NK started building nukes in 1989.
In 1994 NK agreed with Clinton to build no nukes:
So much for “nothing”.
It wasnt until 1992 that we knew that had started back.
However, US Intelligence assured every president, including Trump, that NK had a feeble program which could not reach the USA.
Are you suggesting that the agreement in 1994 meant something beyond the value of the paper it was printed on?
Why should we expect him to disarm?
I don’t believe in false equivalency and agree that the Kim regime is barbaric and needs to be effectively contained, but the fact is that the United States has a pretty recent history of invading and overthrowing regimes against the spirit, if not the letter, of international law. From Kim’s point of view, acquiring a global nuclear threat, while potentially risking antagonizing the world’s most powerful military, is a rational move. He doesn’t want to be the Saddam Hussein or Muammar Gadaffi of the East.
We thought it did.
^ This. North Korea’s government is monstrous - hence the political prisoners, concentration camps, and citizens starving en masse - but they’re not stupid or insane.
Pretend for a moment you’re Kim Jong Il. Bush declares that your country is part of an implacable “axis of evil.” Those who “aren’t with us are against us.” You see Iraq let in U.N. weapons inspectors, who certify they do not have weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. invades claiming they have WMDs anyway (somehow), and hundreds of thousands die, Hussein gets dragged out of a hole and hanged. The occupation force confirms there were no WMDs.
You see Libya give up their weapons of mass destruction at the insistence of the U.S. - and then the U.S. supports a coup overthrowing their government anyway, and Gaddafi gets a bayonet up the ass.
Given this, there’s no reasonable scenario involving disarmament for North Korea. If you have no weapons and we’ve declared you our enemy, we’ll invade. If you have them and you give them up as a condition for peace, we invade anyway. The only possible way to deter U.S. action, in the minds of the NK government, is to build up nuclear arms as quickly and efficiently as possible to try for a Mutually Assured Destruction scenario, which lead to a stable Cold War between us and Russia for a half a century in which neither side directly attacked the other.
That’s their goal - a U.S. - North Korean Cold War. And it’s a perfectly rational one, albeit utterly horrifying. Do you have any idea how many times we almost *accidentally set off or launched nukes during the Cold War?
In any case, as long as our diplomacy demands NK disarmament, it will go nowhere. Our past actions have given them every reason to believe that disarmament is a prelude to U.S. invasion.
They started building nuclear weapons well before they were ever declared part of the Axis of Evil, the invasion of Iraq, the Libyan intervention, etc.
who is we? Nobody took it seriously. There has never been a time in the last 3 decades that didn’t involve fear of NK going nuclear.
You mean besides China’s ability to pour an unlimited amount of resources into a ground war?
That’s true, but they were also more open to negotiations in the 1990s than they are now. Kim Jong Il entered into an agreement to suspend the development of his nuclear weapons program. Although the conventional wisdom in the mainstream media and political circles is that the North Koreans never followed through with their end of the agreement, the United States never really lived up to its end of the bargain either. In fact the United States, in no small thanks to the Republican congress that took over in 1995 and was determined to undo Bill Clinton’s agenda in much the same way they’ve been determined to undo Obama’s, failed to follow through with its agreement to fund the power plants that were promised under the agreement. The parties to the agreement therefore had to get international funding, which was slow in coming. I’m not saying that it’s necessarily entirely America’s fault but it’s important to understand the history accurately - there was a tentative agreement, but that agreement never went beyond being tentative.
But as I’ve said in previous posts, the real provocation wasn’t the lack of funding but George W’s calling axis of evil speech and more importantly, the new policy of giving ourselves the green light to unilaterally remove heads of state we perceive as threatening.
In what context does ‘powerless’ mean ‘has the power to do something but chooses not to’? I’ve not see that as part of the definition. And, of course, the US is actually doing quite a lot to prevent NK from getting nukes, including increased UN sanctions, increased tempo of operations from our regional allies and putting pressure on China (and Russia) to increase the pressure on the regime…we are simply not using a military option at this time (and hopefully not in the future…we seriously need to figure out how to get Trump out of the White House asap!).
To look at your example, the Taliban ARE powerless to do anything about North Korea. They have zero power to affect them one way or another. If you are equating that to the US wrt North Korea and their nukes then obviously we have wildly different definitions of the term…
Reading this, you’d think we were 10 seconds from war at this very second. Of course, there is wiggle room between the extremes, but the report itself doesn’t propose anything out of the realm of possibility (which itself is insane, but there you go).
As long as the tensions remain and we keep doing military exercises along the border, we *are ten seconds from war at any given second.
All it takes is one nervous soldier or pilot deciding that someone on the other side is coming right for them and about to shoot, to themselves fire and set it all off.
Even if they don’t intentionally start this war it remains dangerous every single day because of that.
Very true. War is always like that. I guess I should’ve qualified, something like “ten seconds from Trump unilaterally starting a war”.
I assume you mean the DMZ, not the actual border. If this is the case then for decades now we have been ‘ten seconds from war’, since we aren’t doing anything we haven’t done in the past wrt military exercises.
Again, this has been the case for decades now. And North Korea has always made a big deal out of protesting against them, denouncing them and generally being pissed off by them.
What’s different now is that North Korea is on the verge of producing a threat that can inflict massive damage on the US mainland – that is a factor that hasn’t existed for decades. That is entirely new, and it represents a direct challenge to American military supremacy by a power that seems willing to challenge that supremacy.
Here’s an interesting article that you might want to read:
http://www.38north.org/2018/01/avorontsov011018/
Right now the North Koreans are trying to open talks with the South, which has been widely interpreted as some sort of Korean detente. Don’t be fooled - this is the North trying its own charm offensive on a grand international stage, during a feel good moment. Kim Jung Un wants to ‘humanize’ the North Korean regime by sending its Olympians to the South. That way, nobody has to look at the misery just a 100 Km to the north of the games. It also happens to be the time of year when the North Koreans are at their most sensitive, trying to survive tough winters and have enough food on hand to prevent mass starvation. But come spring time - if not sooner - the North will want to test more of its missiles and bombs.
As I mentioned on another thread, more than likely, there is a great debate right now within the Pentagon, State Department, and agencies that involve national security. One side probably views North Korea’s growing weapons threat as inevitable and unstoppable and believes that containment and diplomacy are probably our best strategy. They accept the limitations of American power. On the other hand, there is almost surely the opposite end of that spectrum, consisting of people who believe that America must maintain unrivaled military and political supremacy in the region and that North Korea’s weapons program constitute a direct challenge to that supremacy. And they are absolutely, deadly serious in their resolve to crush the North Korean threat, even if it means a massive war that rattles world markets and kills tens or even hundreds of thousands in the region. And whereas this faction was probably marginalized in the Obama and even Bush administrations, they’re probably getting a lot more room at the table now. We’re much closer to a massive war than people realize. The dynamics have changed. Considerably.
No, it really doesn’t do that much to shift the balance and certainly doesn’t do anything to challenge US military supremacy. Not even a little bit. It seems really scary to people, but basically, the fundamental equation hasn’t changed at all, nor will it if the North Korean’s actually manage to put together a working (and reliable) system that could hit the US. Something they still haven’t really demonstrated (with emphasis on the ‘reliable’ part).
Ok…I read it. My take away is that, generally, the NK’s overreact to any sort of US/South Korean military exercise and have done so for literally decades. The 3 carriers thing certainly is a show of force, as is the use of advanced stealth aircraft. But I’ve seen no indications that South Korea is mobilizing their army, nor a large movement of troops or logistics staging up for an invasion by the US. As I’ve said in other threads, when I start to see the sort of build up we saw in preparation for the invasion of Iraq, THEN I’ll start to think the US has intentions of invading North Korea. As for nuclear, we don’t NEED to build up forces or move carriers or do anything else if that’s what we are planning. We could do that anytime. The reason you would move carriers and ramp up training exercises is a show of force to try and get the other guy to back down. If it’s making the NK’s nervous well, that’s what it’s supposed to do…and, perhaps, make them rethink their current behaviors, especially coupled with pressure from China and the current round of trade sanctions.
They might. But the pressures on the regime continue to mount, and a new round of testing will basically ramp them up yet again.
I don’t see it, to be honest. The only real difference between how Obama or even Bush II handled things and how Trump is handling it is that Trump seems willing to sink to their level and trash talk right back at them, as opposed to basically being the bigger power that doesn’t need to do stuff like that. I suppose you could give Trump some credit for being able to get both China and Russia on board for some UNSC resolutions and some sanctions with at least the appearance of teeth, though personally I think that China and Russia both are more worried about where the NKs are at in their testing than they were during either the Obama or Bush II days, and thus are more willing to come out openly in supporting sanctions and other actions aimed at containing NK’s programs. Other than that, it’s basically the same. Sanctions, pressure, a show of force…no real difference. Show me large-scale troop movements and large-scale logistics build ups and I’ll rethink that position, but until then it’s basically the same as it’s been. There is no Great Debate at the Pentagon as to what the US should or shouldn’t do.
Honestly, loading one into a conex container and having it blow up in the long beach port facility would probably be more disruptive, and 100x easier.
Sounds like a good time for a bombing campaign with food. How many pallets of rice can a B-2 carry 
I admit I don’t know for certain, but I’m under the impression that there aren’t very many conex containers being loaded up in North Korea and shipped to Long Beach.
Load it in NK, smuggle it into China via bribes/mini sub chicanery/other NK special forces voodoo. Thence to an international air freight terminal. Load onto 747 freighter via more of the same, fly to US, airburst over desired target. Use some of the same illicit pathways that NK allegedly uses to ship out their methamphetamine throughout East Asia. Not at all easy or reliable, and Holy Shit if their shipment got intercepted in the middle of all of that, but the Kims had means before their (and Yuzhmash’s) rocketry achievements of potentially getting a warhead to the States.
Easier to just give the order to road-mobile ICBM crews to fuel, elevate and launch their birds—they can’t move the missiles around while they’re fueled, right?
Anyway, none of this is going to happen unless Un, or his OGD backers that actually have positive communication and control over the weapons, think it’s a Götterdämmerung situation for them, they’ve no way out, they and their families will die anyway, horribly, and they’re psycho enough to take a few million innocents with them. Yet that’s still enough of a Very Bad Day for the US if they did, that a lot of otherwise unthinkable actions become thinkable.
Aside, on the NKs potentially selling what’s left of ISIS a device, if they did—they wouldn’t—and if it went off, how could we know for certain that the explosion was caused by a NK device, with NK nuclear material? As opposed to some other design with NK material, or a NK device with ex-Soviet material, and so on? I mean, I doubt the West has material coupons from any NK reactor and reprocessing runs, and I doubt the West has device design documents in sufficient detail to model for certain what reaction products would result from such a device. Though samples have been obtained from previous NK nuclear tests, and that’d help considerably. Provided the sold device was made the same way, from the same material, as the device that was tested.
The point is, if Seattle or Seoul or Osaka or Riyadh or Beijing disappears in a flash of light, with no rocket trail helpfully leading back to North Korea, how would people know who to blame?