The Korea Situation; It's Very Serious

[bmags]

Tillerson tweeted there is no immediate threat. There isn't.

 

BUt also, chill out in this thread, everyone. People were going too hard last night and this is a warning before I give some timeouts.

 

Obviously, nuclear holocaust is stressful. But try to reign it in.

[caulfield12]

Not sure that Erdogan in Turkey having nuclear weapons is the greatest idea, either. There are 60-70 warheads at Incirlik Air Base.

 

Israel and Iran, etc. Pakistan and India.

 

Yet they contunue to follow the path of deterrence, and assured mutual destruction.

[StrangeSox]

[Brian]

Tillerson tweeted there is no immediate threat. There isn't.

 

BUt also, chill out in this thread, everyone. People were going too hard last night and this is a warning before I give some timeouts.

 

Obviously, nuclear holocaust is stressful. But try to reign it in.

 

I'll be ok because I've been practicing my "Duck and Cover" routine.

[CanOfCorn]

I haven't read the ENTIRE thread so I don't know if the answer is in there somewhere but here's my question...

 

Does anyone know what North Korea ultimately WANTS?

 

Do they want to rule the world? Cuz that ain't happening.

 

Do they want to be accepted as a major power? Cuz that ain't happening either.

 

Or do they just want the entire Korean peninsula? Cuz that ain't happening either.

 

 

[bmags]

I'll be ok because I've been practicing my "Duck and Cover" routine.

 

I mean I have a desk, so it's less concerning.

[southsider2k5]

More lies from a coward who can't answer any questions.

 

 

Bombing people doesn't save them. There is a very long history including many places around the world today demonstrating that.

 

What other countries do you want to bomb and occupy? How many extra deaths from that will be enough to convince you it doesn't work.

 

This isn't about partisan domestic politics but that's the only well you know how to go to. Go back and you'll find balta and others against this sort of interventionism during Obama's presidency as well. You've been here more than long enough and have participated in enough conversations to know this. Stop lying.

 

I am sure the millions of dead non-whites appreciate your concern for everyone but them.

[southsider2k5]

So. What's your solution.

 

I offered the Rhineland. Waiting to hear back.

[southsider2k5]

Yup, let's negotiate with the madman and assume he'll keep up his end of the bargain! Great idea Balta! Amazing how you can rip our "top men" and yet come up with this gem.

 

That has totally worked. It has only allowed him to fully develop a functional nuclear program.

[StrangeSox]

I haven't read the ENTIRE thread so I don't know if the answer is in there somewhere but here's my question...

 

Does anyone know what North Korea ultimately WANTS?

 

Do they want to rule the world? Cuz that ain't happening.

 

Do they want to be accepted as a major power? Cuz that ain't happening either.

 

Or do they just want the entire Korean peninsula? Cuz that ain't happening either.

 

I think it's to run their own little fiefdom with no outside interference

 

[southsider2k5]

Diplomatic solutions to problems actually have some record of success in the world. Maybe it works this time, maybe it doesn't. Diplomatic solutions won't get rid of NK's nuclear capabilities, but *maybe* they could stop their ability to project those weapons regionally or globally. It's certainly not a guarantee.

 

The track record for foreign military interventions or targeted assassinations or backing coups is far, far worse than diplomatic approaches. SK, China, Japan, and Russia, the countries that are actually most likely to have to deal with NK's bulls*** whether it's unlikely first-strike actions or post-US strike humanitarian crises, are not on board. Perhaps that should be an indication, especially SK's and Japan's stances, that rushing into yet another foreign military adventure is not the smartest move. Does SK actually want unification and the massive problem of now having to take care of NK's population? I'm fairly certain China wants a buffer.

 

The broader point about the State Department being non-functional at this point is that there are lot of negotiations and discussions that normally would happen between administrators, diplomats and foreign service workers in the background. Instead we're getting two highly unstable and incompetent morons shouting at each other in increasingly unhinged public statements. A competent, professionally staffed State Department *might* be able to work to diffuse Trump's idiocy, but unfortunately the oilman in charge is also an incompetent idiot so that's one less major avenue of addressing this problem.

 

Can we please have a solution that doesn't make it easier for them to develop their nukes and kill millions more people, as we have done for the past 50 years?

[southsider2k5]

How many other US foreign interventions have gone well? how'd the last one in Korea go? (it's still going on, technically!)

 

How many dead Koreans are you good with?

[southsider2k5]

In the last Korean war we killed 20% of the North Korean population. Today that would be over 5 million people.

 

So fairly close to how many this regime has already killed so far.

[bmags]

I am sure the millions of dead non-whites appreciate your concern for everyone but them.

 

Should we invade Venezuela? Somalia? Syria?

 

I want to help them, but I have seen precious little in the last 20 years that shows that toppling a brutal regime that has suppressed a functioning society leads to better results, and has largely undermined rather than strengthened US interests.

 

In Iraq we removed a true existential threat to the Kurds from power, and 10 years later they were facing existential threat all the same. And the power vacuum opened up threats that were frankly far more decentralized and dangerous than a madman with an army.

 

Libya, Egypt, Iraq should be stronger now. They are if anything the same or worse. The welfare of their people is the same or worse.

 

[RockRaines]

I offered the Rhineland. Waiting to hear back.

Why cant you take my question seriously?

[bmags]

I can't tell the future, but it seems to me a likely scenario that IF we take out North Korea's government, that land will be a proxy war from more western-aligned powers such as South Korea and Japan vs China.

 

That's why saving them through force is unlikely to truly solve the issue.

[CanOfCorn]

Should we invade Venezuela? Somalia? Syria?

 

I want to help them, but I have seen precious little in the last 20 years that shows that toppling a brutal regime that has suppressed a functioning society leads to better results, and has largely undermined rather than strengthened US interests.

 

In Iraq we removed a true existential threat to the Kurds from power, and 10 years later they were facing existential threat all the same. And the power vacuum opened up threats that were frankly far more decentralized and dangerous than a madman with an army.

 

Libya, Egypt, Iraq should be stronger now. They are if anything the same or worse. The welfare of their people is the same or worse.

 

The difference is, NK will not be ignored. You can turn your back, but they will keep developing weapons and threatening.

 

To truly get rid of the threat...all nations need to be on the same page and against NK. And I mean all of them. An attack on one of us is an attack on ALL of us. Unfortunately, that probably won't happen.

[illinilaw08]

Should we invade Venezuela? Somalia? Syria?

 

I want to help them, but I have seen precious little in the last 20 years that shows that toppling a brutal regime that has suppressed a functioning society leads to better results, and has largely undermined rather than strengthened US interests.

 

In Iraq we removed a true existential threat to the Kurds from power, and 10 years later they were facing existential threat all the same. And the power vacuum opened up threats that were frankly far more decentralized and dangerous than a madman with an army.

 

Libya, Egypt, Iraq should be stronger now. They are if anything the same or worse. The welfare of their people is the same or worse.

 

Anxiously awaits a response from SS2k5....

[illinilaw08]

Can we please have a solution that doesn't make it easier for them to develop their nukes and kill millions more people, as we have done for the past 50 years?

 

Welp, over the last 50 years, we haven't had a third World War that would have killed millions of people and devastated the Asian economy, while probably not actually helping the North Koreans on the ground. Do you have a solution that doesn't lead to that?

 

[southsider2k5]

Welp, over the last 50 years, we haven't had a third World War that would have killed millions of people and devastated the Asian economy, while probably not actually helping the North Koreans on the ground. Do you have a solution that doesn't lead to that?

 

Unless you are Korean, but that's cool. They don't count.

[bmags]

The difference is, NK will not be ignored. You can turn your back, but they will keep developing weapons and threatening.

 

To truly get rid of the threat...all nations need to be on the same page and against NK. And I mean all of them. An attack on one of us is an attack on ALL of us. Unfortunately, that probably won't happen.

 

But I would argue that IS happening. And the potential of a true threat is low, because actual aggression will be met with force. So they rattle, they get reminded (see UN) that it is still unacceptable to be aggressive.

 

If they actually attack or perform a land grab, they know they can't win.

[GoSox05]

To save Korean lives we must start a war that will kill millions of Koreans.

 

 

[CanOfCorn]

But I would argue that IS happening. And the potential of a true threat is low, because actual aggression will be met with force. So they rattle, they get reminded (see UN) that it is still unacceptable to be aggressive.

 

If they actually attack or perform a land grab, they know they can't win.

 

Possibly, but I also think they believe that China and Russia have their backs. I could be wrong, but I don't believe NK puts too much stock in what the UN says. They know they can't win, but we need to make them understand that they should care about not winning.

[illinilaw08]

Unless you are Korean, but that's cool. They don't count.

 

Apparently you don't consider South Koreans to be Koreans? Because they will bear the brunt of the immediate casualties in a war.

 

You also haven't responded to whether you think that the US should be invading every country in which people are being killed by dictators. So... unless you think the US should currently be invading a dozen or more countries (at least), then forgive me for not taking your "won't someone think of the North Koreans" as a basis for invasion seriously.

 

ETA: And when that war destroys the economy on the Korean peninsula, sure seems like millions of South Koreans will either die or have their lives ruined.

Edited August 9, 2017 by illinilaw08

[Jenksismyhero]

But I would argue that IS happening. And the potential of a true threat is low, because actual aggression will be met with force. So they rattle, they get reminded (see UN) that it is still unacceptable to be aggressive.

 

If they actually attack or perform a land grab, they know they can't win.

 

They've attacked SK recently in 2010, killing 46 people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan_sinking

 

And we/the international community didn't respond, or couldn't, because we/the international community allowed them to develop the bomb.