|
North Korean crisis as it develops.
|
>> I hope it doesn't.
I don't see how it can fail to, really. I don't see either Trump or Kim Jong-un having the courage to back track or the sense to just shut up and let it drop.
What I expect [hope?] them to do is keep it bubbling with outrage and grandstanding until something somewhere happens in the world to distract the media, and then it will drop until the next slow news day.
We probably wouldn't have the current issues if the media weren't forever printing statements form someone who should know better, frequently the President of the United States.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 10 Aug 17 at 19:04
|
In the 1990's there was a computer game a bit like "Risk" but more detailed and involved and realistic, in terms that it mirrored the current political climate around the world.
It was clear that if you set military foot, or bomb, in the big three's sphere of influence, bigger and bigger bombs will fall - on you and no one wins.
IMHO China will not stand for America invading NK, unless they get a huge sweetener. They may put up with surgical strikes but that's about it. Of course you would probably need to write off Seoul as its only 50 or so miles from the DMZ.
NK is also on Russia's border so wouldn't be too happy with US involvement so close to home.
There is a BBC Drama that is quite good; "War Book" set around a table where senior civil servants discuss if we would use the bomb or not after Pakistani terrorists set of a nuclear device in India and it all escalates.
|
|
Puts global warming into perspective, doesn't it? It takes decades to raise the earth's temperature by a fraction of a degree churning out petrol fumes, within a few seconds of one of those babies detonating tungsten would be turned to liquid.
|
>> Seoul as its only 50 or so miles from the DMZ
More like 35 miles I think.
|
|
Well done mate. That 15 miles will make a difference.
|
|
With the basic artillery in the NK arsenal, the 15 miles will make a difference. They could cause a lot of damage with fairly basic weapons. Then there's the multiple rocket launchers. They do not need missiles to cause very significant damage to Seoul.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 11 Aug 17 at 01:58
|
There is no viable military solution to the problem to the problem of NK. At least one that does not have colossal risk to its allies. If there was the US would have taken it years ago.
The possession of nuclear missiles by NK makes it even more unlikely however much Trump may posture and bluster.. The risks are simply too great.
China, whilst not happy with its neighbour prefers maintaining the status quo to a war on its borders with all the uncertainty and unpredictabiility that would bring.
North Korea may make a lot of noise but the leadership is not suicidal. If fact it is quite rational. They will not instigate a a nuclear strike. They are convinced the US wont do anything and they are almost certainly correct. Their strategy has paid off.
At the end of the day the least worst situation for all parties is to maintain the status quo, i.e an uneasy truce
|
>> North Korea may make a lot of noise but the leadership is not suicidal. If
>> fact it is quite rational. They will not instigate a a nuclear strike.
AS i said in Volume 1, "We can, but Kim has decided not to"
>>Their strategy has
>> paid off.
Yes?, it has for the first time in years got Russia and China to back sanctions. Not sure thats a win.
This is all for internal DPRK consumption. Trump is doing a fantastic job of being the pantomime villain.
|
>>
>> This is all for internal DPRK consumption. Trump is doing a fantastic job of being
>> the pantomime villain.
>>
I was going to pose the question, what exactly are North Korea's aims - what ideally would they like to achieve from this situation?
They seem to have no external international aims - merely annoying the US can't be a rational goal in itself. If their goal is to re-unite Korea under their rule, then there must be a more subtle way of achieving that than provoking the south's major backer.
So perhaps Z has hit the answer - it is entirely for internal consumption, and their only aim, a perfectly rational one, is maintaining power and their grip on their own population. No one really cares if they succeed, and if to do so means using a pantomime villain, then Trump is serving a useful purpose.
We know enough from recent bitter experience that condoning a strong evil dictatorship is better for world peace than contriving an unstable attempt at a democracy.
|
> I was going to pose the question, what exactly are North Korea's aims - what
>> ideally would they like to achieve from this situation?
To secure their borders as far as possible, increase their prestige as they see it abroad and secure the regime. They believe nuclear weapons do all three of those.
|
>> IMHO China will not stand for America invading NK, unless they get a huge sweetener.
>> They may put up with surgical strikes but that's about it.
Invasion is not on the cards, not in any US planning. If the DPRK launch missiles that hit Guam, the air will be thick with Cruise Missiles, destination Pyongyang, and various locations known to have previously housed Kim. The only troops to enter the DPRK with be South Korea special forces hunting for Kim.
|
|
My concern is that when the USA say that NK has the capability to deliver nuclear warheads to USA (which NK revels in not denying), it reminds me of the WMD in Iraq. And whatever happened to them?
|
|
Just watched War Book via Amazon - and purchased "Letters from Grosvenor Square" (John G Winant) as an aded bonus. Good drama. Worth catching.
|
>> it reminds me of the
>> WMD in Iraq. And whatever happened to them?
>>
Where's Tony Blair when we need him?
|
The 'West' should learn to keep its nose out of other people's affairs. Otherwise we will have yet another Afghanistan or Iraq on our hands.
WMD? Lol. Probably just a pitchfork and a few knackered old Toyota pickups.
Last edited by: The Melting Snowman on Fri 11 Aug 17 at 07:37
|
I worked for a South Korean company for 5 years, and got to know a lot of South Koreans (natives and expats) personally as well as professionally.
The general view among the public (and government) in the south is that they have a fantastic standard of living, increasing wealth and prosperity, world class infrastructure and so on, and they don't want to do anything that might jeopardise this. Hence, each time the Kims have kicked off their various nonsense over the years, there's been a policy of tolerance and even placation. The proximity of Seoul to the border, and the fact it could be quite extensively 'remodelled' with conventional weapons from the North is not lost on these people.
In a nutshell, the South Koreans live comfortable, prosperous lives, and they want to keep it that way. There just isn't an appetite for conflict. There is nothing to be gained by any victory over the North. There's no money there, no material wealth, no resources. Just a lot to lose potentially.
Last edited by: DP on Fri 11 Aug 17 at 10:22
|
If there is forced regime change in North Korea, it is going to have a massive impact on the people. Can you imagine what is going to happen when 25 million people suddenly find out that almost everything they learned from pre-school age, everything they thought they knew, and every understanding of the world and their place in it, is a complete fabrication?
Brainwashed is a crude term, but that's exactly what these people are. For generations now. Undoing that isn't going to be quick or easy.
|
>> If there is forced regime change in North Korea, it is going to have a
>> massive impact on the people.
You have fallen into the Western World idea of regime change. There is no need to change the current society. You just replace the man at the top, and trickle change over generations. Or not as you wish. The Chinese could run it as a closed state, they have experience.
|
>> You have fallen into the Western World idea of regime change. There is no need
>> to change the current society. You just replace the man at the top, and trickle
>> change over generations. Or not as you wish. The Chinese could run it as a
>> closed state, they have experience.
You assume that those instigating the regime change would actually end up controlling which regime actually ends up running the country (and not just the one that we place in power).
The trail of destruction the West has left across the Middle East over the past few decades suggests that rarely happens.
Power vacuums generally get filled by despots and criminals, whether officially in government or not.
|
>> The trail of destruction the West has left across the Middle East over the past
>> few decades suggests that rarely happens.
because we always force our version of democracy on them. Despite the fact we have been working at ours for 500 years and it still doesn't work properly. Democracy is not suitable for that area, even SK doesn't have a proper democracy.
As I say, its a military state, needs to be run by a military dictator, albeit slightly less insane - I know they all go insane in the end so its best run as a closed chinese state, with an appointed governor by the PRC. It could become, in time, another hong kong.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 11 Aug 17 at 12:28
|
Remind me which countries North Korea has invaded, or bombed or assasinated the heads of state?
If 26 million people want to worship a nutter as a god, let them..
When they invade or bomb someone else, then is the time for action.
|
>>Remind me which countries North Korea has invaded, or bombed or assasinated the heads of state?
South Korea in 1950.
|
>>>>or assasinated the heads of state?
Almost:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_House_raid
plus kidnappings of civilians from South Korea and Japan.
|
>> South Korea in 1950.
Sort of. The borders then and now were result of messy compromises when Japanese occupation was ended after WW2. Syngman Rhee (President of SK) was as forceful as Kim Il-Sung in asserting himself rightful ruler of whole of Korea.
Invasion came from North but was driven by Stalin and assisted by barely covert Soviet/Chinese assistance.
|
>>assisted by barely covert Chinese
>> assistance.
After the Americans drove the NK nearly all the way back to the Chinese border, the Chinese invaded big time and pushed the Yanks back again. There was nothing covert about it.
There is a historical lesson that certain people with funny hair need to remember. If he knows History at all that is.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 12 Aug 17 at 19:36
|
|
As you say and serious consideration was given to using tactical nukes to stop them.
|
|
I don't know much about strategic weapons but could anti-missile missiles not be deployed to bring these down? Or would the thought that a rogue missile might have a primed nuclear warhead be enough to deter such an action?
|
|
Problem is firing a missile over a country and into the sea is threatening but technically only a violation of Airspace and a bit of North-Korean "Willy-waggling". Actually retaliating and destroying the missile would probably be classed as War, then they may fire them in earnest!
|
|
The last people who want a war are the North Koreans as their country would cease to exist in a very short time, even with conventional weapons. They are just seeing how far they can push before someone is likely to strike back. So far they've played a blinder, but they're luck won't last unless they know where the line is.
|
Its not really "North Korea" though, is it. Its one lunatic family who will be sitting comfortably in a bunker when everybody else gets bombed.
I worked with a group of North Koreans once, a thoroughly decent bunch.
|
|
Kim Jung Whatshisname knows his country is enough of an economic basket case already without being bombed to oblivion.
|
And China of course. They might have more sense than to go to war with the US, SK and Japan but they will want to control events one way or another.
That might involve replacing the dictator.
|
South Korea and Japan will have anti missile systems, as of course do the US so that missile could have been destroyed anytime within a few seconds of its launch, though better to let fly over pacifist Japan and land harmlessly to show NK as the aggressors.
Korean unification is the only way forward, that needs an overthrow of the Kims et al, the problem is that the people are much more oppressed than Poland or East Germany in the late 80s.
And most people are thoroughly decent, most Germans were in the 30s, most Russians were in the cold war period, the problems are caused by dictators and power brokers.
How many times have truly democratic nations gone to war?
Last edited by: Hard Cheese on Wed 30 Aug 17 at 13:28
|
|
China will be implacably opposed to NK being subsumed into SK and alliance with the US, and I don't think the South Koreans or just about anybody else would be prepared for SK to be in thrall to China, so unification is not a credible prospect.
|
>>How many times have truly democratic nations gone to war?
The answer to that kind of depends on your definition of "truly democratic".
|
>> The answer to that kind of depends on your definition of "truly democratic".
>>
Not to mention how you define a war.
|
>> And most people are thoroughly decent, most Germans were in the 30s, most Russians were
>> in the cold war period, the problems are caused by dictators and power brokers.
I think I know what you mean by that, and it's true most of the time. Even in very difficult circumstances when all perceive themselves to be in the same boat. But then look what happened in the former Yugoslavia. Put ordinarily decent people under enough pressure and they will do things that they would previously have considered completely unacceptable.
And it doesn't have to be a threat to life and limb. I learnt what I subsequently found to have been a valuable lesson in the early 70s while working in a bank. Somebody spotted a rapid increase in turnover on the account of a struggling textile manufacturer. A bit of investigation, and conversations with a couple of other local bank branches, revealed that three long established but struggling firms, with family and social connections through ownership, had been cross-firing cheques to stay afloat.
The roundabout was stopped, and they all went into receivership. Prosecutions followed. This was fraud, conducted by people who were respected citizens, councillors and JPs.
Trivial by comparison with what happened during the break up of Yugoslavia of course, but the point is that if circumstances change, so can people. A lot - most maybe - of normal, considerate social behaviour is really based on enlightened self interest.
Thought for the day.
Last edited by: Manatee on Wed 30 Aug 17 at 13:54
|
>> Korean unification is the only way forward,
Annexation by China is the only way forward.
>> that needs an overthrow of the Kims
China puts a "government" in place. aka Hong Kong. And it could rapidly become a new Hong Kong
|
>>
>> >> Korean unification is the only way forward,
>>
>> Annexation by China is the only way forward.
>>
Exactly. And it will happen when KJU becomes too much of a nuisance. They might, even now, be allowing him just enough rope to hang himself - they could have reined him in had they wanted.
|
>>they could have reined him in had they wanted
Not sure that's true. If he was merely a dictator, perhaps so. But reining in someone who is actually unbalanced is lots more difficult. And he seems unbalanced to me.
|
>> Exactly. And it will happen when KJU becomes too much of a nuisance. They might,
>> even now, be allowing him just enough rope to hang himself - they could have
>> reined him in had they wanted.
It would be spectacularly easy to do, there would be little or no global condemnation, the population are already compliant and subdued, there is a strong border in place on all sides, its an excellent buffer for China.
|
>> its an excellent buffer for China.
Currently its a better one.
Nobody can cross it and anything that happens is not the fault of the Chinese.
|
>> I don't know much about strategic weapons but could anti-missile missiles not be deployed to
>> bring these down?
Anti ICMB missile systems are pretty useless with a very low success rate.
|
Until and if there is an internal overthrow of the regime nothing will change. North Korea effectively has S Korea and to a lesser degree Japan as hostages. The US will not risk military action. Whilst China is concerned it does not want instability and war on its borders. It will not precipitate military action.
If there was a military solution it would have been taken years ago.
The situation is a stalemate. The US and N Korea will simply continue their war of words.
|
>> Whilst China is concerned it does not want instability and
>> war on its borders.
It has instability on its border now. That may or may not have been a desirable or planned choice in years gone by. Now its an issue.
|
|
No it's not. China is not threatened by North Korea. China doesn't like wars. They are unpredictable. Although they would prefer a less noisy neighbour the status quo suits them fine. They will do nothing. They haven't even implemented the UN sanctions fully.
|
|
China could very easily invade, they have the numbers and kit - they would be seen as liberators by many North Koreans. It would be over in days.
|
>> No it's not. China is not threatened by North Korea. China doesn't like wars. They
>> are unpredictable.
>>
Which is why they are alarmed by Kim. They will either lean on him to back off or organise an internal coup to have him despatched. There will be many in the NK hierarchy who are just as worried by their leader as the outside world is, with an unpredictable despot at the helm everyone in his inner circle is just one inadvertent laugh or comment away from ending up as dog food. There would be no lack of willing participants to pull the plug if they had the backing to enable them to do it.
|
|
He isn't unpredictable. His actions seen through his eyes are entirely logical an predictable.
|
>> He isn't unpredictable. His actions seen through his eyes are entirely logical an predictable.
We can infer that but what is the logic? He's playing with fire. He doesn't need to do that to impress his craven subjects, they only know what he allows them to know anyway.
There's a big grey area between sane and insane. He might be 'rational' but I suspect he has a major personality defect.
If so he wouldn't be the only world leader to fit that description.
|
>> No it's not. China is not threatened by North Korea. China doesn't like wars. They
>> are unpredictable.
Well they might be having an unpredictable one on their doorstep, one they can prevent. For a regime that doesn't like wars, they are pretty keen to start one with india, and any neighbour they can antagonise as they create islands in the seas around (well not actually around, anywhere they like really) their sphere of influence.
China is feeling expansionist, they want to spread their wings and peck a few people, being able the threaten Seoul is a nice place to be.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 30 Aug 17 at 17:50
|
"Well they might be having an unpredictable one on their doorstep"
And who is going to have a war with North Korea?
You think the US might invade?
No its all bluff and bluster. Normal service and an uneasy standoff will resume shortly.
|
|
US won't invade. They have a massive stand-off arsenal at their disposal.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 30 Aug 17 at 19:17
|
Which they can't use because of the inevitability of massive retaliation against their ally South Korea.
There is no military solution to the problem, at least not one for which the USA and China are prepared to accept the consequences
|
Is there actually a problem, or is there actually a stable equilibrium?
How much does it upset that equilibrium if NK gets some medium range (Guam/Japan) nuclear weapons?
If it does turn out to be a problem (i.e. real risk of Kim attacking part of Western/SK/Japan alliance, or an actual attack, then is there still no military solution in the hands of the US and allies?
Will China then be obliged to clap a stopper on the NK regime and bring NK under Chinese direct control?
I haven't heard any sort of analysis along these lines from the 'news' sources: there has praobly been some that I have missed.
|
>> There is no military solution to the problem, at least not one for which the
>> USA and China are prepared to accept the consequences
Yes there is, a Chinese military coup or regime change.
|
>> You think the US might invade?
No but a sky full of cruise missiles could well happen. That could precipitate an invasion of the south by the north.
>> No its all bluff and bluster. Normal service and an uneasy standoff will resume shortly.
Firing missiles (not on a space trajectory) over someones elses country causing public air raid warnings is NOT normal bluff and bluster.
|
|
We shall see. My prediction is that that the situation in a years time will be much the same as it is now.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Wed 30 Aug 17 at 19:48
|
Its interesting at this point to look at those in power and what's their motivation and ultimate end game. The NK regime to my mind has the most to loose out of this. I don't think KjU is irrational, he's unpredictable yes but the two aren't the same.
The question is what's in it for him, what does he gain from this course of action? To him this is probably all quite reasonable, he's trying to ensure he's not overthrown or invaded.
Another interesting question is does KjU fear a Chinese invasion and if so what plans do they have to counter it?
|
>>
>> Another interesting question is does KjU fear a Chinese invasion and if so what plans
>> do they have to counter it?
>>
That would be the thing they fear the most. China is their only ally, far superior in military strength and they would be completely on their own.
|
>> Firing missiles (not on a space trajectory) over someones elses country causing public air raid
>> warnings is NOT normal bluff and bluster.
>>
I don't know in historic context of the two koreas it's not *that* unusual. They had several naval engagements, artillery strikes on the south and iirc an assassination on the Skorea premier.
Granted it's a new weapon system and its at a time of tension but at the same time not completely surprisingly.
|
>> I don't know in historic context of the two koreas it's not *that* unusual. They
>> had several naval engagements, artillery strikes on the south and iirc an assassination on the
>> Skorea premier.
But thats not an unrelated third country.
|
Its not but they've kidnapped both korean nationals and japanese from japan, you might well call those acts of aggression.
I don't think japan is unrelated they are quite involved on a regional level.
|
|
Bad relationship between Korea and Japan goes back centuries. The colonisation of Korea by Japan in the first half of the twentieth century has not been forgiven or forgotten either in the South or the North
|
>> Bad relationship between Korea and Japan goes back centuries. The colonisation of Korea by Japan
>> in the first half of the twentieth century has not been forgiven or forgotten either
>> in the South or the North
Indeed. but we are talking modern history, post 1953
|
Sabre rattling against an age old enemy plays well at home.
History does not have a cut off date.
|
"History does not have a cut off date."
That's true. I come from English peasant stock, but some still want to blame my ilk for the slave trade.
|
>> History does not have a cut off date.
It most certainly does when it creates a different scenario.
|
Do you think that in 1953 suddenly the Japanese stopped being the enemy in the eyes of the the average Korean? That traditional enmity has been fostered by the regime over the years because it suits their purpose. The Koreans do not see Japan as an innocent neutral but alongside the United States it is their sworn enemy.
|
>> Do you think that in 1953 suddenly the Japanese stopped being the enemy in the
>> eyes of the the average Korean?
Yes, because its been replaced by another one. In the North the enemy is the South, in the South the threat is the North.
History is a very good way of prioritising stuff. Even tho I know some of our members on here still consider Germany as an enemy, a threat to European freedom, generally speaking tho whats happened in the past between us and our enemies is that - past. New threats emerge.
To the DPRK Japan is not an enemy, its a tool of the Great Satan USA. Flying missiles over Japan is flying missiles over the USA int he eyes of the DPRK.
Thats what separates it from the past north south wee flare ups.
|
The latest response to NK's latest bomb test.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-41144356
|
|
It's going to end badly. Whichever way you look at it. The US has a right to self-defence.
|
|
No problem, I have a visit booked to the Kelevedon Hatch nuclear bunker next sunday, if they can just hold off till then........
|
>> No problem, I have a visit booked to the Kelevedon Hatch nuclear bunker next sunday,
>> if they can just hold off till then........
>>
Checking on the gardening?
www.thesun.co.uk/news/3775335/inside-the-abandoned-nuclear-bunker-turned-into-a-2million-a-year-cannabis-farm-in-rural-wiltshire/
|
Well I guess having a military dictatorship armed with nuclear weapons is ending badly but I am very sceptical that there will be any significant military action against N. Korea whatever Trump's speeches might imply. The risks are just too great.
It could happen of course were Kim Jong Un to really step over the line by actually launching a missile against US or its allies territory but he is,not as far as I am aware suicidal, and his actions so far have been entirely rational taken into account his overriding aim which is of course self preservation.
|
|
Trump is being moderated hopefully.
|
|
Better not try regime change in North Korea by the Americans.It wouldn't work and Kim would definitely press any button.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-41391978
Ri Yong-ho told reporters in New York that North Korea reserved the right to shoot down US bombers.
This applied even when they were not in North Korean airspace, the minister added. The world "should clearly remember" it was the US that first declared war, Mr Ri said.
Next tweet Donald ?
|
I hate to think what the short, dumpy guy with the weird haircut, small sweaty hands who inherited everything from his father will do next.
Kim jong-il's just as bad!
|
>>I hate to think what the short, dumpy guy with the weird haircut, small sweaty hands who inherited everything from his father will do next...
Not safe for work but not that rude either...
i.redd.it/egffx56bj2kz.jpg
Last edited by: Lygonos on Mon 25 Sep 17 at 21:22
|
These two idiots both need a good slap.
School playground, - " go on then, - no you go on then, - no you go on then ...." - ends in stalemate - (hopefully !)
Reality is, either of these two clowns could kill us all, and for those of us who remember the films of hospitalised Japanese civillians after WW2, (the ones who were not vapourised by "the bomb" but who horrifically rotted to bits in the following years), this is a genuinely scary time, nuclear fallout is not a joke.
I remember the Cuban missile crisis, but this is much more worrying.
Relatives, friends, ex-colleagues and acquaintances are already dying younger than me, so i take a pragmatic personal view, but still worry for those younger than me.
Trump - school bully who will back down at the last moment
Kim - brainwashed from birth, and intransigent, so my virtual pint says that IF the button is pressed, his finger will do it (i can drink a pint in 4 mins !)
Surreal isn't it that on the same website we discuss the potential destruction of our world, .... and our preference for crisp flavours !, no wonder others don't understand us :-)
|
".... and our preference for crisp flavours"
I assumed that was just a displacement activity to avoid the subject of the German election.
|
North Korean Threats. Volume 1. - smokie