North Korea, Sanctions, and Kim Jong-un

TenEightyOne
The question stands; why is it America's sole place to act militarily now of all times?
Click to expand...
It was based on ignorance. That ignorance is fixed. Still the point remains, If Russia and China is building up their forces along the NK border, then that should mean that the 6 nation talks have gotten us nowhere closer to a nuclear-free NK, and that should tell us something. Whether or not that Trump or the rest of the world will get that message is an unknown at this point.

Imari
And that's worth going to war and killing thousands of people for, is it?
Click to expand...

I never openly advocated for war, so please stop putting words into my mouth. If anything, I support Ron Paul's intention of bringing every military person home from foreign soil, but even I realize that the goal is unrealistic in its scope as several nations, like Taiwan for example, depend on us as defense allies and so we need every foreign base that we can get at this point, especially with the War on Terror unfinished.

Imari
OK, I'm going to assume that you misworded that. A show of force is obviously not the only solution, I'm going to assume you meant the best solution.
Click to expand...
Guilty as charged.

Imari
How is that so? What is the intended outcome from a show of force, and why is that unachievable with any other course of action?
Click to expand...

It would force Kim Jong Un back to the negotiating table for starters. For all of his blustering, he, and his father before him, hasn't developed a reliable nuke that would be a serious threat to anyone other than South Korea and certain areas of China. For all of his promises to deliver a nuclear missile that would reach the US, he hasn't even hit Japan accurately yet.

Reagan once said, "Trust but verify." While we do know that NK doesn't have the capability to nuke anyone within outside a 4,000km distance, that doesn't mean that they would in the future. The goal is to stop that ambition through peace, but if they won't talk, you have to drag them to the negotiating table. if it takes the threat of war to get it done, then by all means.

Just because dangling the carrot has failed, doesn't mean that the stick tied to the carrot can't be more so effective.
 
ryzno
What says they won't attack SK or Japan even if it was China attacking?
Click to expand...
The image in my head is one where China storms in like a big brother and takes the TV remote, and Japan and SK just sit back and watch with popcorn.

I know world politics doesnt exactly work like the typical living room, but I still see no reason for them to waste time and arsenal firing at someone who isn't doing anything.
 
Sanji Himura
I never openly advocated for war, so please stop putting words into my mouth. If anything, I support Ron Paul's intention of bringing every military person home from foreign soil, but even I realize that the goal is unrealistic in its scope as several nations, like Taiwan for example, depend on us as defense allies and so we need every foreign base that we can get at this point, especially with the War on Terror unfinished.
Click to expand...

That's not putting words in your mouth, that's clarifying. You advocated a show of force. It's not a show of force unless there's actually intent to follow through, which in this case would be war. A limited war perhaps, but a war nonetheless.

That's simply part of what comes with a show of force. If you don't like the idea of a war, perhaps you should reconsider whether you truly think that a show of force is a reasonable step.

It would force Kim Jong Un back to the negotiating table for starters.
Click to expand...

Why would it? Seems to me he has several options. He could simply ignore any show of force that wasn't sufficiently threatening. Or he could strike back. Two options that don't involve negotiating.

You assume that he will do anything to avoid conflict. That doesn't seem to be the case historically.

For all of his blustering, he, and his father before him, hasn't developed a reliable nuke that would be a serious threat to anyone other than South Korea and certain areas of China. For all of his promises to deliver a nuclear missile that would reach the US, he hasn't even hit Japan accurately yet.
Click to expand...

Because if they had actually hit Japan, then the US and Japan would be at war with NK. Pay attention.

North Korea is intentionally not providing cassus belli. They won't except by accident, because they're not morons. They know that if they get into a war with the US or any major power they will lose, but they also know that the moment that they're in a war they've already lost. They might as well go down swinging and draw as much blood as possible so that any other small nation that a major power might decide to bully thinks twice in the future.

Reagan once said, "Trust but verify." While we do know that NK doesn't have the capability to nuke anyone within outside a 4,000km distance, that doesn't mean that they would in the future.
Click to expand...

What?

We know that they probably don't have that capability now. We don't know how far away from it they are, and it's basically a certainty that they'll get it eventually. I'd be shocked if they don't have it in ten years. Honestly, it's not that hard, it's just a matter of working through the problems.

Also, they have plenty of valid targets right on their doorstep. Unless you don't count South Koreans and Japanese as targets that you're worried about. They may be US allies, but they're not Americans, amirite?

The goal is to stop that ambition through peace, but if they won't talk, you have to drag them to the negotiating table. if it takes the threat of war to get it done, then by all means.
Click to expand...

You think the threat of war is something that will convince a nation to stop developing weapons? I would have thought the opposite. Seems to me like the threat of foreign invasion is exactly why nations develop weapons. To protect their sovereignty.

Tell me, why has the US developed it's military in the past, and why does it continue to maintain it? The US spends billions on military development and research. How does this ultimately serve the countries interests? This is not a trick question, there are any number of "correct" answers based on your perspective of the military and politics. But I'm genuinely interested in what you think the answers are.
 
Imari
You assume that he will do anything to avoid conflict. That doesn't seem to be the case historically.
Click to expand...
It also ignores the psychology of the North Korean leadership. While they are alarming at the best of times, they're also very predictable. Most of their rhetoric has projected an us-versus-them mindset to maintain their legitimacy. To do that, they need to regularly purge themselves of "non-believers", or people who allegedly do not uphold the political beliefs of the state. But they also need an external enemy, someone who wants nothing more than to corrupt them. Kim isn't using the nuclear programme as a bargaining chip; he's doing it because nuclear weapons are a symbol of the North's strength and their ability to defend themselves against external influence.
 
prisonermonkeys
It also ignores the psychology of the North Korean leadership. While they are alarming at the best of times, they're also very predictable. Most of their rhetoric has projected an us-versus-them mindset to maintain their legitimacy. To do that, they need to regularly purge themselves of "non-believers", or people who allegedly do not uphold the political beliefs of the state. But they also need an external enemy, someone who wants nothing more than to corrupt them. Kim isn't using the nuclear programme as a bargaining chip; he's doing it because nuclear weapons are a symbol of the North's strength and their ability to defend themselves against external influence.
Click to expand...

I very much agree, and you sum up well why I think posing a bigger military threat to NK is a mistake. It only lets the NK authorities double down on what they're already doing, and if anything makes it more palatable to the citizens who probably rightly fear being caught up in an armed conflict in which they're likely to be civilian casualties.
 
Imari
if anything makes it more palatable to the citizens who probably rightly fear being caught up in an armed conflict in which they're likely to be civilian casualties
Click to expand...
I disagree on that point. The citizenry are completely indoctrinated; they believe that they live in a paradise of ideological perfection (we know it's not, but "suffer the hardships today for a brighter tomorrow" has always been a favourite mantra of dictators). They fully expect that if there is a conflict, they will win. Kim has complete control over the narrative, so if he tells them that he will respond to any overt show of aggression with a decisive pre-emptive strike, then they will take that to mean that the "American menace" will be crushed; if there are civilian casualties, then the people will likely believe that ten Americans will die for every North Korean killed (or some such).

But this is a double-edged sword. Kim uses the narrative to project strength, and uses this to keep the population under control. Thus the need to instigate purges - to show that Kim is intolerant of insubordination. But there's only so many times that he can do it; sure, he can ship ordinary people off to prison camps en masse, but sooner or later, he will run out of people like his brother that he can kill. So as much as he maintains the narrative to maintain control, if he loses that narrative, he loses control. The people will expect him to be "strong", but if that illusion can be broken, Kim loses power.
 
prisonermonkeys
I disagree on that point. The citizenry are completely indoctrinated; they believe that they live in a paradise of ideological perfection (we know it's not, but "suffer the hardships today for a brighter tomorrow" has always been a favourite mantra of dictators). They fully expect that if there is a conflict, they will win. Kim has complete control over the narrative, so if he tells them that he will respond to any overt show of aggression with a decisive pre-emptive strike, then they will take that to mean that the "American menace" will be crushed; if there are civilian casualties, then the people will likely believe that ten Americans will die for every North Korean killed (or some such).

But this is a double-edged sword. Kim uses the narrative to project strength, and uses this to keep the population under control. Thus the need to instigate purges - to show that Kim is intolerant of insubordination. But there's only so many times that he can do it; sure, he can ship ordinary people off to prison camps en masse, but sooner or later, he will run out of people like his brother that he can kill. So as much as he maintains the narrative to maintain control, if he loses that narrative, he loses control. The people will expect him to be "strong", but if that illusion can be broken, Kim loses power.
Click to expand...

I agree, This is partially why there is a buildup of ground forces, do you think?
 
Sanji Himura
I agree, This is partially why there is a buildup of ground forces, do you think?
Click to expand...
I think part of it is a show for the people, but also a clear statement of intent for the world. It's important to remember their Cold War context - the Korean War was a proxy war in a larger global war of influence. You had both sides, capitalist and communist, trying to extend their political influence worldwide, and both sides often betrayed their own values for the sake of something so transient as political power; case in point, the Guatemala coup in 1953. It might have been half a century ago, but I think that's what the North Koreans despise: the idea that their power to choose their own destiny can be reduced to something as cynical as a means to achieving someone else's short-term political ends (after all, wasn't the desire to set your own destiny at the heart of the American Revolution?). So I think they want the world to see them as their own nation with the power to decide their own destiny for themselves. They're doing a terrible job of it, and however noble the original intention might have been, it has long since been corrupted, but I think it explains a lot.
 
prisonermonkeys
I disagree on that point. The citizenry are completely indoctrinated; they believe that they live in a paradise of ideological perfection (we know it's not, but "suffer the hardships today for a brighter tomorrow" has always been a favourite mantra of dictators). They fully expect that if there is a conflict, they will win. Kim has complete control over the narrative, so if he tells them that he will respond to any overt show of aggression with a decisive pre-emptive strike, then they will take that to mean that the "American menace" will be crushed; if there are civilian casualties, then the people will likely believe that ten Americans will die for every North Korean killed (or some such).
Click to expand...

Maybe. I find it hard to put myself entirely into that mode of thought, at some level there must be some people that realise that a war with anybody is at best going to cost NK a lot of people. Everyone downstream of Kim can't be completely brainwashed, there must be some people with at least a modicum of common sense, even if it's a bit skewed.

For example, it would be critical for the military to have some idea of their own mortality. You can indoctrinate the grunts to charge gloriously into the teeth of the enemy guns for the betterment of Glorious Leader, but tactical and strategic commanders cannot afford to waste their forces assuming that they are invincible or fated to win.

Perhaps the common man starving in a ditch in NK is too far from these things or too full of propaganda to know any better. But somewhere between Kim and Johnny DungferDinner there has to be people who are informed and intelligent enough to get it. On the other hand, perhaps there aren't many of them after the purges so perhaps you're right. I would make a poor totalitarian dictator.
 
Dotini
SK goes on high state of alert. NK nuke test feared for Tuesday. Russia denies troop deployments.
http://news.antiwar.com/2017/04/21/...t-russia-denies-deployments-near-north-korea/
Click to expand...

For sure there are mobilisable Russian troops/armour near Vladivostok at the tri-partite junction of NK, China and Russia - Putin would be an idiot not to have defence there and he's no idiot. I've yet to see that the Chinese or Russian movements around that border are unusual.

In fact the only people I've seen claiming to be putting forces into the area were the USA, and they were telling porkie pies.
 
prisonermonkeys
North Korea says that it's ready to attack the USS Carl Vinson and sink it in a "single strike":

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...s-ready-to-strike-us-aircraft-carrier/8465776
Click to expand...
How many submarines does NK have? Maybe, if enough of them were massed n a single attack, they could sink the Vinson. Otherwise, the only way they could sink a carrier is with a good-enough anti-ship missile, which I think the Russians possess, but not NK. There are about 6000 souls aboard the Vinson, and to sink the ship would definitely bring about the war NK so ardently appears to desire. However, my opinion is that it is hollow bluster.
 
Dotini
How many submarines does NK have?
Click to expand...

Reports vary but they have around 4/5/6 of their newest type (the ICBM version). I would think the USN spends a lot of time tracking as much sub activity around those waters as they can and I'd also think that a carrier group would have a battle plan. Submarine warfare is the most secretive type of all - I doubt we'd even hear if NK lost a couple somewhere :)
 
TenEightyOne
Reports vary but they have around 4/5/6 of their newest type (the ICBM version). I would think the USN spends a lot of time tracking as much sub activity around those waters as they can and I'd also think that a carrier group would have a battle plan. Submarine warfare is the most secretive type of all - I doubt we'd even hear if NK lost a couple somewhere :)
Click to expand...
I expect if they could muster a couple dozen conventional torpedo-firing subs and encircle the carrier, they could hurt it bad.
 
TenEightyOne
Reports vary but they have around 4/5/6 of their newest type (the ICBM version). I would think the USN spends a lot of time tracking as much sub activity around those waters as they can and I'd also think that a carrier group would have a battle plan. Submarine warfare is the most secretive type of all - I doubt we'd even hear if NK lost a couple somewhere :)
Click to expand...
They probably will all go down in a terrible accident in the Atlantic..
 
Dotini
I expect if they could muster a couple dozen conventional torpedo-firing subs and encircle the carrier, they could hurt it bad.
Click to expand...

That's a big "if" and world navies have hardly sat on their arses for 50 years when it comes to ASW/defence.
 
Tornado
The could just go all Hunt for Red October and just crash their subs into the carrier. I suppose that would count as a single strike.
Click to expand...
The North koreans would not be able to get anywhere near the Vinson. It is surrounded by defensive ships with sonar, and escorted by an attack submarine.
 
Last edited:
china.jpg
Mostly accurate.
 
Dotini
How many submarines does NK have? Maybe, if enough of them were massed n a single attack, they could sink the Vinson. Otherwise, the only way they could sink a carrier is with a good-enough anti-ship missile, which I think the Russians possess, but not NK. There are about 6000 souls aboard the Vinson, and to sink the ship would definitely bring about the war NK so ardently appears to desire. However, my opinion is that it is hollow bluster.
Click to expand...

A lot, and they're mostly crap
 
Grayfox
Diesel powered things.

Kinda like nazi germans U boats.

cant go that deep, needs to surface to purge the exhaust.
Click to expand...

Not quite, the ICBM-ready Sinpo class (they have around 5 as I said) is very very quiet and is the equivalent of Chinese/Russian subs in its class. Their next-best is Sang-O class, a 30ish year-old design and no doubt less capable. Everything else is old Soviet Romeo class style stuff but still not to be underestimated - when they work as designed they can still be lethal to the unwary.

Don't be fooled into thinking that NK's military ability is all rather "Team America", they do have money and they only spend it one one thing: military development.
 

Similar threads

Turbo
  • Poll
GTP Alternative Cool Wall: 1948-present North Korea
Replies
11
Views
1K
Rage Racer
Rage Racer
Lasdul
  • Locked
Opinions on N. Korea
Replies
6
Views
1K
A2K78
A2K78
Delirious
US Orders Blackout Over North Korean Torpedoing Of Gulf Of Mexico Oil Rig
Replies
10
Views
3K
eran0004
eran0004
NissanSkylineN1
  • Locked
US and Iran Make Breakthrough Nuclear Deal
6 7 8
Replies
217
Views
8K
Famine
Famine
llNovall
SNAIL-Porsche GT3 Cup Challenge (using new 992 GT3), Season Champ: Sand_68, Congratulations on the Win and a Great Season!!!
23 24 25
Replies
724
Views
62K
Noob01_lmdead
Noob01_lmdead

Latest Posts

Back