Would your calculus be the same if the city at risk wasn’t Seoul but Seattle?
I envision a slightly more hopeful outcome. In time, the Kim regime may be peacefully replaced by a more moderate regime, not unlike the unexpected change by Gorbachev in former USSR. Will it happen in the next 10 or 20 years? Perhaps not. But if we avoid provocation or preemptive strikes, then that remains a possibility. I assume you agree that nothing will be made better by continuing to ratchet up tensions and openly antagonizing NK in the interim.
Ooo, ooo! Can I answer this one? As a staunch conservative (in the minds of many 'dopers at least), I would MUCH rather it be Seattle that gets the boot than Seoul!
Actually, from both a humanitarian as well as economic perspective, it would be better to lose Seattle than Seoul. If we had to make an either-or choice that is.
Economic perspective of the US or economic perspective of the world?
China needs to want to “solve it”. We can’t make China solve the problem, but they’re the only ones who have a chance.
Well, since the Soviets and Chinese had a running series of battles along the Amur river Sino-Soviet border conflict - Wikipedia and Mao has no compunction about massive loss of life, I would say no. But, I don’t think Kim cares about massive loss of life either.
I don’t even want to rain on your hope parade. I hope you are right. I just don’t see it as a likely outcome. This isn’t Gorbachev and the USSR. China (well the CCP) won’t, IMHO, go down the way the USSR did either. North Korea? Ain’t happening. But I hope it does, and hope that when it does it’s not as bad as I think it is.
As to the second part, I honestly think Trump is an idiot, but everything we do antagonizes NK, so I don’t think there is any way to get around that. Obama certainly didn’t go out of his way to antagonize them (from our perspective at least), and they still did tests of both nukes and missiles. What I agree with is we shouldn’t do a preemptive strike on North Korea and start the war. If/when war happens, it needs to be clearly the NK’s who start the dance. This is a reasonably good way to ensure that China stays out of it or even, perhaps (since we have this hope parade going), they involve themselves directly to some degree. Best case, to me, is someone shoots Kim in the head, the government collapses, and the world is able to get in there before too many people die from the civil war, collapse of society and starvation. Ponies and unicorns all around!!
I think Kim thinks that life is cheap. Any life but his own fat ass. So I think he’ll put his survival ahead of whatever megalomaniacal tendencies he may have. FWIW, I think his bark is far worse than his bite.
The two situations are no way similar. The Soviets were going bankrupt trying to hold onto their massive imperial empire. They needed to modernize their economy to keep up with the West. There is no similar situation in NK and they don’t care about reform or modernization.
I do believe they are analogous. NK can’t feed it’s own people because of the amount of money being spent on their military and the corrupt regime. They may be more draconian than post Stalinist Communist Russia was about maintaining control but just like Stalin the Kim dynasty won’t last forever. What makes the Kim dynasty impervious to the same economic pressures that forced the political change in the former Soviet Union?
To paraphrase Leonard Cohen, “There’s a crack in everything. That’s how the light gets in.”
Both probably. Seoul has about an order of magnitude more economic GDP than Seattle…and over 10 times the population. I can’t imagine the economic impact of South Korea losing Seoul on the US or world trade.
Obviously, from an emotional perspective, the US would be much harder hit losing Seattle than Seoul, which I doubt a lot of Americans even know where it is or what its importance is.
I don’t think you have.
I’m talking about the assertion that China could solve the problem (and probably also including that they are aware that they have the ability to do this). It seems many here are assuming this is obviously the case.
From your posts in this thread ISTM you’re arguing China will not,that is, they are unwilling, to do anything. Far from challenging the assertion, this also seems to be implying it’s true, because otherwise it’s a largely irrelevant point.
China won’t solve the issue. I’m unsure how that’s functionally different than whatever point you are trying to make. If you are saying that, leaving aside all the reasons they won’t, that they categorically couldn’t solve this then you are correct…we disagree. China certainly COULD solve this issue (if we go into the fantasy of there being a unified China in lockstep and willing to do whatever it took to solve it). They could completely cut off North Korea from any sort of trade at all, interdict their use of forced NK labor and flow of technology and even access from Russia, and could basically bring the regime to its knees if it so chose. If you don’t believe that then feel free to explain why you think China couldn’t solve this issue if we leave aside all the reasons why they can’t and won’t due to their own internal politics and economics.
The Soviets could feed their people; But…
The Soviets had to balance spending between keeping their military tech equivalent with NATO; occupying/repressing their sattelites and their own people; and providing adequate consumer goods to their own people. The US military buildup of the 80s meant the Soviets could no longer do all 3.
The NKs don’t care about their people and are likely skimping on their conventional forces to support their nuke program. A rational NK would either cut back on their nuke program or reform their economy.
Well, having conventional weapons targeted such that they could essentially crater SK w/in minutes is a pretty significant threat. I don’t really see how nukes is all that much different. NK can cause great harm to SK or Japan conventionally, or they could try to get a nuke elsewhere. Hopefully, either of those action would result in their annihilation. And I’m not sure how much more we ought to be able to do than assure such retribution.
I’ve never really understood why we felt we should be able to prevent other states from joining the nuclear club. America is too addicted to sucking off China’s teat to apply more effective economic measures. We are such pussies. We want to be able to boss other countries around, without suffering any real loss of comfort while doing so.
If China is 1/10th as smart as I think they are, they have agents in the NK regime who could execute a coupe upon orders from Beijing. This is not rocket science, to use an apt analogy.
It’s amusing you believe NK feels safe and secure after hearing GWB declare them of an “Axis of Evil”, one of which has been subsequently regime-changed, and watching the US support the overthrow of other regimes it deems insufficiently democratic. And you’re conveniently forgetting they have always had an insurance policy of overwhelming retaliation against civilian centers, even in the pre-nuke era. The nuclear program is just a continuation and end-result of that policy.
Watching US policy unfold over the past couple of decades, it’s perfectly rational for them to assume the US would decapitate them with the slightest advantage, and perfectly rational that a nuclear ICBM program would be the best counter. And it’s also rational to appear to be irrational loose cannons.
I’m not saying it’s morally justified, and I’m not saying it’s in their long-term interests, but dismissing them as irrational actors is wrongheaded and dangerous.
On the contrary… if you only have one friend in the world, and this friend isn’t so friendly anymore… then muscular self-reliance becomes even more critical. Juche - that word means something, and they keep repeating it for a reason.
So you say (re: political/emotional considerations), but I’m interested in debating the cost/benefit analysis. I don’t know what the most reliable estimate is of how badly Seoul would be damaged or destroyed by North Korean bombardment. Suppose for the sake of argument that it’s only, say, a quarter of a million people killed (1% of the 25 million in the Seoul metro area). (It’s weird to say “only” 250,000 people killed, but I mean in comparison to the worst case of millions.) How do you weight 250,000 dead immediately, vs. millions of deaths that might never come? Or is your analysis entirely based on the assumption that North Korea is guaranteed to eventually use a nuke against us (or give it to someone who will use it), no matter what we do?
It seems to me that if the North Korean regime had a death wish, they could have gone out in a blaze of murderous “glory” a while ago, albeit not one that would have included a direct strike on the U.S. mainland. The Kim regime seems to be at least somewhat motivated by self-preservation. (And I’ve seen some commentators argue that’s his primary motivation.)
I’m not saying it can’t happen or even that it won’t happen, but it doesn’t seem like an inevitability.
What did that old two-door car ever do to deserve that?
It’s true that Seoul won’t be “destroyed;” far from it. But 9/11 left the vast majority of New York City intact and undamaged, and yet it still caused over a trillion dollars in indirect economic loss and forever altered America.
North Korea launching an all-out artillery barrage on Seoul and South Korea would be, proportionally, far more damaging than what 9/11 did to New York City and America, respectively.