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

Yes, the Noth Korean leader is a dangerous loon, but would the fallout from a "preventative US strike" result in greater damage than refraining from one? The North Koreans wish to negotiate but the US states negotiations are off the table until they dismantle their nuclear program. Sounds similar to Iran.

I THINK the US is merely engaged in an effort to intimidate NK to comply and does not intend on initiating an attack, but I could be wrong. Such an attack could bring China and Russia into play. Also, the US is deploying its THAAD anti- ballistic missile system in South Korea which upsets both China and Russia.

Trade and economic cooperation between China and South Korea are already breaking down as China reacts to US policy.
https://sputniknews.com/asia/201703141051565133-china-south-korea-sanctions/

What should we do? Attack, bluff, negotiate?

 

I'd have to think the upcoming April meeting at Mar O Lago with Chinese President Xi will go a long way in getting a better handle on the options for dealing with NK.

 

I want China to invade North Korea and fix the mess they have enabled. China should bear the costs of removing the regime and bringing North Korea into the 21st century.

 

First, China is totally out of line to complain about THAAD going to South Korea. There's a crackpot with nuclear weapons testing missiles right across the street. What the hell do they expect? If they would keep their fat little punk in line, it wouldn't be necessary.

Second, I wouldn't negotiate with North Korea, because it would be a waste of time. However, I wouldn't attack then just for being crackpots. I'd be prepared for whatever they decide to do. If they just sabre-rattle, then blow them off. Obviously if they attack South Korea or Japan, then we finish the Korean War once and for all.

 

The only problem with this is that North Korea would essentially become a Chinese colony, and there'd be no hope of a united Korea. That's better than what we have now, but I would hope to have a better long term result.

 

Do not get me wrong, I certainly prefer the better long term result of a united korea. At this point, now that we know North Korea is willing to use VX Gas and atomic weapons, I am willing to settle for something that is better than what we have now.

 

I agree with the above. China should understand Kim Jong Un is the reason for the military build up.

Also, yes, multiple presidents have certainly proven negotiating with North Korea is a complete waste of time. I do not understand why it is even suggested anymore.

 

NK has enough artillery along the border to destroy Seoul in five minutes. We can't invade or do much of anything except pressure the Chinese.

 

Invasion of NK is impossible with the size and scale of their military amassed at the border.

 

This is true, but North Korea is far more likely to collapse than the Beijing regime is. If you settle for Chinese control, you're pretty much writing off a united, democratic Korea forever.

 

Attacking a nuclear power with a standing army that is probably bigger than ours is crazy. Not to mention that Russia and China would probably back them, or at best remain neutral, just to make sure we suffered as much as possible.

The U.S. must play the waiting game, like we did with Russia during the cold war, and hope for a coup or for Jong-un to die. If they attack us or an ally, well then we'll have to act, but don't start it.

 

Not even close. It's not even enough to stop a North Korean invasion. It's just big enough to hold one off long enough to send reinforcements.

Another point, I'm no expert on it, but I've read that South Koreans want reunification but don't want a war to make it happen. They'd rather leave things as they are and hope the North eventually reforms or collapses, which would lead to reunification. It makes sense. Keep mind that their cities are the ones that would get bombed if we invaded. Chicago wouldn't get nuked. Seoul would.

I'm sure they'd support an invasion if the North attacked first, because they'd view it as a matter of survival. However, if we tried to force it, I'll bet the South wouldn't go along.

 

The consensus on this board is that it would be illogical to strike NK first because the retaliation to the South would be disastrous with Hundreds of thousands at risk. Assuming a first strike by the US isn't a possibility, we have to assume Tillerson is bluffing when he says all options are on the table.

The next question is about the joint "war games" the US and South Korea are practicing as an intimidation. Could these activities induce a first strike from North Korea given the unconventional thinking (crazy?) of their leader? If so, does it make sense to counter his test launches with ever increasing displays of naval and air power?

 

Probably so, but only a fool would ever publicly say something is off the table.

Somehow I knew this discussion would turn into a narrative to blame the US if war breaks even if the North strikes first. Yes, we should continue war games with the South. You call it "intimidation," but a war game also provides training and maintains combat readiness. We should be prepared if the North strikes, and military exercises with the South are part of that. We shouldn't stop then just because they might intimidate the North. If they strike, it's not going to be because of war games.

 

At least you are consistent. You've given similar arguments for the deployment of US/NATO troops and armaments toward Russia's border.

North Korea would probably attack the South if they felt like they would win. Assuming everything didn't get destroyed in the process, South Korea has a functional economy and has something to offer.

There is absolutely no economic incentive for Russia to invade/annex economic basket cases in the Balkans, nor the manpower and budget to occupy a country where half the population doesn't want them (like the US in Iraq or Afghanistan). The US is simply egging on an arms race to enrich the military industrial complex and secondarily hoping to bankrupt Russia.

In the first case with North Korea, the discussion truly has to do with self-defense and what the best approach would be to maintain stability and safety.

In the case with Russia, self-defense is a false narrative used to camouflage other motives such as global hegemony and ever increasing funding for the defense industry.

 

The north is the only side threatening to nuke anyone. North Korea's existence is guaranteed by China (though North Korea puts that at risk pursuing nukes and VX weapons).

North Korea is the pure 1984 Big Brother state. The US is East Asia. A threat/war has to exist for the North Korean government to justify itself to its people.

We should continue the military exercises and North Korea's claims that they are threatening are bogus.

Here we have the 1984 problem. If North Korea continues to keep its people all the way down, I do not know that there will ever be a revolt like in the Soviet states. Change will not come until someone at the top reforms and takes their boots off the people just enough for the people to have enough breathing room to rebel. I am not pushing for military intervention from anyone at the moment, but we are basically betting the regime will choose to reform before it will nuke. Looking at the history of monarchies, Roman Caesars, etc, I fear a Kim crazy enough to use nukes is more likely to be born than a Kim crazy enough to reform. So far each Kim has been crazier than the last as each generation moves further and further away from a time when the family was not treated like god-kings by their own people. We will see what happens. I do know the future for North Korea looks bleak.

I guess most of the god-emperors of Japan were not crazy so there is hope? Of course Imperial Japan was never anything like the communist monarchy that exists in North Korea.

 

You're consistent too. America is the aggressor or provocateur in both. We're rotten in both scenarios. I will give you credit for not falling all over yourself to eulogize Kim Jong Un like you do with Big Vlad.

Not sure why you jump to the Balkans, but for what it's worth, the Soviet Union thought the Balkans were worth keeping under its control when those countries were much bigger "economic basket cases" than they are today. Perhaps it's because they aren't that big of basket cases. After all, some of them have per capita GDPs that are comparable to Russia's, and it isn't as though Russia's economy has been a model of stability in the last few years. In fact, I'd say their economy could better be described as a "basket case" than most of the economies of the Balkans.

It could also be because several of them have strategic value. After all, several of them have access to the Mediterranean or Black Seas.

 

My mistake. I meant to say Baltics.

 

In a vacuum, I think it's a bad idea but at least worth discussing. Where we're actually at, we have no ******* business getting involved in yet another undeclared war.

 

Does that make your argument stronger? I think that's questionable. Again, the USSR though they were valuable enough to annex when their economies were much weaker. Estonia and Lithuania have higher per capita GDPs than Russia does, and Latvia's is just barely below Russia's. All three are in the Eurozone, and though it has its problems, you have to meet economic and fiscal criteria to get in. Generally, economic basket cases don't get in, with the exception of Greece, which only got in through fraud.

Strategically, all three have access to the North Sea. That's a big deal.

 

Apples and oranges. The Soviets had just lost 20-something million lives to the Nazis. In defeating the Germans, the Soviet army penetrated all the way to Berlin. From a long-term preservation standpoint it made no sense to pull back at that time.

 

That isn't the point. You suggested that Russia has no economic incentive to annex the Baltic states because they're "economic basket cases," and that's just not the case. All three nations have relatively advanced economies, and of course, they are of significant strategic and military value. If Russia could have them back, they would take them.

 

Assuming the Baltics have economic value, that value would be realized as a trading partner rather than as an unwilling vassal that would drain military resources by having to occupy the country and constantly put down insurrection.

Russia could have easily rolled over Georgia in 2008 when Georgia launched an attack against South Ossetia, but did not. Why not? Because it wouldn't be beneficial. South Ossetia is comfortable with Russia but Georgia as a whole would not be. Even if conquering and subjugating Georgia didn't result in a war it wouldn't have been worth the effort to maintain the peace.

Crimea was a different matter. Not only is it of strategic importance, the majority of the peninsula sees themselves as Russian. No "occupation" was necessary.

Despite the additional coastline and arguable assets possessed by the Baltics, invasion isn't an option that makes sense. Most likely both Russia and the US/EU will try to influence the government and population via "information warfare" to ally with their respective side. For the US, part of that information warfare includes presenting Putin and Russia as the Bogey Man. By using fear as motivation, these countries become a part of NATO (even though a good percentage of the public is opposed) and the US gain benefits including contracts obligating these states to purchase millions or billions of US weaponry. This also might mean these countries agree to take out loans from the IMF or world bank and whatever strings come attached with that.

 

You're dancing around and trying to change the subject. I didn't say it made sense for Russia to invade the Baltic states. If it did, they would. What I said is that it wouldn't be because they are "economic basket cases" as you suggested. They have pretty advanced economies - much more so than Georgia. Putin would have plenty to gain by taking them, and as a former KGB officer, I think he knows how to deal with local dissent. The biggest thing he'd have to lose is having to go to war with the West.

And you can suggest that they joined NATO because of fear-based propaganda if you want, but that's a little like saying Fred Goldman doesn't like OJ Simpson because of fear-based propaganda. I'm sure Goldman has read some negative press about OJ, but the fact that he murdered his son probably has something to do with it too.

Did the West use propaganda to entice the Baltic states to join NATO? I doubt it (because they didn't have to), but I'm sure you've got some inside, pro-Russian source that says they did so that you can argue that the move was somehow illegitimate. (And of course, I'm sure Russia is far too ethical to have usedpropaganda to try to discourage membership. Only the liars in the West use dirty tricks like that.) However, I would guess that the 50-year occupation of those states might also have had something to do with it.

I'm also confident that some in the Baltic states opposed membership, just as some in Czechoslovakia supported being taken over by Nazi Germany. Like Ukraine, the Baltics have Russian minorities that likely benefited from the previous occupation and would probably benefit from another one or at least benefit from being under greater Russian influence and being more isolated from the West. However, if you polled those countries and excluded ethnic Russians, I'll bet opposition would be pretty small.

 

You're dancing around and trying to change the subject. I didn't say it made sense for Russia to invade the Baltic states. If it did, they would. What I said is that it wouldn't be because they are "economic basket cases" as you suggested. They have pretty advanced economies - much more so than Georgia. Putin would have plenty to gain by taking them, and as a former KGB officer, I think he knows how to deal with local dissent. The biggest thing he'd have to lose is having to go to war with the West.
​

The last sentence encapsulates your viewpoint of paranoia. The only thing that prevents Russia from taking over the world is the US military. How blind are you (and probably 80% of Americans) that you don't realize the US is the only country trying to destabilize every country that won't become a US puppet. If Russia wanted to invade the Baltics, they would have done it yesterday already. The Russian public doesn't want war. The Russian government respects that. I can't say the same for the US government.

And you can suggest that they joined NATO because of fear-based propaganda if you want, but that's a little like saying Fred Goldman doesn't like OJ Simpson because of fear-based propaganda. I'm sure Goldman has read some negative press about OJ, but the fact that he murdered his son probably has something to do with it too.
​

Fear based propaganda is to to get the public thinking a certain way. Bribes, incentives, and threats are tools used to influence government officials. Government officials don't necessarily respond to propaganda like the sheeple do, but they do understand money and power. When small countries like the Baltics militarize the border and contemplate having the US install a missile shield, they are just making themselves a target. If they weren't in danger of being attacked before, they are now.

Did the West use propaganda to entice the Baltic states to join NATO? I doubt it (because they didn't have to), but I'm sure you've got some inside, pro-Russian source that says they did so that you can argue that the move was somehow illegitimate. (And of course, I'm sure Russia is far too ethical to have used propaganda to try to discourage membership. Only the liars in the West use dirty tricks like that.) However, I would guess that the 50-year occupation of those states might also have had something to do with it.
​

I used the term information warfare in my prior post. An information war can be truthful, it can also influence by presenting some facts but leaving out others. And it can also influence by lying. Since 2002 no one has lied to the world more than the US Government and its obliging media.

Let's move from the Baltics to the Balkins for a minute. Just Friday, John McCain made the news once again, this time by equating Rand Paul as an agent of Russia. McCain has been lobbying for Macedonia, a country of less than a million people, to join NATO. His method of persuasion is pure unadulterated Russo-phobic propaganda. "The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming". It's insanity.

I'm also confident that some in the Baltic states opposed membership, just as some in Czechoslovakia supported being taken over by Nazi Germany. Like Ukraine, the Baltics have Russian minorities that likely benefited from the previous occupation and would probably benefit from another one or at least benefit from being under greater Russian influence and being more isolated from the West. However, if you polled those countries and excluded ethnic Russians, I'll bet opposition would be pretty small.
​

I read where in at least one of the three Baltic countries, the Russian ethnicity is somewhere around 30%. So just as in Ukraine, there is a large philosophical gulf between how people view the world. But you make it sound like there are only two choices for these people; "either we join NATO and aggressively build up our military capabilities or else Russia will conquer us and the Red Army will maintain martial law." Baloney.

 

I'll get to your points after this matter is resolved. However, you took one sentence in this paragraph, misinterpreted it, and went off on a tangent to redirect the discussion, which I'm not going to let you do. Mus, you're a very smart guy, and I respect what you do, even if I disagree with most of it. You're a strong advocate. However, you have greater credibility if you just admit that you screwed up by saying there's no economic incentive for Russia to annex the Baltics because they're "economic basket cases." You're characterization of them was quite false. You can admit that you made a mistake, and there's nothing wrong with that. It doesn't make you stupid. It makes you human. We all get things wrong from time to time. Or you can haggle with me over it, and I'll humiliate you by proving you wrong. But I won't just let you dance around it or change the subject.

 

I've done a minimal amount of research this morning since the economic strength of the Baltic states seems to be of paramount interest to you. From what I've surmised, the economies were literally crushed in the 90's and then GDP responded with very large gains - over 10% annually- in the early 2000's, albeit from a very low starting point. The recession of 08-09 slowed things down to the point where GDP is now in line with most of Europe hovering around 1.5 to 2.0 %.

But people vote with their feet. And the Baltics have a negative net immigration rate and a negative population rate of growth. In other words, people are deciding it sucks to be there.

Latvia has a -1.7% annual net population growth rate and a also a negative immigration rate of 6.1 per 1000 people.

Estonia is -0.5% and -3.2 per 1000 people.

Latvia is -1.1% and - 6.2 per 1000 people.

Perhaps the term "basket case" was not the most precise description, but its projected the population which is only a little over 6 million will decrease another 20-25% in the next 20 years. Those statistics do not describe a thriving economy.

Perhaps when these countries load up with debt from government expenditures and make large purchases of US armaments, the GDP will skyrocket again even as the citizens head out of Dodge.

 

Actually, the Baltics' economic strength was of importance to you. I didn't bring them up. You brought them up to explain the economic rationale why Russia would never be interested in annexing them. All I did was call BS on you.

And referring to them as "economic basket cases" isn't just "not precise." It's nonsense. Yes, they've lost population like many former Soviet republics. I'd also be willing to bet that a large percentage of the losses was ethnic Russians. The rest was probably people who left to move to other EU countries. In spite of that, their economies have generally done reasonably well. GDP growth in line with most of Europe isn't economic basket case material. In fact, I think the argument could be made that Russia fits the economic basket case description better than the Baltics do with its extreme volatility.

 

I'll get to your points after this matter is resolved. ​

Well, now that your vindicated in your own mind, please proceed as promised above.

 

In my own mind? Do you seriously stand by your original comment?