we’re dealing with. But if we fail to understand the nature of that threat, or if we have a leader who communicates or behaves so capriciously that our intentions become less clear, then I’m afraid an avoidable war becomes much more likely.
Nobody is denying that North Korea is an absolutely atrocious state - one of the worst I can think of, in fact. But the fact is we’ve coexisted with barbaric regimes before, with the understanding that, a few exceptions aside, containment & dialogue (to the degree that it can take place) is probably the optimal solution and certainly preferable to war.
What was the invasion of Iraq? What were their country’s “elections”? What was the domino effect? What was the Arab Spring? Again, not saying democracy’s a bad thing - it’s my preferred regime as well. But it’s not wise to look at global conflict resolution through an American lens only.
You say that and yet the history of the region - at a time when China was arguably just as vulnerable to American obliteration as they are now - suggests otherwise. You’re assuming China and Russia wouldn’t risk a nuclear war, but what if they did? So the US makes the calculation that China and Russia wouldn’t dare risk a nuclear war with us. And yet what if they make exactly the same calculation and conclude “The US won’t risk a deepening nuclear conflict with us if once we get involved?” It’s called brinkmanship. Assuming that one bold calculation won’t be met with a similarly bold calculation in return. And there’s a very clear example from 1962 to show that these sorts of assumptions are dangerously flawed.
It’s kind of horrifying to know that so many people have a rather nonchalant attitude about a war with North Korea and are apparently oblivious to just how easily this could spiral out of control. Horrifying, but in a country that thought a reality TV show scam artist would make a great president, not terribly surprising I’m afraid.
The point of reiteration is that Kim - and the rest of the world - knows that to be the case, regardless of how the US military is presented for domestic consumption.