It is a delemma for me. As a conservative and one who does not like wars unless absolutely necessary, I am just not sure what we can do in this case.
You have a dictator who is treated as a god by his own people, almost like a cult.
They have been brainwashed to hate us and the west.
They also possess nuclear weapons.
They are working on a long range delivery system.
What can we do at this point in time?
How can be insure they will not be a threat to us and our allies in the region?
What can we do along with China?
Can we negotiate a peaceful resolution thst may lead to the unification of the two Koreas.
I can't see a peaceful unification of the two Koreas. Any unification would be, in my opinion, to the detriment of those in the South. North Korea is not going to capitulate. But, any solution will have to involve China at the helm. Otherwise I think we are looking at a world war in the making.
Don't be too quick to dismiss it. Look at germany and how they turned out.
Well, Germany was a completely different situation. Or not. East Germany was basically controlled by Russia. Russia fell apart. I think North Korea is probably more under the thumb of the Chinese than we care to admit. I suppose if China fell apart North Korea would have no option but to rethink its options.
I'm still waiting for someone to explain what actual signficant harm N. Korea has done to any other country, either since the time Kim Jong-un has been leader, or in the time after the Korean war until he came to power.
This so-called conflict amounts to countries (that all have nuclear weapons capable of destroying N. Korea) demanding that N. Korea itself stop developing its own nuclear weapons, but N. Korea has told them to **** off. That's it.
Now we're hearing N. Korea might have WMD capable of hitting the US. That sounds familiar. Where have we hear that before?
This "conflict" is a lie. The international community could show it was serious about wanting peace and security by offering to start dismantling its own nuclear weapons in exchange for N. Korea not developing it;s own. What do you think the chances of that happening are?
The military industrial complex is ramping up for their next bonanza pay day, and the news media for their next boost in ratings. I'd expect nothing less. But I would expect ordinary people not to follow along like sheep, especially when they've seen this play before. If military conflict happens, it can only end badly for all involved, and everyone knows it. It's all so painfully obvious it hurts.
"Now we're hearing N. Korea might have WMD capable of hitting the US. That sounds familiar. Where have we hear that before?"
Probably Iraq. You know, the WMD's that the President was told were in the country, that were later verified to be there and that have now (apparently) been found in Syria as well?
But be that as it may be, it still isn't smart to scare the biggest, strongest, baddest guy on the block. It just isn't. Look at what it got Saddam...
I heard some talk that Iran may have helped N. Korea with money that Imama Obama forked over on pellets. I thought, why make your own nuclear weapons if you can get some other insane leader to do it and use them?
"biggest, strongest, baddest guy on the block"
Yes because international diplomacy should be conducted like a pi**ing contest between two teenagers. That's a sensible approach.
Thousands of people dead. Billions of dollars wasted. Years of a protracted military conflict with no real end in sight. And all because a maniacal despot with an inferiority complex wants to make stupid threats on Twitter to show his people how tough he is. And then there's Kim Jong-un.
"Yes because international diplomacy should be conducted like a pi**ing contest between two teenagers. That's a sensible approach."
Ha ha ha ha ha ha. How can you possible keep a straight face while saying that and looking at our government! I'm sorry - it isn't funny - but how can you possibly think that international diplomacy isn't the same pi**ing contest we have in the rest of politics? Listening to NK rattle their saber and make threats the whole world knows they cannot accomplish, how can you possibly say that? (Does it have something to do with a willingness to resort to name calling and lying about people you don't like?)
Not that it has anything to do with what I said. That remains all too true, and the results of doing it have been seen for thousands of years in hundreds of cultures and countries.
When the president shows similar characteristics to a leader he is threatening, I think that should be acknowledged.
I know international diplomacy is that way. That's the point. I'm suggesting it shouldn't be. History is strewn with deaths from wars caused by (mostly) middle-aged men and their egos. It's time for a different approach.
In exchange for N. Korea stopping the development of its own nuclear weapons, the international community should offer to start dismantling 25% of it's own nuclear weapons over the next 5 years, or whatever realistic timeframe. Compliance with the disarmament process, and continued suspension of N. Korea's nuclear weapons programme, would be verified by the UN weapons inspectorate.
If N. Korea is found to be in breach of the agreement, it will be dissolved and countries are free to take any defensive actions they deem to be in the interest of their national security. Likewise, if the international community fails to comply with the agreement, N. Korea will be free to to take any action it deems to be in the interest of it's own national security (including the development of nuclear weapons).
The benefits of this approach are that it's based on mutual agreement and benefit; and it doesn't harm the N. Korean civilian population who, through no fault of their own, are likely to suffer as the result of stringent sanctions.
This is the type of approach I believe should be taken, and the US should be leading on it because someone needs to be the adult in the room. Instead, the approach currently being taken is the equivalent to "stop developing those big guns, or we'll starve your population and shoot you with even bigger guns". It's not helpful.
Are you comparing Trump to Kim Jong On?
What a joke.
There are not even in the same league let along the same room.
This fanatic On treats his people like dirt, acts like their God and spent his fortunes on weapons while his people starve...
Trump, with his big ego, like him or not, is making the tough decisions that will bring America back from the lead from behind policy of the last admin.
If nothing else, he has restored our country to a super power status.
My own feeling is North and South Korea should reunite as one country and the tension will naturally dissapate. If they have to bribe On to step down, so be it.
"Similar characteristics" does not mean "exactly the same in every way". So yes, Trump and Kim Jong-Un do have similar characteristics, such as . . .
Making threatening and provocative public statements to other world leaders
Making statements that break the normal protocols of diplomacy and diplomatic language
Being world leaders who appear to be egotistical, bordering on narcissistic
Recklessly saying and doing things that could have serious implications for millions of people, in a way that makes them seem unstable
Being sole commanders in chief of huge armies
Clearly being massively unsuited to being commanders in chief of huge armies
Believing that they alone can lead their nations to greatness
There are more similarities, but I'll leave it there.
OK, it shouldn't be that way, and I agree with that. Now what? Make agreements that you know NK will violate - that you know they have no intention at all of keeping? Why? To allow Kim more time to build better weapons and increase the death toll in the upcoming war? To assuage your conscience for doing what you will do anyway, just with a higher price tag if you wait?
You keep ignoring the basic question, as if it doesn't matter, but it DOES matter and is of crucial importance. North Korea, if paramilitary forces are included, has the largest army in the world. Twice the size of China and nearly 3 times the size of the US. ("paramilitary" being defined as forces arranged and trained along military lines, approximately equal in ability to light infantry). This is in a country with no known enemies that would attack them, with only one nearby country (China) with a large military, and that one undefeatable by N Korea.
So why the enormous army? Every third person in NK is either active, reserve or para military - this is again the largest percentage of any country in the world and by a large degree. Why? To "defend" itself? Not a person on the earth can possibly believe that.
An agreement of that kind has never been attempted. So you can guess as much as you want, but you don't know, and that's the problem. It's unethical, in my view, to embark on a course of action that could lead to the deaths of thousands of men, women and children, on the basis of a guess.
Especially when making such an agreement would lose the international community absolutely nothing. Any violation would very likely be spotted well before a viable weapon was produced, and that would return to things to where they are now. The only difference is that the development would have been delayed for a period of time, because trying to develop such weapons in hiding, in this day and age, would itself be a hindrance to the process.
But more importantly, it would confirm N. Korea's intentions either way. If N. Korea flat out refused such a deal or agreed but violated it, then you know it's development of nuclear weapons is not driven by a legitimate national security concern. Likewise, any member of the international community that violates the agreement would also show themselves not to be legitimately interested in peace and security. Either way, just putting such a deal on the table, even if it failed, would conclusively establish who the bad actors are.
That would enable the international community to act from a position of knowledge, not guesses.
I'm not ignoring your question. This discussion is happening over two different threads. See other thread for my comments on that question.
Of course it's unethical. But we do it anyway, sometimes. And while I don't like it any more than you do, I'll not pretend that there is always another way that won't hurt anyone.
But that is exactly what waiting will do - you can pretend until the cows come home that another year or two of development won't give Korea mainland USA, but you don't know that any more than I know they intend their vast military for attack purposes rather than defense. And if you're wrong, millions and millions of Americans die...because you don't like striking the first blow in the face of overwhelming evidence of warmongering.
(Oops! Did I cross myself, knowing there are two threads?)
Clearly there'll be no "meeting of minds" on this between us.
But I do not believe, in this day and age, that N. Korea could not develop and test a viable ICBM, without the international community knowing about it in advance. I just don't think that's possible.
That gives the international community an opportunity to try a different approach. And there is different approach to be tried. Trump could be making statements with the rest of the international community right now about how the N. Korea situation reinforces the need to rid the world of nuclear stockpiles. Start taking the heat out of the situation. Start sending the right signals, and setting the tone for dialogue.
To an extent I think the administration is starting to do that. I notice the language is changing, probably because cooler heads within the Pentagon and among Trump's advisors have prevailed. But it's not enough. The international community needs to put a radical offer on the table.
Sure, Jong-Un will still test one or two of his failed ballistic missiles. That lets him publicly save some face and say he stood up to the big bad US. Fine, whatever. But behind closed doors the messaging now should be all about deproliferation. That's what the behind the scenes dialogue should be focussing on. It should not be about getting N. Korea to do what everyone wants under threat of destruction. It should be a mutually beneficial arrangement.
No one could reasonably argue that this situation does not demonstrate the world needs to be rid of nuclear weapons. It could be a turning point, the catalyst of a new drive away from the nuclear menace. Sadly I don't think it will be, which is a real shame.
I'm not sure I have much else to say on the subject..
I see on the news tonight that another, short range, missile was tested. Another failure.
I also see that we are asking the UN for help; asking that all countries apply economic force. Want to bet how many countries will either vote for the resolution OR support it by denying imports from and particularly exports to NK? Not that it will matter; apparently the only one that really matters is China.
As far as reducing the worlds nuke stockpile - not going to happen. Not with Trump and not with ANY American President. Too many players in the game, 100% of whom have to not only agree but also cooperate. Best hope here is that existing nukes are allowed, by all owners, to slowly deteriorate until they are of no further value and then not replaced. Decades at a minimum, then. IMO again, and once more I place little faith or hope in diplomacy or politicians.
*edit* - if we, or anyone else, can develop a nearly sure-fire defense against missiles - a "stars wars" thing, we might actually get rid of an awful lot of nukes on the planet. Something perhaps we should all fight for, regardless of how much other countries scream about it destabilizing the world peace.
This is interesting Jack.
Tony Shaffer speaks. Love this guy!
* https://twitter.com/FoxBusinessAM/statu … 61/video/1
You may be right, I hope so. The spotlight was on Russia and then on Syria. Then, all of a sudden all the attention is on North Korea? They haven't even been able to launch a successful missile test that goes the way they planned. I think they must be at least ten years behind on technology and like to talk big. I have to wonder though how much is propaganda from our own military, NK propaganda and then there is the mainstream media's crap. North Korea is ruled by a lunatic and that does make him dangerous to South Korea at least.
To me it seem like a distraction from bigger things that are going on.
The biggest threat would be Russia, because they have the capability to launch and hit the US. So! Maybe they aren't a threat at all, now.
Saw on the TV that they think Korea can hit the US now as well. Only Hawaii, to be sure, but US territory and the mainland isn't that big of an additional step.
I heard that on a radio talk show about Hawaii, but it was if NK was able to launch from a ship or a sub. It was James Wesley Rawles, former Army intelligence. Rawles was saying that he doesn't think NK has the capability from a ship for launching those massive bombs they have. He compared it to our MOAB having to be dropped from a cargo plain, because we don't have anyway of launching something that size. We control air space in Afghanistan so we were able to use it. His biggest concern was that NK could have chemical weapons that could be fired from maybe a sub.
I like listening to him.
Not on the show (NBC news) I watched. They even drew a line from NK to Hawaii, showing the path of a missile. But it was supposed to be coming from the military somehow.
So who really knows? Not I!
Russia is not a threat. They are very pragmatic people and they are not insane. They would not start a war with us. North Korea, though weak, has a leader that may just be crazy enough to start a war.
They have the numbers on their side. They can over run South Korea with their 3 million soilders...
I have much respect for the Russian people and for Putin. Not so much the Soviets that I would compare to the US deep state / shadow government, which is trying to over throw the Trump Administration (and they would love to over throw Putin). I don't believe Putin would start a war with the US, but let's pray that Trump stays in power.
There are some very evil players that want war.
I don't quite understand, why should US decide the fate of North Korea? Is it because they have bunch of sycophant nations rallying behind in agreement to anything and everything or the firepower they possess, needless to mention tons of nuclear war heads and advanced WMDS??
We can agree to disagree, but fact remains that US is the biggest bully around, who uses might to bulldoze their way through!
by lesliebyars 2 years ago
What should we should about North Korea? Invade?
by Mike Russo 17 months ago
What did America do to make North Korea hate us?
by Don W 19 months ago
I'm struggling to keep up with all this. Is Trump really planning to attack North Korea if they do another nuclear test? Is it seriously being considered as a possibility? Or is it just sabre rattling? And is this type of brinksmanship the best approach to foreign policy?
by Iontach 5 years ago
Every day I refresh my "North Korea" search on Goolge news, but always the same ol' story. "North Korea threatens to attack bla bla bla...". I wonder will leader Kim Jong Un actually do carry out any of his proposed threats. Possibly he is just talking the talk as to strengthen...
by Ralph Deeds 7 years ago
How serious and immediate is a nuclear threat from Iran? What should we do about it? Some of the same hawks who helped talk us into invading Iraq are coming out of the woodwork and saying that a nuclear Iran is intolerable and something must be done to prevent it from happening. A timely and...
by lesliebyars 4 years ago
If North Korea is a real issue what should be done about it?
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|