The North Korean Problem

Great Debates
281

The question of “defending” SK needs to be examined. There is considerable sympathy for the plight of N Koreans amongst the SKoreans, and a growing antipathy for Americans. Upon consultation with the SK gov, removing our troops seems a good idea. They are, at best, a token presence at any rate, for all practical purposes, they are hostages, a trip wire. If things go badly, as they frequently do in situations like this, NK may lob a nuke at an American troop concentration. All hell would break loose, that you can guarantee.

Our troops there serve no other useful function, they are in fact hostages, an implied threat. “Hurt our boys, and we’ll nuke you into dust.” This just isn’t very helpful.

Recent conciliatory gestures on the part of the Bushistas I take as a hopeful sign. I just wish GeeDubya had kept his mouth shut a lot earlier. There is no chance, none, that the NK’s interpreted that “axis of evil” crapola as anything but a threat. Being human, they answered with a counter threat. “We got nukes, so watch it!”

History 101 will tell you this is the road to Hell on Earth.

282

It appears to me that Nk has a particular beef with the US (legitimate or not), and perhaps the best course of action is for us to bow out of a leadership position on this one. I would assume if this issue is as important to other western powers, they would gladly step in for us. I don’t get that feeling though. I agree that that nuke plant can’t go online, and I wonder if China or Russia feels the same way. If the case is true, I feel they would be far better at handling this then us.

Just a thought.

283

Oops forgot. We know Jong is crazy, but like Hussein how crazy is crazy? Is he nuts enough to order a preemptive nuclear strike on 37,000 US troops? Would his underlings even obey his order? I guess the same question that they ask of Iraq, would his commanders (are they nuts as well?) even listen and carry out his order?

Nutty dictators aren’t usually the ones with their fingers (literally) on the button. I would imagine that should decrease the threat, at least slightly.

284

Of course it’s helpful. It’s a deterrent. North Korea can’t take South Korea unless it goes through a lot of Americans. And that in turn gives the U.S. a causus belli for retaliating against South Korea.

In short, the presence of those soldiers says, “South Korea’s fight is America’s fight”. I can’t think of a BETTER deterrant.

The notion that they are ‘hostage’ is ridiculous. Would you have said the same about the 5,000 soldiers in Kuwait before the buildup? Or the soldiers stationed in Europe? Or the Americans at Guantanamo bay?

Most U.S. military presences abroad could not defend themselves against their primary foes without serious backup. They are there to monitor, to maintain forward bases, keep supply lines open, and to act as an early-warning system. In some cases, they are located in enough numbers to act as at least a temporary deterrant. But the U.S. does far more than that in Korea. It trains the South Korean military. It flies fighter patrols. It coordinates intelligence, and monitors the DMZ.

And it’s more than just a ‘token’ force. The 7th air force alone has a couple of hundred F-16s, A-10s, and other modern aircraft. Given historical kill rates against Soviet fighters with poor training, the 7th AF would play havoc with the North Koreans.

After all, there are 37,000 Americans in South Korea.

And if History 101 can teach us anything, it’s that trying to buy your peace by appeasing tyrants is almost always a losing strategy.

Why do you think that Israel still exists today, and is relatively peaceful and prosperous? Is it because of its good negotiating skills? No. It’s because the countries around it know that if they try to destroy Israel it will kick their ass.

elucidator, how would YOU solve this problem? More negotiation? Give Kim what he wants? Pull out of South Korea, and let him know that the U.S. is willing to severely back down as soon as a little pressure is applied?

If you think just negotation is the way to go, then tell me: What will stop Kim from blackmailing the U.S. again in a few years, when it actually has dozens of nukes sitting on top of missiles aimed at the U.S. and Japan? And why don’t you think this is a likely outcome of appeasing him now?

285

World Eater: The north can’t nuke 37,000 Americans, for the simple reason that they aren’t all clustered together - they are spread out over something like 94 different bases and locations within South Korea. I think the biggest base might have something like 8,000 people there, but even then, they aren’t all within the 1 or 2 mile radius of destruction that a crude North Korean bomb would have.

And sure, it would be better if the rest of the world pitched in to deal with Kim. But for all the blustering that goes on about the U.S. being the ‘world’s policemen’, the bottom line is that the rest of the world is content to let the U.S. spend its money and blood. Almost every other country has given up its ability to project power - most militaries now are really homeland defense forces, with only a handful of countries still able to stretch supply lines out to other countries. Canada, for example, has dismantled so much of its military that without the U.S. we probably couldn’t field much of a force anywhere in the world.

The U.S. has become the world’s policemen because no one else can do it any more.

286

Miscellaneous comments:

  1. No reason to believe Kim Jong Il is crazy, rather than simply power-hungry, is there? Calling a dictator insane is a useful way to avoid trying to understand his motivations, and thereby predict his responses, but isn’t it necessary to do those things? One must also consider that there’s a power structure around a dictator, with a number of people whose own lives and livelihoods depend on its continued existence. It’s fun to denounce people you don’t like, certainly, but it’s ultimately counterproductive and a bit childish.

  2. No reason either to think he’s bent on conquering the South. NK has had every opportunity to do so over the last half-century, but with ever-decreasing ability short of nuking the place; but why would he want to rule over that? Rather, he and his “administration” may understand that they are under an ever-increasing threat from the South, with an assist from the US and perhaps Japan and China. NK isn’t about to really give up on the only real deterrent it has, is it?

  3. That leaves it up to the Bushies and their cheerleaders to explain why they should be provoked into increasing the risk of their actually being used. Sam, to mention one such cheerleader, has already admitted not having a clue what to do, but is willing to denounce the naivete of anyone with the temerity to question the revered (synonym for Republican) Bush’s approach. This is not at all helpful, especially when preaching to those who really would have to deal with the consequences.

Example above: What makes you think so? Don’t make unsupported pronouncements out of the air if even you admit you don’t have a clue, pal. Why should anyone listen?

  1. Nice of Bush to realize, after what I’m sure was a politely Japanese-style phone call from Koizumi along the lines of “What the hell are you doing? Want us to get nuked here?” that he’d better back down. Pity there’s nobody to tell him that about Iraq, although Sharon may have tried.

  2. So where’s Osama? Remember him?

287

  1. Lots of reasons to believe he’s crazy. Have you actually read up on the man? He believes he has magical powers. He has all kinds of strange habits. North Korea has been run by exactly two people - Kim Jong-il, and his Dad. More than one analyst has described the government as a ‘cult’. The government of North Korea spends 4% of its GDP throwing parties for him. Really - he’s nuts.

  2. Elvis, if you think there is ‘no reason to think he is bent on conquering the South’ you must not have been paying attention in school. I suggest a history book.

When has North Korea had the opportunity to invade South Korea? The U.S. has been there since the Korean war. But they HAVE tried. The North Koreans were discovered digging tunnels under the DMZ in an invasion attempt. They have attempted to escalate the conflict on numerous occasions. They’ve just been rebuffed, that’s all. There is EVERY reason to believe that North Korea wants to invade South Korea. Why else would it spend 30% of its GDP (more than any other nation, I believe) on a military?

And why would Kim want to rule South Korea? Are you serious? Taking back South Korea has been the overriding focus of North Korea since the end of the Korean war. They want South Korea for political, cultural, and economic reasons. South Korea’s GDP is 24 times the size of North Korea’s. Nope, there can’t possibly be any reason a tyrant would want that, huh?

  1. Where have I been a cheerleader for Bush’s policies? I’ve said that I’m not sure what the right approach is. What I said in this thread is that it’s ridiculous to believe that the North Koreans were behaving properly before Bush came along. All evidence points to their almost immediately violating the 1994 agreement that Clinton brokered. Clinton himself admitted it, and started a process to broker a new deal in 1998. But North Korea got all belligerant, and Clinton backed down.

What makes me think that most of the world wants to defend South Korea? Oh, I don’t know… How about the fact that the Korean war was a UN operation, and the terms of the cease-fire stipulate the defense of the country? That cease-fire was a UN initiative, and wasn’t even signed by the U.S. or South Korea. The advisory committee that oversees the armistice to prevent war from breaking out has no Americans or South Koreans on it. It has historically been made up of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Sweden, and Switzerland. Even China is entering talks to help defend South Korea.

As for getting a clue and making unsupported pronouncements, I rarely see cites from YOU, Elvis. You just show up and rant at people, then leave. You’re rarely more than a waste of bandwidth. My assertion that the western nations would defend South Korea is only ‘unsupported’ if the person reading it is completely clueless. I shouldn’t have to depend on cites in saying things like, “The western nations agree about defending South Korea”. It’s obvious on its face, like saying the sky is blue. Remember the Korean war? Do you honestly believe that if North Korea invaded the south that there wouldn’t be widespread support for the South in the rest of the world? If so, you really should look into buying a clue yourself.

  1. No comment. I haven’t been talking about Bush. I haven’t made a decision yet. Nice of you to step in and jerk your knee, though.

  2. Yep, I do. Tall guy. Ugly beard. Lives in caves, and probably smells awful. Especially since he’s likely dead. I remember many other things which are equally unrelated to the topic at hand. But since this is the North Korea thread, I don’t think it’s really appropriate to talk about.

Once again, we get a world-class effort from ElvisL1ves - who rarely offers anything to a debate, but likes to run around the SDMB calling people names.

288

Sam, I would expect that even though we carry the sword, that countries would rally around us diplomatically. I have seen no evidence that this is the case. I would also say that we’ve worn our welcome out as the policeman of the world, and should perhaps find a new role. It seems that we are becoming more hated, and more of a target, which should at least make us pause. Just because we can project force does not mean we should, and can always do so with 100% crystal clear accuracy. In regards to the NK situation, part of me says “fuck 'em”, and we should pull out if our troops are not welcome, or in this case seem to be exacerbating the problem. This action still leaves us with a nuclear NK, that after a few years and some longer-range missiles, will became a worse an even bigger problem. It seems that there is nothing the US can do these days without invoking someone’s ire, it’s all pretty depressing.

289

[sub]On preview I see that Sam Stone has already replied. Meh.[/sub]

I guess his claims of weather control and being born on the sacred mountain (hint: he wasn’t) aren’t crazy. Personally I think we’re the crazy ones for thinking he’d stick to the treaty he signed.

Threat from the South? From the guys who just elected a pro-“lets-work-it-out” leader? From South Korea, which has backed down in almost every recent past military incident that North Korea has instigated?

I don’t think Sam Stone’s “denounce(d) the naivete of anyone with the temerity to question the revered (synonym for Republican) Bush’s approach” as much as he’s asked for viable alternatives. And “temerity” implies that there’s some sort of danger involved in disagreeing with Bush on N. Korea. Does this fit anyone on the SDMB?

To quote someone I read recently, “Don’t make unsupported pronouncements out of the air if even you admit you don’t have a clue, pal.”

Cavorting with 72 Virginians.

290

Calling a spade a spade does not strike me as counter-productive in the least. Closing our eyes and pretending that dictators are just misunderstood nationalists did no good while the North Koreans were merrily ignoring the treaty they signed, any more than it would to pretend that Pol Pot was really Santa Claus in disguise. These are cruel, nasty people we are dealing with. Are they clinically insane? It’s debatable, I guess, but threatening to use nukes while your people are starving to death is not likely to get you chosen as Psychology Today’s centerfold any time soon.

Really? What did you imagine the tunnels the North Koreans built under the DMZ were going to be used for?

Provoked? There has been exactly zero evidence that the rest of the world provoked North Korea into doing anything. They never had any intention of abiding by the treaty. They have simply lost the ability to do so in secret. If this constitutes provocation, then I am provoking a burglar by calling the police when I catch him in my living room holding my VCR.

And this is one of the least supportable misrepresentations of another series of posts I have read this week. The naive ones seem to me to be the ones trying to pretend that if we just make nice to the North Koreans, we can all forget our little differences and sign a few choruses of “Kum Ba Ya”.

Iraq has nukes? What are you talking about?

Let me quote another poster.

Why indeed?

What the hell does this have to do with the price of plutonium?

It seems he was trying to get his dirty hands on some nukes on his own account, since you ask.

But don’t object. It might provoke him.

Regards,
Shodan

291
292

Naturally we all need to be clearer about what we mean by craziness and insanity. I tried more than you, but still fell short. There are all kinds of mental illnesses of various degrees, and various levels of connection with reality and ability to reason. That can include the Reagan Administration’s reliance on an astrologer, or Mackenzie King’s communing with spirits (throwing Sam a bone there), if you like. If we want to affect someone’s behavior, it is certainly necessary to understand his motivations and mental processes, is it not? Simply dismissing those factors is mentally lazy beyond the bounds of responsible conduct. Do you still disagree?

Again, we’re referring to Kim Jong Il’s view (as I suspect it is), and from the strategic view of his retaining his own power, not what we think or might want to think the reality is. Personal power, its perquisites, and its retention are, as History 101 teaches, what a totalitarian dictator is primarily interested in - agreed? Now, the South has an ever-increasing margin of manpower and economic strength, and, if there is ever going to be a merger or even a rapprochement, it will be the surviving regime, not the brutes in Pyongyang. Being declared part of the “Axis of Evil” most certainly has relieved Kim’s fears too, hasn’t it? Or, being crazy, Kim may not know his own situation at all, huh? Sorry, pal, it takes more thought than the dismissive right wing has shown so far.

Opinions on that differ. Read the thread, and its relatives from the beginning if you want cites.

Other than being denounced for “giving aid and comfort to the enemy”, as Moderator manhattan has done? Or, at the broader extreme, being declared an “enemy combatant” and being locked in an oubliette, as this administration has declared the right to do? No, not hardly, huh? Yes, of course, given the current political atmosphere, disagreeing with Bush brings the risk of being labeled unpatriotic. Surely that isn’t news?

Do you know the difference between expressing a suspicion or opinion, and stating it as fact?

Shodan:

North Korea. Read the thread title. What are you talking about?

It’s called “distraction”. The threat to the US, the actual enemy, is Osama and Al Qaeda. Why are we talking about North Korea, then? Well, all of us except you, that is. Could it be because Bush has changed the subject to avoid embarrassment about his failure to capture him “dead or alive”, and because you have ovinely let him do so? Does that really need explanation? Just what responsibilities do you think a democracy’s citizenry has, anyway?

Sam, no, I don’t post as much as you, nor do most people - I have found it to be true that one learns more with one’s eyes and ears than with one’s mouth and keyboard. While you’re spending time and bandwidth admitting you don’t have facts, I’ve been trying to gather them instead.

293

Great. So what have you learned? Don’t keep it to yourself. Contribute something to the thread, rather than just making vague criticisms of everyone else. Like your message above, where you take issue with the idea that Kim is nuts, by making vague analogies to dictators and weak comparisons to a foible of a first lady and an old Canadian Prime Minister. No one is saying that having silly beliefs qualifies you as nuts - if it did, 90% of the population would be crazy. All kinds of people believe in astrology and other wacky stuff. Nonetheless, there is a line at which you have to stop and say, “If you’re over this line, you’re just nuts”. Perhaps Kim doesn’t meet the clinical definition of insanity, but he comes close enough that you’d have to be suicidal to trust his judgement on anything.

With all the reading you’ve been doing, have you read up on the guy? I have, and the more I read, the crazier he sounds. He wears high heels. He commissioned 20,000 plaster busts of himself. He has a passion for films, which isn’t in itself crazy. But keeping 100 translators on hand to rapidly subtitle movies is extreme, but not insane. On the other hand, kidnapping your favorite director and movie star from South Korea, risking an international incident, so that they will make personal films for you, is a little nuts, don’t you think? He made the director sit in prison for four years until he agreed to make movies for him. When he’s not directing movies at gunpoint, his favorite pastime is apparently being serviced by slave women while he watches Daffy Duck cartoons.

He has been known to write movie reviews and send them to South Korean newspapers, but his own people have only ever heard his voice once - 8 years ago he uttered a sentence in public, and that’s the only record of his ever speaking to anyone outside his palace. People who meet him must greet him as ‘Dear Leader’ - or be shot. The South Korean Central Intelligence Agency, which probably has the best information on him, has described him as ‘mentally unstable’.

But is he clinically insane? Maybe, maybe not. Is Michael Jackson clinically insane? Maybe, maybe not. But would you trust him with your kids?