North Korea: Do we or don't we (invade)?

I think sanctions have a better chance of working than trusting a country that has been proven to be untrustworthy. I also think we need to continue making it clear to Kim that if he launches an attack on our allies that his regime will be wiped off the face of the planet. There are no good options but I think this is the best of all the bad options.

 

So I actually think that there is some wisdom to taking a step back at this point. I get that we don't want him to have nukes, but the reality is, he has them. He's going to build more whether we want him to or not, whether we negotiate with him or not.

Any pre-emptive strike or invasion is going to result in devastation in South Korea - which was supposedly the whole point of being there to begin with. It also will likely mean an undeclared war with China and universal international sanctions. We can argue whether Kim should be blown up all day long, but it's not reality.

It seems like the only answer at this point is to come into negotiations with Russia and China and agree to end the war games and tone down the rhetoric with the understanding that if he starts massing forces or in any way indicates he's going into South Korea, all three powers are going to wipe him off the map. That may be unrealistic to expect that China and Russia would follow through with it, but a public acknowledgement by them would mean that North Korea could be dealt with as a result of something they've actually done (not threatened). He's not going to pre-emptively launch a nuke because he knows he doesn't have enough firepower to even come close to preventing a reprisal.

Is that a gamble? Yes. Everything we're doing in that region is a gamble at this point. But that's the only scenario on the board that I can think of that will not involve a nuke heading toward the mainland U.S. or complete devastation of South Korea.

Have I mentioned that we need to be working on that anti-missile tech?

 

An that's a perfectly reasonable stance. It's akin to supporting the troops but being against the war.

 

Agree with your analysis. China has already indicated they will not stand with North Korea if North Korea strikes first.

 

It's a "contain" vs. "control" argument. With NK being a client state of China, we'll never be able to "control" them. The best we can hope for is to contain them.

 

That depends on what actually ends up happening and who we're talking about. The media isn't supposed to be for or against any war. Democrats (and frankly everybody) should evaluate any war that happens on its own merits and be consistent.

 

North Korea cannot be negotiated under the current leadership as they never hold up their end of the deal. All we can do is cut off trade and hope for a change of leadership before the current regime tries to do something very stupid like start a war.

Chamberlain and Stalin signed treaties with Hitler. A treaty with Kim Jong Un and the current North Korean leadership is as worthless as a treaty with Hitler. You cannot negotiate with crazy person.

 

It appears Trump won this round. L'il Kim backing off threat to attack Guam.

That is probably the result of China threatening to not buy coal, seafood, and other N. Korean exports. The Chinese action resulted from The Donald threatening to open an investigation into the Chicoms stealing American Intellectual Property, which they've been doing for decades with little consequence.

Of course, we haven't heard the last of this. Kim could decide to shoot off more rockets tomorrow. I think he just likes being a player on the world stage.

 

China can talk all they want, but they HAVE to back us, in the end, or at least stay out of it. If they get in a war with us, 1) dept payments will stop and 2) access to our markets will be cut off. How long will they last then?

This falls under the heading of the old saw that says, "If you owe 1 million dollars, that is bad for you. If you owe 1 billion dollars, that is bad for your banker."

 

We didn't draw a "red line" but we sure are close with all the statements DT made. What does he do next?

 

Never thought I'd say this, but Steve Bannon was right. There isn't a good military option. We can say all options are on the table, but the bottom line is that short of a actual strike on South Korea, Japan, or Guam, we're not going attack North Korea. That means they can sabre rattle all they want.

 

And, from what I have heard/read, the newest strikes over Japan were sent from a bunker just a few miles from a heavily populated area of N. Korea. Any attempt at taking out weapons could mean thousands of casualties.
(although, from what it sounds like, living in N. Korea isn't too much worse than death)
I can't imagine being watched constantly, having to put on a fake smile, stand for hours applauding a psycho, worry about every word I said, and even then I could be dragged off in to the night on a whim. Not to mention living in horrific conditions with little food or any comforts. What a nightmare.

 

And that's a big piece of leverage that they have. Americans care more about a million people in Pyongyang being killed in a war than Kim does. In addition, he's willing to kill hundreds of thousands in Seoul, and we won't allow that.

It's the most closed society in the world. I don't think the average North Korean knows that his life stinks. The regime has almost absolute control over what people see and read.

 

Maybe we should just use our anti-missile tech and start trying to shoot down every launch.

 

There was never a good military option. NK is essentially the worlds largest cult convinced that the US is bent on exterminating them. Any military action we take against them would be seen in that vein. If you believe your opponent won't stop until your dead, you are willing to do anything.

 

I'd support that escalation response now that they've fired over an ally. Shoot down a major launch very early in its flight path.

Still not an attack on a North Korean person or their land, but knocks out a weapon. Which they've already shown could be headed for an ally.

If the nutjob loses it and strikes an ally's land or people, game on. I don't wish for people to die, but seems like this guy won't compromise regardless.

At least he'd be on the hook for first strike on a territory or deaths.

 

If we can shoot them down, by all means. A failure to shoot down the missile may look worse though. How much more accurate are the current systems than the Patriot missiles in Gulf War 1 who were protecting Israel from the Scuds?

 

I heard one report state that our accuracy is about 50%. So yes, it would be a big gamble that may gain or a loss of leverage.

 

The accuracy depends on what type of missile we're trying to intercept. It's said our accuracy is around 50% when targeting intercontinental ballistic missiles.

I was referring to using THAAD to knock down a short to intermediate ballistic missile. The ones SK launches more frequently.

The THAAD system is supposed to be highly accurate when used against the type and range of missiles it's designed to intercept.

“It’s just a very powerful, very accurate rocket,” says David Axe, editor of the blog War Is Boring. “[It’s] tied to a very sophisticated radar.”

But there’s something about the way it works that makes it different from other air defense systems.

“It’s not an explosive warhead rocket,” Axe explains. “It’s just basically a solid warhead. They call it a kinetic warhead, or a kinetic munition. So rather than exploding it simply strikes its target.”

In a sense, it’s like a very expensive slingshot that’s trying to hit an arrow in flight. Obviously it has to be accurate — close is just not good enough.

THAAD has been operationally effective for about 10 years now, and the US has deployed it elsewhere in the world.

The THAAD system was in development for decades, since the days when President Ronald Reagan wanted to deter the Soviet Union. Investment accelerated when the first Gulf War in 1991 revealed the threat posed by weapons like Saddam Hussein’s Scud missiles. But success was slow in coming, and dozens of tests failed in the early years. Billions of dollars of investment have made it much more effective.

“It’s meant to defeat incoming short-, medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles,” Axe says. “It does not defend against world-spanning intercontinental ballistic missiles,” he adds. These are the kind of missiles that could hit the United States, but which North Korea has not yet mastered.

 

The approach to North Korea is insane in my opinion. There are three basic scenarios from what I can see.

1. Sanctions and intimidation. This is the current path. It isn't working. Kim will have his nuclear deterrent. At the end of the day we will have wasted billions of dollars, turned East Asia into a multi-nation armada of nuclear weapons and missiles, and pissed off China, Russia, and every other country in the far east.

2. War. If the US doesn't stay with insane option #1, this possibility is even worse. At best, North Korea's arsenal is wiped out and only several hundred thousand people in both North and South Korea are killed, and South Korea's economy takes a massive hit. At worse, China is drawn into the fracas and WWIII is launched. It would seem we are transitioning to this.

3. Negotiation. This would require the US to give up something in exchange for something. Since we waited so long, Kim might not be interested at this point. The idea is for North Korea to freeze its missile launches in exchange for the US removing its nukes form the peninsula and discontinuing the annual war games where the US and S.Korea simulate attacking North Korea. Apparently that is just too much to ask. Its our right to have the ability to destroy in regime on earth at our discretion.

 

Negotiation takes a willingness from both parties. I don't see NK sitting down at the negotiation table until they have nuclear missiles that can reach the US. Then and only then will they have the leverage they desire for negotiations. Then the only thing they'll negotiate on is "how many" missiles not whether they keep them or not.

So, until then it's sanctions then likely food subsidies. Sound familiar?

 

So NK "freezes" their program while the U.S. completely surrenders our strategic defense position in the region? Would they also like $200 billion in this fantasy land deal?

Freezing is a temporary measure that history has proven is completely ineffective in the long run and leads right back to the stand-off you negotiated out of. Except the second time the conceding party no longer has as much leverage.

It's nothing more than a stall tactic for leaders with unwavering nuclear ambitions.

How's the Iran freeze working? We released multiple billions to them which helped fund their numerous tests and mastering of long range ballistic missile delivery systems.

Even Obama officials admitted if they break the deal or when it ends they'll be 6-18 months away from having a deliverable nuclear weapon capable of striking the U.S.

How about the previous NK freeze Clinton negotiated decades ago that worked so well?

Anything short of permanently disabling or severely knee-capping their nuclear program is just pissing in the wind. Whoever is proposing a freeze is clueless on the subject.

 

Get used to pissing in the wind.

 

The other thing we could negotiate for, is open borders for N.Korea/S.Korea. Just having S.Koreans frequently in N.Korea would make a huge difference. Tourism itself could be a negotiable.

I'd support a stoppage of exercises if the other negotiable was increased/freer tourism/travel. These items/issues could be escalated/eased in kind, so we wouldn't be frontloading our chits in the trade.

Probably not likely given that this is probably a bigger danger to his power than the exercises but who knows under the right negotiator....maybe.

 

That would be a huge boon but I'd wager that the only thing Kim holds dearer than nuclear capabilities is the control of information flow to his population. The latter is ultimately his source of power. Any exposure they get to the outside world deteriorates the myth of NK as a world power holding back the evil that is the US.

 

We could always unveil a plan to massively arm SK and Japan turning them into potent first strike threats (like NK) instead of serving as their guardian.

China would throw a sh*tfit and threaten war. Then we'd say "denuclearize your lil puppet and we'll cancel the coming mass armament asap. Otherwise our major Asian allies will soon become a nightmare for NK and anyone else who threatens their safety".

Seems like the only way to get China to actually put their foot down on NK's throat is if we declare intentions to beef up our allies to a level that could significantly threaten China if their relations went sideways.

 

Do you think Japan and SK would go along with that ruse? Remember, the THADD was unpopular in SK with their new leadership.