How to best deal with North Korea

What a crock of ****. There is Nothing N Korea has that the US wants or needs. Do you count N Korea running around and kidnapping people as invading? They have attack US personnel on the DMZ. They have attacked a So Korean Island. A Ship too.

How many N Koreans has lil Kim and his family starved to death? Whens that human Rights record going to be dealt with? Just where is the left and the touchy feely about the way Lil Kim treats his people.

Think of the women.....the children. The Pets.

 

(1) One may reasonably criticize President Trump in some areas--but not in this one. (After all, it was Kim-Jong Un who began the angry and vile rhetoric--against both the US and Japan--whereas President Trump only responded.)

(2) Little Kim's father and grandfather were not exactly cuddly types, either; but they did not threaten the destruction of other sovereign nations.

(3) Kim-Jong Un has no good reason to be afraid of the US; his fetish for nuclear weapons is (1) to ensure his own survival, as head of the DPRK, and (2) to attempt to get the US out of the Pacific (including its separation from South Korea and Japan; and especially the former, as Kim wishes to reunite with South Korea--but only on the North's terms).

(4) The US could, indeed, "completely destroy" North Korea--but at a very high price, in terms of innocents dead in South Korea and Japan (at least 100,000--and perhaps far more).

(5) A "diplomatic solution" with North Korea would surely involve (1) our giving up our annual military exercises with South Korea (which, as you noted, Kim regards as a provocation--even though he appears to think that his own military exercises are okay); and (2) the reunification of the two Koreas, under the DPRK's terms.

And both of these are total non-starters, as far as I am concerned.

(6) You appear to view the US as the provocateur in all this, and the DPRK as an innocent victim...

 

Thats not a good idea because it would put the allies in South Korea at a disadvantage to the north koreans

 

You can't even comprehend properly. That was me commenting on someone else's talking point. Yes if we did withdraw from SK then that vacuum would have to be filled by Japan and they aren't doing that......ever. So mox nix. And as long as there is a regime like Kim's then we aren't leaving either. It's an incredibly naive point to try to make. And your trying to score off it is just as bad. Don't assume people are as stupid as you think they are. In fact it's always best to consider they are smarter than you think just to be safe. Sun Zi stuff right. Ni shuo Pu Tong Hua, ma?

We have nukes and besides using them twice in WWII we haven't threatened to use them. And we don't need them to annihilate NK either. Trump should have stated we would annihilate their regime not NK but he's good at using the wrong words at times even though most understand his meaning. And that's what could be coming if Kim Jong-un continues to develop nukes and threaten to use them.

So no we aren't the aggressors here. I blame Clinton, Bush, and Obama for kicking the can down the road. We are out of road and Trump is left holding the bag. Not his fault just his responsibility. Your appeasement is predictable and predictably doomed to fail. Not only is this about NK but also about a bigger problem in Iran who will use your recipe to terrorize its enemies with nukes as well as likely sell them and/or fissionable material to other terror groups.

You need to think this through more carefully.

 

Fill what void? The removal of 25,000 US troops from South Korea? South Korea doesn't need 25,000 US troops, it doesn't need 25,000 Japanese troops, it doesn't need 25,000 Klingon troops. South Korea has an excellent military and doesn't require any foreign troops to defend itself from an unlikely North Korean invasion. What South Korea needs is the defense treaty that it has with the United States where the United States would respond militarily to any North Korean attempted invasion and that wouldn't go away.

North Korea isn't the threat. It hasn't had any plans to invade South Korea since the Korean War. It isn't going to invade South Korea as long as South Korea has a defense treaty with the United States. It won't invade because it knows it can't defeat the United States and an invasion would lead to the end of the regime in North Korea.

What has failed is the strategy of nuclear disarmament of North Korea. North Korea is and has been developing nuclear weapons as a deterrent against a possible US invasion of North Korea. It's not developing nuclear weapons for offensive purposes to attack South Korea or Japan or the United States because it knows that's a war it can't possibly win. North Korea and Kim Jong Un are not suicidal and have no desire to start a nuclear war with the United States where not even China would be willing to defend North Korea.

The experts on North Korea have come out and stated that the goal of the United States needs to change from nuclear disarmament of North Korea to nuclear containment of North Korea. We need to remove the threat to North Korea that the United States represents and has represented since the ceasefire of the Korean War. It is time for South Korea (and the United States) to broker a peace agreement to the Korean War that removes the threat of the United States sitting with armed military troops on the border that currently represent the threat of a US backed invasion of North Korea.

I'm not sure where the misinformation comes from that the US has ever previously proposed using nuclear weapons as a first strike offensive weapon, that Donald Trump has suggested in the past, but it's never happened since the end of WW II. The use of nuclear weapons by the US has always been reserved as a deterrent to the use of nuclear weapons by another country (basically the Soviet Union/Russia) based upon the "Mutual Assured Destruction" (MAD) doctrine. As it indicates there are no winners based upon the MAD doctrine because both sides are destroyed. What part of "there are no winners in a nuclear war" do some people, including Donald Trump, not seem to understand.

The US has no means by which to ensure that it can destroy all of North Korea's nuclear weapons especially the shorter range nuclear missiles that can easily be transported by truck and that can strike South Korea and Japan. It's unlikely we can even locate the larger ICBM missiles that can, in theory, reach the United States. We can attack the facilities but the missiles aren't at the launch facilities. The actual missiles can be hidden anywhere in the country and temporary launch facilities can be created within hours. We can't even prevent the conventional weapons attack of Seoul South Korea from artillery and rocket hardened emplacements along the border in North Korea that places roughly 12 millions South Koreans in peril.

What is most worrisome is that President Trump is doing everything possible to prevent a negotiated settlement with North Korea. The threats, the insults, and the brandishing of US military might diminishes the possibility of a negotiated settlement. What kind of stupid is Donald Trump? When a nation is as powerful militarily as the United States, and everyone already knows that power exists, the last thing you need or want to do is a display of power. Effective diplomatic solutions to a problem are resolved based upon mutually beneficial agreements and not by threats or displays of force. We can note that with the following recent example.

The agreement between the United Nations Security Council with Iran over it's nuclear programs based upon the NPT was not accomplished by force or by threats. That agreement is overseen by the independent IAEA and it prevents Iran from producing a nuclear weapon. The IAEA has certified that Iran is complying with that agreement and Iran cannot produce a nuclear weapon at this time. This agreement was accomplished based upon the mutually beneficial provisions of the agreement. The world was relieved of the anxiety of Iran potentially producing a nuclear weapon (although Iran had not shown any desire to actually produce a nuclear weapon and did not have a nuclear weapons program according to all of the US intelligence agencies) and sanctions against Iran that had locked up it's funds in foreign countries and foreign trade were lifted. It was that diplomatic solution to a singular problem that also opened the door of opportunity to address other issues with Iran such as it's funding to Hezbollah (but we haven't taken advantage of that opportunity so far).

We have the opportunity to resolve the North Korean "problem" but that resolution must be based upon an un-coerced agreement reached without threats of force. We're going to have to address why North Korea has felt compelled to develop nuclear weapons and the delivery systems to reach the United States. We have to understand that no country can feel assured that the US will not invade and overthrow it's regime based upon the recent history of the US in overthrowing the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, Saddam's regime in Iraq, and Gadhafi's regime in Libya. The only case I'm aware of where the US actually promised to not overthrown a government in the future was JFK's commitment to Russia that the US would never again attempt to overthrow the regime of Castro in Cuba as a condition of Russia removing it's nuclear missiles. That agreement was made 50 years ago when the word of the US President actually meant something while the word of Donald Trump has literally no meaning at all.

If the current escalation leads to war then Donald Trump, not Kim Jong Un, will be responsible. It's been Trump that's lead with threats, insults, and the brandishing of US military might in an attempt to intimidate North Korea and North Korea is not about to be intimidated by Donald Trump. Everything that North Korea has done is in response to Donald Trump and Donald Trump is solely responsible for it.

Sadly Donald Trump doesn't know the difference between the power of leadership that's a result of integrity, respect, and competency and the power of the despot that based upon threats and the use of force. President Trump has never been a leader in his lifetime and is not a "leader" in dealing with North Korea. Donald Trump is repeating the same patterns of behavior he exhibited in his business dealings. He's the despot attempting to exert power based upon threats and the (possible) use of force and that will prevent him from reaching a peaceful resolution with North Korea.

 

Shiva_TD is totally misguided on this subject

He thinks North Korea is justified to have nuclear weapons because it is the only thing that prevents the US from invading them

That is complete bullshit

Why would we want to do that?

The Kim dynasty in north korea on the other hand has been committed to uniting Korea by force for 70 years

And has sacrificed the welfare of its people just to fund its military for that purpose

 

And just how do you propose to resolve the issue?

 

There are only two possible ways

Either china disarms kim or we do

 

I've got another idea. Get good Korean translators and sit down like mature adult males and have a conversation of why nuclear testing is a frightful thing to others. If nuclear development is a concern, then try to persuade those who have the right to build nuclear things to not do so in such large quantities. Also if the creation of new nuclear things is a concern, talk with International Atomic Energy Agency to see if they can stop selling or providing nuclear material to those that request it. Or just stop manufacturing uranium products.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...duction/what-is-uranium-how-does-it-work.aspx

Australia's known resources are over 1.6 million tonnes of uranium recoverable at up to US$130/kg U (currently above the market 'spot' price), Kazakhstan's are over 700,000 tonnes of uranium and Canada's and Russia's are over 500,000 tU. Australia's resources in this category are 29% of the world's total, Kazakhstan's are 13%, Canada's and Russia's each 9%.

Several countries have significant uranium resources. Apart from the top four, they are in order: South Africa, Niger, Brazil, China, Namibia, Mongolia, Uzbekistan, and Ukraine, all with 2% or more of world total. Other countries have smaller deposits which could be mined if needed.

Kazakhstan is the world's top uranium producer, followed by Canada and then Australia as the main suppliers of uranium to world markets - now over 60,000 tU per year.

Uranium is sold only to countries which are signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and which allow international inspection to verify that it is used only for peaceful purposes.


Political system
Kazakhstan is a unitary republic, its only President to date (2017) is Nursultan Nazarbayev

In 1999, Kazakhstan had applied for observer status at the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly. The official response of the Assembly was that Kazakhstan could apply for full membership, because it is partially located in Europe, but that they would not be granted any status whatsoever at the Council until their democracy and human rights records improved.

Kazakhstan is a member of the United Nations, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). It is an active participant in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Partnership for Peaceprogram.

Kazakhstan is also a member of the Commonwealth of Independent States, the Economic Cooperation Organization and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The nations of Kazakhstan, Russia, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan established the Eurasian Economic Community in 2000, to revive earlier efforts to harmonise trade tariffs and to create a free trade zone under a customs union. On 1 December 2007, it was announced that Kazakhstan had been chosen to chair theOrganization for Security and Co-operation in Europe for the year 2010. Kazakhstan was elected a member of the UN Human Rights Council for the first time on 12 November 2012.

Kazakhstan's human rights situation is described as poor by independent observers. The 2015 Human Rights Watch report on Kazakhstan said that the country "heavily restricts freedom of assembly, speech, and religion. In 2014, authorities closed newspapers, jailed or fined dozens of people after peaceful but unsanctioned protests, and fined or detained worshipers for practicing religion outside state controls. Government critics, including opposition leader Vladimir Kozlov, remained in detention after unfair trials. In mid-2014, Kazakhstan adopted new criminal, criminal executive, criminal procedural, and administrative codes, and a new law on trade unions, which contain articles restricting fundamental freedoms and are incompatible with international standards. Torture remains common in places of detention."[66] The 2016 Human Rights Watch report commented that Kazakhstan "took few meaningful steps to tackle a worsening human rights record in 2015, maintaining a focus on economic development over political reform."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakhstan


Nothing but immature threatening with no adult mature talks... What sorts of adults lead Countries?

Sure, it's easy to speak with other proficient English Speakers but what about talks with the non Proficient English speakers?

The G20 summit contained nothing but proficient English Speakers.

Did you know that The Americas contain 55 independent and separate Countries? Not independent and separate States. 55 independent and separate COUNTRIES.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_in_the_Americas_by_population

List of countries in the Americas by population


Not everyone in the Americas has English as their main language.

Besides, the English language did not originate in The United States. English being spoken on U.S. soil comes from the separatists which left Britain and desired to be autonomous of The British Crown with its Declaration of Independence. Persons such as Thomas Paine, who was a rebel himself, encouraged and aided many 'Americans' to have the Revolution to become defectors to the original Way of English life.















Thomas Paine (or Pain;[1] February 9, 1737 [O.S. January 29, 1736]– June 8, 1809) was an English-American political activist, philosopher, political theorist, and revolutionary. One of the Founding Fathers of the United States, he authored the two most influential pamphlets at the start of the American Revolution, and he inspired the rebels in 1776 to declare independence from Britain.[2] His ideas reflected Enlightenment-era rhetoric of transnational human rights.[3] He has been called "a corsetmaker by trade, a journalist by profession, and a propagandist by inclination." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine

Although he was born in Thetford in the English county of Norfolk, he was one that aided in the defiance and separation from The British Crown.

 

I stopped reading with your quote about NK not wanting to invade SK. I believe that's your initial paragraph or close enough. You don't even know what NK says to the world. Anyone that follows this topic understands their goal to reunite the peninsula under NK's regime. It's been their goal since the War. It's a colossal waste of time to talk to someone who has so little knowledge beyond talking points and agenda. Go educate yourself then come back when you make sense and understand the topic including their stated, written, and behavioral goals.

I've posted this either in this thread or one like it BTW. However, don't think about taking my word for it. Go look it up.

 

This appears to assume that Dear Leader is lucid, and that he therefore thinks rationally.

Just why you might believe that, I have no idea.

Am I correct in assuming that you think that the US is the real provocateur here?

Yes, it would be very difficult--probably even impossible--for our government to locate all of North Korea's missiles. Even a devastating first strike by the US, in all probability, would not get all of those missiles.

I can scarcely believe that you think that Donald Trump is more to blame in this matter than Kim Jong Un is.

Granted, Donald Trump's personality is not terrific, in my view; he can be rude, and is generally crude. And he is rather bellicose.

But to claim that Dear Leader has merely been responding to the language of President Trump is to get it all reversed...

 

The thought that a madman may have nuclear weapons is, indeed, a "frightful" matter.

Here is a bit about the nuclear bomb: http://www.businessinsider.com/north-korea-thermonuclear-explosion-pacific-effects-2017-9?r=UK&IR=T

 

I completely agree that any madman having any form of murder weapon is a very frightening matter. Any person who 'hears' voices, 'sees' things, gets ideas that 'murdering' innocent persons is a Godly 'thing' and who have weapons to carry out their 'voices' 'sights' and/or 'ideas' is a very psychotic thing and a very frightful thing.
And even just as scary if not scarier are those 'madmen' who think they are right, who claim they are right, who disguise themselves as right, but in their heart they are just as 'murderous' as the ones who should be receiving helps. As for certain 'personal' matters, one person to another, with 'murderous' intent, that is something a person, any person, should not get involved with. Murdering a person for reasons of betrayal, theft, victimization and such are forms of retribution. And if a person 'murders' randomly with no provocation, then that person might have some sort of 'story' to be able to share with a Professional of why he/she randomly murders and with no provocations needed.

These sorts of persons can aid Psychiatrists to a great degree if the psychiatrist/patient confidentiality agreement can be held in strict trust. However, for the psychiatrist to be able to form any true help for such patients, she/he would have to consult with other psychiatrists and other professionals to see what could be done to help the patient and other patients who might be in the same shoes. Deterrence is very good..

 

Are you implying, then, that Little Kim should see a psychiatrist?

Because if you are, I quite doubt that he will heed your suggestion (or even be aware of it).

 

Maybe not Little Kim but might YOU know of any madmen on a personal level that you might be able to 'guide' in the right direction?

 

Uh, no.

Do you?

 

Everyone needs 'guidance' to some 'better' degree. If you've grown complacent in your lifestyle, then surely, you could also use some guidance into 'better' things.

 

I don't think China wants a western allied nation on it's border. It suits their national interest to have North Korea as a buffer, so much so
that they have already stated that if the U.S. were to strike first, they would not accept that, so we are left in the position of waiting until
North Korea strikes the U.S or it's allies in the region.

 

And you imagine that I am more "complacent" than you...why, exactly?

 

Or assignation.

 

Not married, huh?

 

Well.....we have told China. We will not allow Lil Kim to get his Nuke onto that ICBM. That's not happening, whether you accept that or not.

Then we told the rest of the World. They cannot ever come back and say we did not make out our case. We have done everything we could to get Official negotiations up and going. We have exhausted all diplomatic means. We took the path that lead to peace first. Remember that.

The World was put on notice. They were given the warning. The only reason China has done anything significant is due to one thing. Their thought on Trumps Uncertainty, and now they know.....either they take care of the problem themselves. Or Trump going to take care of it. Evidently they feel that, Trump isn't bluffing.

 

Yes, I agree

But china is in the best position to do that

 

That's right. China always has the option of handling the invasion and disposal of Kim and setting up their own puppet. If fact, that is probably the only way out of this without Seoul Korea getting shelled.

Trump’s North Korea Threat-Theater Is Working .

The heated rhetorical exchanges between Washington and Pyongyang have once again fired public interest in Korean war scenarios and the Korean information war.

Obvious truth tends to die in Beltway media darkness, but The Washington Post finally noticed the intent and utility of the Trump administration’s orchestrated information warfare operation.

On October 7, the Voice of America published a double-barreled article combining a military-political intervention scenario and a sampling of Trump’s information operation.

Emmott posited a Chinese military intervention in North Korea to convince the North Korean military to remove the Kim regime. Emmott wrote:

“Whereas a nuclear exchange with the U.S. would mean devastation, submission to China would promise survival, and presumably a degree of continued autonomy. For all except those closest to Kim, the choice would not be a difficult one.

China’s strategic gains from a successful military intervention would include not only control of what happens on the Korean Peninsula, where it presumably would be able to establish military bases, but also regional gratitude for having prevented a catastrophic war.”

While China has superior military forces “…their inferior opponents have leaders who might be prepared to use nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction, if they did not simply accept Chinese terms and surrender.”

A Chinese invasion in lieu of an American-led attack “would stand a better chance of avoiding Kim’s likely response: an artillery attack on the South Korean capital, Seoul, which lies just a few dozen miles south of the demilitarized zone.”

Little Rocket Man.

Several months ago, Trump decided to give North Korea a relentless dose of its own threat-theater bombast. Trump seeds his threat-theatrics with customized belittling designed to rattle the imperious autocrat.

Trump is conducting an information warfare operation, and one Kim Jong Un and his regime have not confronted, especially one executed by an American president. Trump didn’t undermine Secretary of State Rex Tillerson when he tweeted that Tillerson was “wasting his time” negotiating with North Korea. That drama was “good cop, bad cop,” with the goal of rattling Kim. Nor does Trump undermine Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis. That noted, at times it must astonish (and perhaps please) Mattis that this is the first time in his professional life he’s played the good cop.

Moreover, Trump’s information warfare operation isn’t all verbal theater, good cop-bad cop kabuki and tweetkrieg. The U.S. and its allies back the verbal assaults and tweets with shows of powerful and credible military force.

Trump’s information operation appalls mainstream media, despite the Washington Post’s belated and singular epiphany. Media geniuses continue to miss its point. The information warfare operation sends the message “hey dummy, it’s different.” It forces the Kim regime to recognize the geo-strategic situation has changed in ways that the regime did not expect and cannot control. Strategic patience is really over, Rocket Man. That’s Trump’s message and the Kim regime and North Korean military are its critical audiences, not the sideshow of mainstream media.

Which brings us back to VOA’s double-barreled article. VOA is U.S. government-funded and overseen by an independent agency.

VOA’s two barrels frame a choice for North Korea: Chinese intervention and survival versus Madman Trump’s war of annihilation. I’ll wager there are North Korean intelligence analysts and senior military officers who will read it that way and read it as a message. Kim Jong Un’s information warfare advisers certainly will.

Why, Kim might conclude it’s time to purge intelligence analysts and kill a few more senior military officers. Would Beijing read that as a sign of instability? Stay tuned.

http://observer.com/2017/10/donald-trump-threats-corner-north-korea/

 

I have no first hand information about the chinese but I don't think they would actually have to invade North Korea to achieve regime change