Posted on Sep 19, 2017
Bringing North Korea into the World By Acknowledging Their Nuclear Weapons and Strike Capabilities
42.4K
239
152
42
42
0
I recently read a great position article by Victor Cha from the Center for Strategic and International studies on how to play the China card in regards to handling the events we are seeing out of North Korea. For the most part, the general consensus to dealing with North Korea will be through their closest friend, China. To this point, I completely agree. It is likely that we will (and are) attempting to pressure China to, in turn, pressure North Korea. However, as Victor points out, this pressure is not likely to lead to our best envisioned end state of a regime change and diminished focus on weapons of mass destruction. Why? Multiple factors of competition, mistrust, history, regime collapse and more lead to a litany of variables that China just doesn’t want to be responsible for or tied to. As Victor argues, it’s time to consider a change in diplomacy; I argue that it also is a time to consider a change in end state expectations and how we get there. [1]
Multiple presidential administrations have attempted to curb North Korean weapons development and engage the hermit country in a way that would stabilize the peninsula and tone down the rhetoric. From the “preventive defense” attempts of the 1994 U.S.- North Korea Framework to curb nuclear power ambitions to the crippling sanctions of today, all attempts to change the regime’s trajectory towards nuclear weapons have been some sort of a failure.[2] However, I believe the actions themselves aren’t the failure, but the underlying assumptions with a focus on the stabilization of the country rather than the stabilization of the Kim Regime itself is the underlying issue.
Although I am by no means an expert on the Kim Jong-un regime or the Kim Dynasty as a whole, from the discussions I have had to the research I have conducted, I am thoroughly convinced every action conducted by the leader is for the security of his Regime, not the country. So, as initiatives have consistently worked to deter action and stabilize a country, I argue it is time we work to stabilize the regime and, in turn, help manage its actions. Now, before we talk about this, let’s acknowledge that working with a regime like this goes against our moralistic nature, as the regime of North Korea is brutish and just down right horrible to its population. However, to that point, its brutal practices are likely actions driven by a regime who consistently is working to secure itself and thereby, has the potential to diminish as the regime’s future is secured.
So, where would we begin to stabilize what seems to be a regime of non-rational actors? First, I believe we need to start by treating them as rational actors. Although their actions may not seem rational to us, as former Joint Chief of Staff General Dempsey once pointed out to a poor reporter, that doesn’t mean they aren’t rational actors. I do believe the regime has an envisioned future and understands where they want to sit in the world. What is that position? Likely, a mid-level country like their cousins to the South. A regime who holds an array of respect and positions in the international system. A position that can influence trade, maritime operations, or weigh in on regional and international issues. Essentially, a position that projects the regimes divinity and strength from within. What is important to remember is that we are talking about the regime, not the country, and thereby we have to acknowledge that this will look vastly different than the free and connected society in the south, but with all the basic tenants of holding a position in the world. This fundamental change in an underlying assumption and focus is a strong facet to seeing that the regime has the potential to stabilize as their envisioned future comes to fruition.
Operating off this assumption, I believe to bring a regime like Kim’s to that point of stability, we have to employ a preventative style of strategy that integrates North Korea into the world system. This would be very familiar to post-Cold War strategies for integrating a fledgling Russian federation back into the world. We’d utilize methods like inviting the Russians into peacekeeping operations in Bosnia-Kosovo, which developed communication frameworks and enabled Russia to find their prideful place in the world structure. Similar activities like investment and repurposing of military personnel in the Ukraine, post Soviet collapse, helped to secure the region and denuclearize a once heavily nuclear country. Many of these strategies of preventative defense, outlined by former Secretaries of Defense Carter and Perry in their book, “Preventative Defense” could yield positive results, as long as their strategies are employed with a focus on the Kim Jong-un regime, rather than the country itself.
To put these ideas into perspective a little more, let’s expand on a few things. To date, the regime is clearly not deterred from developing their weapons of mass destruction and I believe that is because the regime believes it is their most effective and most feasible entry to the international community. To support this, we have to understand that the hermit nation really has no place in modern society. They are not a world player in exports or imports. They do not possess advanced technology which they can offer to the world, and they do not carry any cultural or historic envy in the world. So, what do they have? What do they have to offer? From the regime’s eyes, I believe its only option is their military capability or threat. Basically, “a pay attention to us by force” motto.
Beyond attention-seeking, let’s talk about the potential personal ambitions of Kim Jong-un and his Regime. Kim is a leader, a divinity to some, and one of the privileged few that gets to look beyond the gates of the Regime. Enter the mind of a man in that position, looking out and knowing his influence has significant limits and that those limits actually threaten the life span of his regime, and thereby, his influence. Wouldn’t that drive you to build a mechanism to gain more, or to at least secure your regime’s future both within the country and the international community? I believe it would. This goes back to the understanding that the regime’s survival is priority number one and, therefore, any and all mechanisms to strengthen it must be pursued, no matter the cost.
Moving on to the next piece of bringing North Korea into the world; allowing their sustained nuclear strike capability. Before we talk about nuclear weapons as a means of communication vs. a threat, let's first acknowledge a few other issues that are likely to come up with a reliable nuclear strike platform. With an increased capability like this, the conventional military threat could be emboldened as well, and the regional stability could be threatened. Additionally, we could see increased rhetoric and open threats as North Korean leaders learned how to negotiate and communicate on the world stage - threats would likely be their default response. Further, we could see an intrepid nuclear-capable regime backtrack or cheat on negotiated deals, which could deteriorate security worldwide. These, and many more, are all risks we must acknowledge and account for. We must be heavily involved in the management of regime actions as they move forward as a nuclear power.
Now, with all that we have outlined here - the changes in the assumptions and the changes in focus from country to the regime - we can talk about nuclear capability in North Korea as a potential conduit of communication rather than strictly a threat. Acknowledging their nuclear capability and immediately bringing them into established frameworks for nuclear capable countries could potentially open lines of communication that have not yet been achieved. With a strong deterrence in his pocket from “western interdiction”, Kim could possibly be more willing to establish norms and predictability in their military exercises and actions as they attempt to garner an image of a world player. To circle back to Victor Cha’s article, these lines of communication will likely never be directly with the U.S. or “West” due to the regime’s lack of trust, but would more likely be directed through China. However, the closer the regime gets to established frameworks, the closer those lines of communication can become.
Years of attempting to deter a nuclear North Korea have seem to have little effect, and the time for acknowledging their capability may be presenting itself. So, there are interesting questions that need to be asked. If Kim Jong-un has his desired nuclear program with strike capabilities around the world, could that actually be the missing piece that brings him within the international framework? Will it actually be the conduit that brings stability to the regime and, thereby, the entire region of North Korea? Or are we actually sitting at the brink of a mad-man ready to destroy the world? Either way, these are two extremely interesting and important questions.
What do you think?
-----
Luke Jenkins is an Active Duty Army officer and founder of OweYaa.com, a veteran service organization. He is a passionate student of strategy and matters relating to national defense strategy. This article reflects his personal analysis and thoughts and does not reflect an official stance of the U.S. Army, Department of Defense, or any organization related to national defense framework.
-----
[1] https://www.csis.org/analysis/right-way-play-china-card-north-korea
[2] https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/agreedframework
Photo by Roman Harak - https://www.flickr.com/photos/roman-harak/ [login to see]
Multiple presidential administrations have attempted to curb North Korean weapons development and engage the hermit country in a way that would stabilize the peninsula and tone down the rhetoric. From the “preventive defense” attempts of the 1994 U.S.- North Korea Framework to curb nuclear power ambitions to the crippling sanctions of today, all attempts to change the regime’s trajectory towards nuclear weapons have been some sort of a failure.[2] However, I believe the actions themselves aren’t the failure, but the underlying assumptions with a focus on the stabilization of the country rather than the stabilization of the Kim Regime itself is the underlying issue.
Although I am by no means an expert on the Kim Jong-un regime or the Kim Dynasty as a whole, from the discussions I have had to the research I have conducted, I am thoroughly convinced every action conducted by the leader is for the security of his Regime, not the country. So, as initiatives have consistently worked to deter action and stabilize a country, I argue it is time we work to stabilize the regime and, in turn, help manage its actions. Now, before we talk about this, let’s acknowledge that working with a regime like this goes against our moralistic nature, as the regime of North Korea is brutish and just down right horrible to its population. However, to that point, its brutal practices are likely actions driven by a regime who consistently is working to secure itself and thereby, has the potential to diminish as the regime’s future is secured.
So, where would we begin to stabilize what seems to be a regime of non-rational actors? First, I believe we need to start by treating them as rational actors. Although their actions may not seem rational to us, as former Joint Chief of Staff General Dempsey once pointed out to a poor reporter, that doesn’t mean they aren’t rational actors. I do believe the regime has an envisioned future and understands where they want to sit in the world. What is that position? Likely, a mid-level country like their cousins to the South. A regime who holds an array of respect and positions in the international system. A position that can influence trade, maritime operations, or weigh in on regional and international issues. Essentially, a position that projects the regimes divinity and strength from within. What is important to remember is that we are talking about the regime, not the country, and thereby we have to acknowledge that this will look vastly different than the free and connected society in the south, but with all the basic tenants of holding a position in the world. This fundamental change in an underlying assumption and focus is a strong facet to seeing that the regime has the potential to stabilize as their envisioned future comes to fruition.
Operating off this assumption, I believe to bring a regime like Kim’s to that point of stability, we have to employ a preventative style of strategy that integrates North Korea into the world system. This would be very familiar to post-Cold War strategies for integrating a fledgling Russian federation back into the world. We’d utilize methods like inviting the Russians into peacekeeping operations in Bosnia-Kosovo, which developed communication frameworks and enabled Russia to find their prideful place in the world structure. Similar activities like investment and repurposing of military personnel in the Ukraine, post Soviet collapse, helped to secure the region and denuclearize a once heavily nuclear country. Many of these strategies of preventative defense, outlined by former Secretaries of Defense Carter and Perry in their book, “Preventative Defense” could yield positive results, as long as their strategies are employed with a focus on the Kim Jong-un regime, rather than the country itself.
To put these ideas into perspective a little more, let’s expand on a few things. To date, the regime is clearly not deterred from developing their weapons of mass destruction and I believe that is because the regime believes it is their most effective and most feasible entry to the international community. To support this, we have to understand that the hermit nation really has no place in modern society. They are not a world player in exports or imports. They do not possess advanced technology which they can offer to the world, and they do not carry any cultural or historic envy in the world. So, what do they have? What do they have to offer? From the regime’s eyes, I believe its only option is their military capability or threat. Basically, “a pay attention to us by force” motto.
Beyond attention-seeking, let’s talk about the potential personal ambitions of Kim Jong-un and his Regime. Kim is a leader, a divinity to some, and one of the privileged few that gets to look beyond the gates of the Regime. Enter the mind of a man in that position, looking out and knowing his influence has significant limits and that those limits actually threaten the life span of his regime, and thereby, his influence. Wouldn’t that drive you to build a mechanism to gain more, or to at least secure your regime’s future both within the country and the international community? I believe it would. This goes back to the understanding that the regime’s survival is priority number one and, therefore, any and all mechanisms to strengthen it must be pursued, no matter the cost.
Moving on to the next piece of bringing North Korea into the world; allowing their sustained nuclear strike capability. Before we talk about nuclear weapons as a means of communication vs. a threat, let's first acknowledge a few other issues that are likely to come up with a reliable nuclear strike platform. With an increased capability like this, the conventional military threat could be emboldened as well, and the regional stability could be threatened. Additionally, we could see increased rhetoric and open threats as North Korean leaders learned how to negotiate and communicate on the world stage - threats would likely be their default response. Further, we could see an intrepid nuclear-capable regime backtrack or cheat on negotiated deals, which could deteriorate security worldwide. These, and many more, are all risks we must acknowledge and account for. We must be heavily involved in the management of regime actions as they move forward as a nuclear power.
Now, with all that we have outlined here - the changes in the assumptions and the changes in focus from country to the regime - we can talk about nuclear capability in North Korea as a potential conduit of communication rather than strictly a threat. Acknowledging their nuclear capability and immediately bringing them into established frameworks for nuclear capable countries could potentially open lines of communication that have not yet been achieved. With a strong deterrence in his pocket from “western interdiction”, Kim could possibly be more willing to establish norms and predictability in their military exercises and actions as they attempt to garner an image of a world player. To circle back to Victor Cha’s article, these lines of communication will likely never be directly with the U.S. or “West” due to the regime’s lack of trust, but would more likely be directed through China. However, the closer the regime gets to established frameworks, the closer those lines of communication can become.
Years of attempting to deter a nuclear North Korea have seem to have little effect, and the time for acknowledging their capability may be presenting itself. So, there are interesting questions that need to be asked. If Kim Jong-un has his desired nuclear program with strike capabilities around the world, could that actually be the missing piece that brings him within the international framework? Will it actually be the conduit that brings stability to the regime and, thereby, the entire region of North Korea? Or are we actually sitting at the brink of a mad-man ready to destroy the world? Either way, these are two extremely interesting and important questions.
What do you think?
-----
Luke Jenkins is an Active Duty Army officer and founder of OweYaa.com, a veteran service organization. He is a passionate student of strategy and matters relating to national defense strategy. This article reflects his personal analysis and thoughts and does not reflect an official stance of the U.S. Army, Department of Defense, or any organization related to national defense framework.
-----
[1] https://www.csis.org/analysis/right-way-play-china-card-north-korea
[2] https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/agreedframework
Photo by Roman Harak - https://www.flickr.com/photos/roman-harak/ [login to see]
Posted in these groups: 
North Korea
Nuclear
World Affairs
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)
Command Post
North Korea Nuclear World Affairs Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Command Post
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 40
0
0
0
0
0
0
The Kim dynasty in North Korea has a skewed and screwed history. Let's accept this fact, first.
Kim Il Sung is the Father of the DPRK and he agreed to the Korean Armistice and Six-Party Talks. His main agenda was to unite Korea under the Communist ideology; a red state aligned to the USSR and China. At the time of the Armistice, Kim Il Sung chose his Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission (NNSC) members from the former Soviet Union. He agreed to India serving as the Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission (NNRC). This Kim built tunnels across the DMZ to spy and attack US and allied forces in the ROK, with intent to force the allies out of Korea. He violated the Return of Remains provision in the Armistice, initially, using this Clause as a bargaining chip with the West; a barter using a Western coin, so to speak. However, he was professional in his ways.
Kim Il Sung was followed by Kim Jung Il, his son. He floated the idea of two Koreas with an Umbrella Command run by the DPRK leadership. The intent was to tax the South to feed the North, but not visa versa. It was Kim Jung Il that suggested that the Western allies leave Korea to sort their own differences, but the ROK declined this proposal. He tried to claim the UN Command in Korea was a puppet of the US and the NNSC was defunct, because after the fall of the Soviet Union the Czech Republic split into many fragments and Poland disengaged from Russia and so, the DPRK lacked any neutral nation to represent it. This Kim was well-known for his wild and ambitious side. He threatened the ROK at intervals using his famed Koksan Guns (170mms) that can launch nuke tipped bombs on Seoul and destroy it in seconds. Nuclear weapons programs were advanced under this Kim and at a pace second to none, yet. However, testing was not done openly; arsenal was kept under wraps in underground bunkers.
Then; Kim Jung Un ascended the dynastic throne. He got rid of his family that can succeed him. He grew the Nuclear weapons programs and tested them openly too. This Kim is not shy of threatening the West or of taking covert action to extort funds he needs, but doesn't have in his coffers. He is much more evil than his father, just as his father was in comparison to his grandfather.
It is vital to understand the dynasty politics before indulgence in any legitimacy of a rogue state or its leaders.
Thanks for listening.
Kim Il Sung is the Father of the DPRK and he agreed to the Korean Armistice and Six-Party Talks. His main agenda was to unite Korea under the Communist ideology; a red state aligned to the USSR and China. At the time of the Armistice, Kim Il Sung chose his Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission (NNSC) members from the former Soviet Union. He agreed to India serving as the Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission (NNRC). This Kim built tunnels across the DMZ to spy and attack US and allied forces in the ROK, with intent to force the allies out of Korea. He violated the Return of Remains provision in the Armistice, initially, using this Clause as a bargaining chip with the West; a barter using a Western coin, so to speak. However, he was professional in his ways.
Kim Il Sung was followed by Kim Jung Il, his son. He floated the idea of two Koreas with an Umbrella Command run by the DPRK leadership. The intent was to tax the South to feed the North, but not visa versa. It was Kim Jung Il that suggested that the Western allies leave Korea to sort their own differences, but the ROK declined this proposal. He tried to claim the UN Command in Korea was a puppet of the US and the NNSC was defunct, because after the fall of the Soviet Union the Czech Republic split into many fragments and Poland disengaged from Russia and so, the DPRK lacked any neutral nation to represent it. This Kim was well-known for his wild and ambitious side. He threatened the ROK at intervals using his famed Koksan Guns (170mms) that can launch nuke tipped bombs on Seoul and destroy it in seconds. Nuclear weapons programs were advanced under this Kim and at a pace second to none, yet. However, testing was not done openly; arsenal was kept under wraps in underground bunkers.
Then; Kim Jung Un ascended the dynastic throne. He got rid of his family that can succeed him. He grew the Nuclear weapons programs and tested them openly too. This Kim is not shy of threatening the West or of taking covert action to extort funds he needs, but doesn't have in his coffers. He is much more evil than his father, just as his father was in comparison to his grandfather.
It is vital to understand the dynasty politics before indulgence in any legitimacy of a rogue state or its leaders.
Thanks for listening.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I would show a force. Issue a proclamation, then execute the use of force just like with a swift kick in the butt.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
You want to work with a unstable dictator who starves his own people while swallowing lobster and stakes?He's working on dropping a nuke over the Pacific Ocean.Everyday the North Korean people are told how horrible the US is and that we all must cease to exist.Personally I think you're barking up the wrong tree.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
That would be like having BLM kill cops and demand to given a seat at the POTUS' table. They had every opportunity that the south had to normalize relations with the world but they chose to rattle their sabers and receive free handout from the rest of the world for decades. While the north was saber rattling the rest of the world was turning a blind eye to the problem and looking the other way out of the good eye. Kim's forefathers always thought small for small amounts of money and supplies but the later kims were thinking big and started the nuclear program for bigger extortion payments. What would keep other rogue nations from starting a nuclear program to get a mid level seat at the world table If we give a mid level seat to NK? Their diplomats must send so much money back to regime every year so many diplomats, their staffs and families must get employment where they can and send the money back to kim and hooligans.
(0)
(0)
2LT (Join to see)
I will have to strongly disagree with your parallel comparison as the DPRK hasn't killed anyone using a weapon of mass destruction as talked about in this piece, therefore the comparison has no merit as you are trying to draw parallels between an entirely different set of situations. Moreover, I believe inclusion is the only way you will ever deter rogue states from developing stronger weapons. The more you exclude a nation like Iran, or the DPRK, the harder they will push back. Exactly why we saw a massive uptick in their weapons development when we invaded Iraq. They thought they were next so the only solution was to speed up their only ability to deter. Finally, you talk as if NK, one of the most heavily sanctioned countries on earth, has had the opportunity to join the international community. I would say that's false. Although aid has been extended, they have consistently been pushed into a corner, never given any type of additional avenue out that is acceptable to the regime longetivity and their cultural way of life. They will never look like a South Korea, and therefore should not be pressured or attempted to be pursaded into one. We can however, pull the situation back from the brink and develop peaceful, feasiable, and secure solutions
(0)
(0)
SGM Joseph Joyner
2LT (Join to see) - Your so called exclusion of Iran has nothing to do with their pursuit of nuclear weapons. They want to destroy Israel to bring back the 12th Imam so that the end of the world will come and they will bask in Allah's glory. Iran was once upon a time on the center stage and Ayatollah and his merry band of Islamis overthrew the Shah. After they took over it was there followers that kidnapped our citizens and held them prisoners 400+ days. Iran could have stayed on that center stage but they choose to take the road they have. After the overthrow of the shah they encouraged the citizens of Iraq to over throw their government and that was one of the causations of the Iran-Iraq war. Not only did the Ayatollah antagonize their neighbor but they destroyed the 5th largest military that the shah had put together and which had previously defeated the Iraqi's. After Iran's nuclear program was exposed in 2002 their president stated “a world without the United States and Zionism” so much for wanting to be part of the world community. When NK attacked SK the south had a rag tag military and around 450 American advisors their goal was to conquer the south and put the entire country under communism. Before their actions they had the opportunity to join the world community but with the blessing of China and Russia they chose a different course of action. They have hijacked an American submarine, continually send infiltrators south and have even shelled islands belonging to SK. Really appears that they want to be on the world stage. I will repeat "from the inception of NK's Gods they have been extortionist" but instead of rattling their sabers for scraps from the table they have developed more WMDs in hopes that no backbone leaders will up their "payoffs". The regime doesn't want to be part of the international community as they would more than likely have to give up all their control and power and that is what they don't want to loose. No one backed them into that corner except themselves.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The entire concept written in this article is delusional, and totally without merit. Peace through appeasement is insanity. It is tantamount to capitulation and surrender. It is the equivalent of saying, "I would rather live on my knees, than die on my feet". It would also say to the world, that we are weak, and can be easily be intimidated by threats.
I guess the author thinks that Hitler, and Nazi Germany were just misunderstood, and could have been dealt with more effectively by acknowledging their regime, and accepting them into the community of Nations.
None of the arguments put forth in this article are valid.
I guess the author thinks that Hitler, and Nazi Germany were just misunderstood, and could have been dealt with more effectively by acknowledging their regime, and accepting them into the community of Nations.
None of the arguments put forth in this article are valid.
(0)
(0)
2LT (Join to see)
Significantly different approach from appeasement is presented here. Rather it is portraying an option to either join the international standard for control of WMDs or face interdiction. Right now we are only pushing towards conflict instead of leaving the other option on the table.
This situation is significantly different from a Nazi regime so to draw that parellel is like apples and oranges. Moreover, the cultures are completely different and the stakes are completely different. Nazi germany displayed significant imperial ambitions to expand their rule. Where are the NK threats of imperialistic ambitions? There are none, they are all defensive in nature. They are an introverted country with no where near the ultraistic mentality Germany once possessed
This situation is significantly different from a Nazi regime so to draw that parellel is like apples and oranges. Moreover, the cultures are completely different and the stakes are completely different. Nazi germany displayed significant imperial ambitions to expand their rule. Where are the NK threats of imperialistic ambitions? There are none, they are all defensive in nature. They are an introverted country with no where near the ultraistic mentality Germany once possessed
(0)
(0)
MSgt Billy Zuber
A rogue nation does not need to have imperialistic ambitious to be an imminent threat to the civilized world, as is the case with N Korea. We are the ones being threatened with nuclear destruction by a mentally unstable sociopath.
We are the ones being forced to defend ourselves.
If we capitulate, and allow N Korea to field nuclear weapons, then any other country that has a desire for such weapons, such as Iran would feel free to obtain them. S Korea, would need to have nuclear weapons redeployed into the country as well. It would set the most catastrophic precedent ever.
We would also loose all credibility as a world leader, if we, after having declared that under no circumstances will N Korea be allowed to have these weapons, we end up backing down.
Obama did that in Syria, and it only served to embolden the enemy, and bring ridicule upon our country.
We are the ones being forced to defend ourselves.
If we capitulate, and allow N Korea to field nuclear weapons, then any other country that has a desire for such weapons, such as Iran would feel free to obtain them. S Korea, would need to have nuclear weapons redeployed into the country as well. It would set the most catastrophic precedent ever.
We would also loose all credibility as a world leader, if we, after having declared that under no circumstances will N Korea be allowed to have these weapons, we end up backing down.
Obama did that in Syria, and it only served to embolden the enemy, and bring ridicule upon our country.
(0)
(0)
2LT (Join to see)
My follow-up question to this point would then be, what are the DPRK suppose to do when we threaten the total destruction of their country or "fire and fury" like the world has never seen? A threat from a nation developing WMD's about mass destruction is significantly more hollow than a threat or even counter threat of destruction from a country who has deployed such a weapon. And to compare this theater to Syria has no parallels as they are completely separate and different issues, for one, bounded by entirely different systems, regimes, radical groups, weapons, and political implications. DPRK is an individual issue that requires an independent approach.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Billy Zuber
I am convinced that we must agree to disagree. Otherwise we would be engaged in an exercise in futility.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The deterance of getting NK to back down from a nuclear capable entity has failed mostly because of our past democrat policy of rolling over and taking it in the [explicative]. I personally couldn't give a rats hindquarters on what happens to NK. NK needs to be stopped. We have the power, so how many more threats will it take; or do we have to suffer first before we kick their butts?
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
So, in your opinion LT, we wait. I hope we're evacuating US Citizens from that area. The military can take care of themselves. Don't think me insensitive. There are many scenarios this can play out. I'd hate to see war in Korea, but the Rocket Man's gotta be stopped.
(1)
(0)
2LT (Join to see)
Agreed he has to be stopped. And I am not necessarily saying we wait either. Strategic patience has generally failed as the hermit nation has been significantly more resilient than expected, with their longevity poised to significantly outlive the Soviet existence. I am simply providing an option for another route. Should be we be poised for massive military operation? I definitely think so. But as we hold the lighter to firecracker we should also be giving the Regime a better option to put that flame out.
(1)
(0)
SSgt Bruce Probert
2LT (Join to see) - Maybe we should have addressed that issue when there was less of a threat. We have had many clueless leaders Bill Clinton was spending the peace dividend because after the fall of the Soviet Union it was a safer world. Right up there with British foreign policy in '39
(1)
(0)
PO3 Donald Murphy
All good points of view, but remember that North Korea has borders that include China and Russia. So any nuking has to be with both of their blessings. If not, you risk either of them thinking the nuke is intended for them and also, you risk damaging them with fallout, EMP, etc. If North Korea was an island, then damn the torpedos, full speed ahead. But sadly, she has borders.
China's relationship with North Korea also needs to be spelled out. Is she a "friend" of NK simply for political reasons, or will China take up arms to defend Kim? Same with Russia. What's Moscow's true motive for supporting NK? If those questions can't be quickly/accurately answered, we could be at DEFCON 1 faster than you can say Slim Pickins. I know its not the answer everyone wants, but sadly, both sides (rep and dem) have dicked the dog.
China's relationship with North Korea also needs to be spelled out. Is she a "friend" of NK simply for political reasons, or will China take up arms to defend Kim? Same with Russia. What's Moscow's true motive for supporting NK? If those questions can't be quickly/accurately answered, we could be at DEFCON 1 faster than you can say Slim Pickins. I know its not the answer everyone wants, but sadly, both sides (rep and dem) have dicked the dog.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Looking at the article, I can see where they might have preplanned positions and goals that they wish to fulfill (North Korea), however, it also looks like all they want is for the destruction of the US and Japan. Whether it is rhetoric or something else, well we will just have to see I guess, but If you want to treat them as relevant actors and have them on a level playing field, I think the goals they are spouting as loud as they can are unacceptable. Stabilizing the regime would be acceptable, that that is only a possibility if the people in charge are of sane mind and body. Kim may be sane, but his actions speak otherwise.
The level of hate an animosity that the North has for its enemies is so strong, I think the ISIS group has a run for its money on hating us. Personally, I have very little hope that there will be peace between the North and anyone they consider an "enemy." If we leave the peninsula, they may see it as a win and try to not just expand into South Korea again, but other areas. Japan is definitely a target to them, if what we see in their news casts is accurate, and they would be a grease stain on the planet, if the North could do it without consequence. Stability in the peninsula would be a great thing, but I have very little hope of seeing it at this point in time.
The level of hate an animosity that the North has for its enemies is so strong, I think the ISIS group has a run for its money on hating us. Personally, I have very little hope that there will be peace between the North and anyone they consider an "enemy." If we leave the peninsula, they may see it as a win and try to not just expand into South Korea again, but other areas. Japan is definitely a target to them, if what we see in their news casts is accurate, and they would be a grease stain on the planet, if the North could do it without consequence. Stability in the peninsula would be a great thing, but I have very little hope of seeing it at this point in time.
(0)
(0)
SPC Erich Guenther
You forgot to mention they also want to absorb South Korea into a reunified Korea governed from the North. Not only is that insane at this point in time but it would lead to millions more killed in political re-education camps BUT that is what the Kim regime wants.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I think it's time to send ROK Marines assassination squad to the north and take the little bastard out!! Better they do it than one of our SpecOp teams!!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Excellent. Well done. I've argued the same point with peers and coworkers. The right of a nation to develop nuclear capability in order to compete on the international stage with other nuclear powered nations is a foreign policy strategy of a sovereign nation. Best to invite them to the table, encourage them to open their borders and to embrace the same rules, security, and regulations we put on other nuclear nations. If we can come to terms with N. Korea becoming nuclear, we can come to terms of Iran eventually becoming nuclear.
Again very good read.
Again very good read.
(0)
(0)
PO3 Donald Murphy
Speaking as a nuclear missile submarine sailor - nuclear power, nuclear energy and nuclear weapons are several different animals that cannot be cross-bred. Several nations have nuclear power, yet, no nuclear weapons. Case in point being (cough) Germany, Japan, etc. The "grade" of glow-in-the-dark stuff needed to make a bomb is not a by product of nuclear power. Laymen are usually under the impression that people open the "ash tray" on a nuclear power plant, pour the "stuff" into a can and then turn that "stuff" into a bomb. Doesn't quite work that way.
Now you do go off on a tangent that I also off on - one of consistency. Warts and all, I think we can safely say that our having nuclear weapons has not been anywhere near what Germany or Japan having nukes would have been like. Now its true, that our righteousness will be our own opinion of ourselves and we indeed have some filthy skeletons in our closets but on the whole, I think we can both chalk up America has being a safer nuclear power than Germany or Japan.
Now as to your "well they did it and got away with it" ethos, are we to forever turn a blind eye to it because country X did it? Or do we draw a line? Now using France, Israel and South Africa as an example, neither of those nations have used their nuclear weapons as a black mail tool or for evil. Same with Britain, Russia and China. India and Pakistan have been threatening and blackmailing each other since the first weapons reached their borders. Iran is a non-issue because whether we like it or not, Israel will take them out when they get their first working items (or get close).
North Korea? If it was as simple as turning nuclear power "ash" into weapons, then by all means let 'em have nuke power. God knows that cheap energy would do them good.
There is currently nothing they do that is peaceful or beneficial to another nation (except as being China's tool). Its possible that I could be wrong about lil Kim, but historically, its not looking too good for him.
Now you do go off on a tangent that I also off on - one of consistency. Warts and all, I think we can safely say that our having nuclear weapons has not been anywhere near what Germany or Japan having nukes would have been like. Now its true, that our righteousness will be our own opinion of ourselves and we indeed have some filthy skeletons in our closets but on the whole, I think we can both chalk up America has being a safer nuclear power than Germany or Japan.
Now as to your "well they did it and got away with it" ethos, are we to forever turn a blind eye to it because country X did it? Or do we draw a line? Now using France, Israel and South Africa as an example, neither of those nations have used their nuclear weapons as a black mail tool or for evil. Same with Britain, Russia and China. India and Pakistan have been threatening and blackmailing each other since the first weapons reached their borders. Iran is a non-issue because whether we like it or not, Israel will take them out when they get their first working items (or get close).
North Korea? If it was as simple as turning nuclear power "ash" into weapons, then by all means let 'em have nuke power. God knows that cheap energy would do them good.
There is currently nothing they do that is peaceful or beneficial to another nation (except as being China's tool). Its possible that I could be wrong about lil Kim, but historically, its not looking too good for him.
(0)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
PO3 Donald Murphy - You maybe a sailor on a nuclear missile submarine but your understanding of historical references, strategy, tactical advantage and political consequences needs more experience. We have very little historical reference points on Kim Jong Un and your reference to him as 'lil Kim' is ignorant, naïve, and disrespectful.
Germany not having nukes is a consequence of two World Wars but new discussions are occurring because Germany today isn't the warmonger of the 20th century. Japan not having nukes is the same reason they have a Self Defense Force and not actual military of significant offensive capability; a consequence of WWII and with latest threats of N. Korea and of China with their buildup in S. China Sea, building up Japanese military is also pending discussion these days.
India and Pakistan blackmail? Oh you mean the nuclear deterrent in the same way U.S. and Soviet Union Cold War for several decades. Note that they got invited to the big boy table of nuclear powers and have complied to same International regulations. Surprised you're not concerned that Pakistan will give terror groups a portable nuke; after all, how long was Bin Laden hiding there. Perhaps cause it's not in Pakistan's invested interest to supply terrorists operating in their backyard.
Your assessment of N. Korea's intent is based on fear and propaganda, not actual facts. Same as thinking Israel is going to launch a first strike on Iran. Keep in mind, Iran believes Israel is concealing tactical nukes and that the US is complicit. If I felt everyone around me wants me dead, I'd keep a small warhead hidden somewhere.
Germany not having nukes is a consequence of two World Wars but new discussions are occurring because Germany today isn't the warmonger of the 20th century. Japan not having nukes is the same reason they have a Self Defense Force and not actual military of significant offensive capability; a consequence of WWII and with latest threats of N. Korea and of China with their buildup in S. China Sea, building up Japanese military is also pending discussion these days.
India and Pakistan blackmail? Oh you mean the nuclear deterrent in the same way U.S. and Soviet Union Cold War for several decades. Note that they got invited to the big boy table of nuclear powers and have complied to same International regulations. Surprised you're not concerned that Pakistan will give terror groups a portable nuke; after all, how long was Bin Laden hiding there. Perhaps cause it's not in Pakistan's invested interest to supply terrorists operating in their backyard.
Your assessment of N. Korea's intent is based on fear and propaganda, not actual facts. Same as thinking Israel is going to launch a first strike on Iran. Keep in mind, Iran believes Israel is concealing tactical nukes and that the US is complicit. If I felt everyone around me wants me dead, I'd keep a small warhead hidden somewhere.
(0)
(0)
PO3 Donald Murphy
MAJ James Woods - What sage advice on Kim Jong Un would be missing that you would require someone to have? Fraid you're grasping at straws Major. The nation - his nation - is still at war with the South and by proxy the USA and has been actively pursuing combat posturing. That is sadly - not my opinion. His nation is starving yet he chooses to spend any and every penny on weapons. Again - this would not be a "Don is scared" opinion. This is simple data gleaned from any of your outlets of choice. Me? I tend to favour BBC. But that's just me... Your mileage may vary. Not a Foxx watcher by the way...
Now - lets go back to the talking points you and I appear to agree on - be on the same page, etc, etc. Lack of USA consistency. So as we both know - the USA allows A to have nukes but not B. USA tolerates E working on a nuke program but draws the line at E and C doing it. Okay...we got that. And we also got that you and I agree on that. So pushing all the straw men out of the room -
WHERE DO WE GO AS A NATION?
Simple question really. Do we allow anyone who wants nukes to have them? Saves us tons of money not having to police things... Or do we just allow our friends to have them and then knuckle down on everyone who's not our friend? Israel? Sorry - no fear mongering. Just sad fact. Fact that Iraq, Syria and Iran have all expressed an interest in "wiping the zionists from the face of the earth" and based on that, Israel has physically/militarily struck all three. You may recall the 1980 IAF strike on Osriak (Iraq) and the recent strike on Syria. You may also recall the STUXNET operations against Iran. So again - not my opinion. Historical fact.
Now - lets go back to the talking points you and I appear to agree on - be on the same page, etc, etc. Lack of USA consistency. So as we both know - the USA allows A to have nukes but not B. USA tolerates E working on a nuke program but draws the line at E and C doing it. Okay...we got that. And we also got that you and I agree on that. So pushing all the straw men out of the room -
WHERE DO WE GO AS A NATION?
Simple question really. Do we allow anyone who wants nukes to have them? Saves us tons of money not having to police things... Or do we just allow our friends to have them and then knuckle down on everyone who's not our friend? Israel? Sorry - no fear mongering. Just sad fact. Fact that Iraq, Syria and Iran have all expressed an interest in "wiping the zionists from the face of the earth" and based on that, Israel has physically/militarily struck all three. You may recall the 1980 IAF strike on Osriak (Iraq) and the recent strike on Syria. You may also recall the STUXNET operations against Iran. So again - not my opinion. Historical fact.
(0)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
PO3 Donald Murphy - Let me keep it simple for you. How can you or Trump embrace a philosophy of nationalism and rights of sovereign nations when you and him keep insisting the US can dictate to a sovereign nation? See the irony.
N Korea is a dictatorship so no surprise the people suffer so the dictator can enjoy the riches. U.S. has people starving, unemployed, no healthcare, etc. and yet we spend billions more on military than the next 10 industrial military nations combined. Guess we're not good with money either.
N. Korea and S. Korea indeed are technically at war and the S. Koreans know it better than us so when they tell us to stop with all the military as a first option rhetoric, perhaps we should listen to them since any attack, conventional or nuclear, on N. Korea impacts them a hell of a lot more than it does us.
Finally, you do understand as global environment changes, so do whom we call our allies and our adversaries. Iraq, Iran, Taliban in Afghanistan, Russia, Japan, Germany, England, France...just in the 200-plus years of U.S. history, each of these countries have flip-flopped between allies and adversaries. Again know your history. Just because we supported Israel's attack of Iraq and Iraq's attack of Iran once before doesn't mean situation remains the same now for it to happen again. If you don't understand the current strategic political environment, you're doomed to make a military mistake. Historical facts are indeed history. We don't make decisions today in hopes of repeating history.
N Korea is a dictatorship so no surprise the people suffer so the dictator can enjoy the riches. U.S. has people starving, unemployed, no healthcare, etc. and yet we spend billions more on military than the next 10 industrial military nations combined. Guess we're not good with money either.
N. Korea and S. Korea indeed are technically at war and the S. Koreans know it better than us so when they tell us to stop with all the military as a first option rhetoric, perhaps we should listen to them since any attack, conventional or nuclear, on N. Korea impacts them a hell of a lot more than it does us.
Finally, you do understand as global environment changes, so do whom we call our allies and our adversaries. Iraq, Iran, Taliban in Afghanistan, Russia, Japan, Germany, England, France...just in the 200-plus years of U.S. history, each of these countries have flip-flopped between allies and adversaries. Again know your history. Just because we supported Israel's attack of Iraq and Iraq's attack of Iran once before doesn't mean situation remains the same now for it to happen again. If you don't understand the current strategic political environment, you're doomed to make a military mistake. Historical facts are indeed history. We don't make decisions today in hopes of repeating history.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google