Having followed international security matters in Northeast Asia for my whole professional career, there is literally nobody within decision-making circles in any APEC country who would agree with one single bit of what you just said here. Well, maybe Duterte, but he has no clue.
These statements are so totally out of touch with reality that their irrelevance cannot be overstated. But if that’s your opinion, good luck with that.
The overture to South Korea is part of a larger strategy to use as a wedge against American power in East Asia. That is what most Americans are not in a position to understand. They’re looking at this through the lens of the Korean Conflict, the Cold War, and the War on Terror and not really getting the larger picture. There are actually a lot of South Koreans who believe - and have believed for a long time - that the United States is deliberately making relations between the South and North worse, and for its own benefit. I’m not saying that’s an accurate characterization, but I’m saying that it’s a widely-held belief. Maybe not a majority of Koreans see it that way, but it’s a view held by many among Korea’s left wing and that just happens to be the political force in power at the moment. I’m not an expert on Korea but my impression is that younger Koreans in particular are increasingly skeptical of American power. Kim Jung Un can use this skepticism to his advantage.
Meanwhile, China and Russia have their own interests and while they find the Un regime unpredictable and disruptive, they’re not going to just sit by and allow the United States to gain further leverage in East Asia. Russia, China, and North Korea - to varying degrees - share a mutual concern for the United States’ penchant for political disruption, particularly since 2002. These are authoritarian regimes - again to varying degrees - who are wary of America’s attempts to change political regimes, either through military force or simply through crippling economic sanctions. They are constantly living in fear of popular uprisings such as the kind that the US has supported in the Arab world and they will take steps to blunt American power. Anyone who believes that China and Russia would simply just sit and watch on the sidelines of a horrendous war between the world’s largest military power and North Korea is not being realistic. Obviously their first reaction wouldn’t be to lob missiles our way, but they would get involved, and just that fact alone - during what would obviously a very violent, fluid, and chaotic situation - would exponentially increase the threat of a much larger and deadlier conflict.
How likely is all of this? It’s hard to say, but I would say it’s much more likely now than at any time since the 1950s.
Who’s this “we”? I’m confident that Mark Lippert knows. I’m fairly confident that John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama also know. Victor Cha might know, if he really is an expert, and not just being described as that by Trump. I have no confidence at all that Rex Tillerson or Donald Trump know.
Honestly, the fact that it’s taking this long to place an ambassador in such a diplomatically-critical country should be an impeachable offense all by itself.
Oh, and for the record, South Korea is second on the list of countries that need to be concerned about the situation. First is, of course, North Korea. Third and fourth are China and Japan. And Australia just might also be ahead of the US, since there’s a chance that Kim might have weapons that can reach there, but not here, and as a close US ally, they’d be a convenient proxy target.
For many years the US has been running annual war games with South Korea - war games that involve the simulated invasion and occupation of North Korea, the elimination of its leaders, and rehearsals for a preemptive nuclear strike.
North Korea has offered to stop its nuclear tests if the US will stop these war games. The US didn’t even bother to respond to the offer.
Because
Giving North Korea what it wants, in return for a stop on nuclear tests, would be…giving North Korea what it wants. That gives positive psychological reinforcement to NK and encourages further quid pro quo bargaining antics of this sort.
The rehearsal and practice of these war games is valuable in case the US and SK ever do need to fight together. They’re not just for show; they provide actual, meaningful, training and experience.
North Korea has already done 6 nuclear tests, so at this point, their offer to stop further testing doesn’t do much good (from the West’s perspective.) They’ve already demonstrated a nuclear ability.
Ravenman: Never knowingly undersold.
Maybe you should do a little more than “follow”.
I doubt NK would have stopped - or would ever stop - nuclear testing in exchange for a cessation of war games. The war games, in and of themselves, aren’t of concern to North Korea; the history of America’s policy of regime change, either through direct or indirect force, convinced North Korea that it needs nuclear weapons to defend itself and they’re determined to get them - full stop.
The $64,000 question(s) have more to do with what the US can and cannot accept in what amounts to a new reality. It’s a question now of whether US believes that it can live with North Korea as a long-range nuclear capable power. It’s a question of whether the US can move forward in Asian politics knowing that it can no longer threaten to wipe North Korea off the map, and that this new reality would mean accepting the loss of political leverage and muscle in the region permanently. It may also be a question of how the US perceives North Korea under KJL: do they view him as merely barbaric but otherwise rational or do they really and truly believe that he’s an unhinged loon capable of launching nuclear strikes with little or no provocation. I don’t think that’s the case but that doesn’t mean some people in the highest levels of leadership see it that way, and their opinions are more important than mine obviously.
Yeah, when you’re saying things that are as patently absurd as if someone had said, “Donald Trump is actually an Orthodox Jew!” then I don’t really care that much about attacks on my expertise.
You continue to say this, and it continues to be wrong.
America has had many provocations over the last 65 years and hasn’t made any real attempt at regime change. If this was so important to the US over the last 65 years, what is taking so long? Why didn’t any of the 11 Presidents after end of the war attack if it so paramount to American foreign policy? Is the US waiting for the 70 year mark? The 75th “diamond anniversary?”
Not all attacks on a sovereign nation, even those without a UN supporting resolution and taken as a first/preemptive action, are necessarily war crimes. The definitions of aggressive actions and wars of aggression can be problematic, vague, or in non-binding areas of international law. There’s an argument that there’s enough to have wars of aggression included as war crimes under customary international law, which you seem to imply belief in. There’s also an argument that it isn’t customary law. It’s not very useful at understanding the reality of what happens after your alleged war crimes, though. Enforcement mechanisms for war crimes render the outcome of customary law debate moot. The point that the debate exists does matter. Some countries may not agree with your interpretation that it would even be a war crime under current international law.
Here’s why enforcement makes allegations of US war crimes moot. The US is not a party to the International Criminal Court. The only way to bring war crimes charges against the US in the ICC is through UN Security Council action. That’s a body where the US has a veto. The US, China, and Russia are de facto immune to war crimes charges as long as they choose to be. The UK and France could be if they withdrew from the ICC. You may hate it. It’s reality.
There almost certainly would not be UN sanctions on the US, either. We could blatantly conquer North Korea while intentionally exterminating its entire population - man, woman, and child. Our stated goals for the conquest could be designating it a US territory and then selling most of it to Disney to build a giant theme park. The government could release a supporting propaganda film “Why We Fight: Asia Disney” that included real footage of live North Korean toddlers being rounded up as targets for the planned “It’s A Small World With Shotguns” ride. The world, understandably, could be expected to respond strongly. UN sanctions still aren’t likely in even that wildly hyperbolic situation. The UNSC has to approve sanctions. The US has that pesky veto.
Your interpretation of some effects of US military intervention rests on a weak foundation. It starts with ignoring real debate around and exceptions to a contestable point of international law. It then requires the UN to operate differently than it actually does.
The United States labeled North Korea among three nations in the so-called axis of evil in 2002. The United States then proceeded to invade and overthrow one of the countries on that list, and all three of these countries have been subjected to intense international sanctions (at the request of the United States). If you think sanctions don’t threaten a regime’s stability, look at what happened in Libya and what is happening now in Iran.
I’ve had this discussion about sanctions on threads about Putin, and I’ll say it again because it’s worth repeating as it applies to North Korea as well. Economic sanctions aren’t just harmless, peaceful acts of mercy on the part of the powers imposing them. Civilians die because of sanctions. Likewise, because people die, regimes live in fear of the possibility that people will blame them for their misery and revolt in an uprising. Sanctions are a tool that we have at our disposal and their value is that they can enable us to defeat a regime without actually having to do the dirty work of bombing and killing civilians, and wasting our own money and troops’ lives on conquering a foreign population. But in a lot of ways they’re very much acts of war. Nations have gone to war over sanctions. And coupled with the threats of regime change, sanctions are viewed as a hostile threat to North Korea.
Yes, Kim Jung Un deserves to be sanctioned and removed from power - no argument there. But is it wise to make this regime so desperate for nuclear weapons? I think that’s the question that needs to be answered.
This is kind of like the last thread on the ‘escalating’ situation on the Korean penensula…and the one before that…and the one before that…
Not to mention the one before that, which was convinced that war, war never changes…
I’ve yet to see any actual indications, aside from stupid and pointless rhetoric from both sides, showing that the situation actually is spinning out of control. As I mentioned in the last thread, has there been any physical indications that either side is positioning their forces for war? Have the US or South Koreans staged any additional troops in jump-off positions or started stockpiling logistics for an invasion? Has North Korea begun mobilizing it’s forces or moving towards the border? Has either side (but mainly North Korea, since the US doesn’t really have to do this as much) brought their strategic assets to a higher state of readiness or begun positioning them for use?
As far as I know, just like last time, the answer to all of this is…no. What we have is an idiot president who feels the need to make slams at a pudgy two-bit dictator and talk about the size of ‘his’…nuclear weapon. On the other side, we have a fat, privileged monster playing out a losing hand while trying to be the boy at the dike, plugging dem holes with everything he’s got and trying to keep the whole house of cards propped up for just another month…just one more…maybe squeak out one more. Neither side seems to actually think war is inevitable or even very likely as if they did they would be doing things indicating this in the real world, as opposed to on CNN or in the other media.
You know, we don’t actually need to reposition the fleet to strike at targets in North Korea…right? This is a show of force, not the prelude to war. Now, if we start to see something like the build-up for the invasion of Iraq, with a lot of Air Force, Army, and Marine units being sent either to South Korea or Japan all of a sudden, then it will be something to really worry about. Even if our idiot President thinks we should do the a strike, you’d need to preposition a lot more than what we have there now to not only take out the current regime but follow through and remove the government (and presumably re-unite the country under South Korea). You aren’t going to push into North Korea, even one decapitated in a first-strike with what we have as a trip wire on the DMZ, not unless South Korea is fully mobilized…which they aren’t.
So, what we have here is a ‘war’ of words, with both infantile leaders talking trash about the other guy and his mama like this is kindergarten again. The only real difference today (aside from all of the handwringing about North Korea not only having nukes but perhaps being able to cobble together something that could, maybe, fly those nukes somewhere…if they don’t explode on the pad or spin out of control or get shot down from all of the air defense rings over South Korea, Japan and the US pacific fleet) is that it’s not just the North Korean’s doing this, but our fearless leader who has stooped to talk trash back, instead of being the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet and above such silliness.
Vote Trump out? That will solve a lot of the stupidity issues. As for the situation in North Korea? Not really. Time will solve this issue, eventually. The regime will collapse. When it does, it will probably be an epic humanitarian crisis, regardless of how it goes down. I don’t think it will happen in a war, however. I seriously doubt that the North Koreans are going to launch an attack, and I doubt the US will do a first strike, or that China has a clue what to do and can solve the issue.
I’ll concede that you’re just dead set on the US being the bad guy here and NK being rational and aggrieved, any discussion of evidence to the contrary.
Best you get back to mainstream USA media then for that comforting sense of reinforcement. Urg.
My information on this point doesn’t come from media, but actually doing work with policy makers from quite a few of the countries involved.
But I suppose next you’ll find some other American stereotype to accuse me of. I’m fat! I’m an evangelical! I drive a pickup truck! I’m a cowboy! I don’t even own a passport! I think the people who live south of my country speak the language of Mexican! Go on, give it your best shot.
Cite?
While some of the annual exercises include those elements, most do not.
Also: The North Koreans run their own military exercises each year too. They’d be bigger, but they don’t have the fuel to do full-scale field maneuvers. They also regularly threaten to invade the south, kill their leaders, set fire to the place and shit on the ashes.
I dare you to find a single citation that doesn’t come from North Korea that we are planning a pre-emptive nuclear strike.
Besides which, we want the North Koreans to do more nuclear tests. They have a very limited amount of weapons-grade fissionable material, and any bomb they blow up as a test is one they’re not using in anger.
:rolleyes:
uh huh.
Executing people with anti-aircraft guns doesn’t strike you as a bit odd? He’s not defending his country from outside forces, he’s killing his own people for the crime of annoying him.
He’s batshit crazy.
Can you please explain what is so egregiously nonsensical in what **up the junction **said? Is it not a fact that China is the regional power there? Is it not a fact that NK is an erstwhile client state of China? Does not Russia have some influence?
The only thing I can find incorrect will be that nobody believes that our “armada” has any power to act meaningfully in the region. I’m sure the members of the US Navy believe they do. I believe that they do.