Another earth-shattering KABOOM from North Korea

dteowner said:

In this case, the UN is stopping action because you will never get the US, Russia, and China to agree on a policy. We could have at least sent the much-dreaded "stern condemnation" over the first missle launch had we not needed the blessing of the Chinese government. Just as I've pointed out a hundred times before, you're never going to get that many countries with that many agendas to agree on much of anything significant. Case in point. 50 years, with all sorts of brinksmanship, and the UN still can't even manage to agree on sending a toothless nasty-gram.

Click to expand...

But this problem specifically involves the US, Russia, and China. Even if the UN did not exist, we would still need the US, Russia, and China to agree on some course of action. We need the blessing of the Chinese (and to a lesser extent, the Russians) on this because they're the only trading partners the DPRK actually has.

dteowner said:

As for my plan, I'm tempted to vote my version of "can't be any worse than Dubya" just to be difficult, but I'll make a genuine attempt. First off, I wouldn't have lost my nads when the whole situation started. We (under UN guidance, mind you) didn't have to turn tail at the 38th. But let's not force a historical revision. You've got to force China to make some uncomfortable choices. I favor a naval blockade since it's hard to blow up and easy to retract. You think China is going to go to war with the US over a DPRK blockade? Not remotely likely. They've got far more to lose pissing us off than telling Kim he's flying this one solo.

Click to expand...

What would a naval blockade really do? Most of the trade the DPRK gets is from its northern border with China - a naval blockade could just provoke the DPRK to fire on our ships, dragging us into a massive war. Even if the DPRK didn't cause some sort of Gulf of Tonkin incident, China would just shrug and keep on trading with the DPRK, because a completely isolated DPRK with nukes might be just desperate enough to actually launch some sort of attack. I mean, if Kim Jong Il thinks he's dead/lost no matter what, he may try to drag everyone else down into hell with him.

dteowner said:

In this case, the UN is stopping action because you will never get the US, Russia, and China to agree on a policy.

Click to expand...

How is the UN stopping the US, Russia, and China from agreeing on a policy? You need to get all of them to agree anyway.

We could have at least sent the much-dreaded "stern condemnation" over the first missle launch had we not needed the blessing of the Chinese government. Just as I've pointed out a hundred times before, you're never going to get that many countries with that many agendas to agree on much of anything significant. Case in point. 50 years, with all sorts of brinksmanship, and the UN still can't even manage to agree on sending a toothless nasty-gram.

Click to expand...

Uh... do you have any idea how many nastygrams the UN has sent the DPRK?

As for my plan, I'm tempted to vote my version of "can't be any worse than Dubya" just to be difficult, but I'll make a genuine attempt. First off, I wouldn't have lost my nads when the whole situation started. We (under UN guidance, mind you) didn't have to turn tail at the 38th.

Click to expand...

What "UN guidance?" You got a UN resolution authorizing the invasion (because the USSR had walked out). The UN didn't stop you at the 38th, you chose to stop there all by your little selves, because you were afraid that it would escalate into a nuclear confrontation.

But let's not force a historical revision.

Click to expand...

You already did, but I'm willing to drop it if you are.

You've got to force China to make some uncomfortable choices. I favor a naval blockade since it's hard to blow up and easy to retract. You think China is going to go to war with the US over a DPRK blockade? Not remotely likely. They've got far more to lose pissing us off than telling Kim he's flying this one solo.

Click to expand...

Okay, let's play this game a bit. South Korea just got spooked enough to join the PSI. You announce that the DPRK is under naval blockade. China protests but does nothing.

Now, a DPRK containership sails out attempting to break the blockade, and is spotted by one of your jets on partrol. You have a destroyer within intercept range, as well as that flight of jets.

Your move.

It forces China to get off the fence. Right now, they play both sides quite nicely. They blackmail us in order to come to the Meeting of Six table, but they submarine anything distasteful to the DPRK.

You're right that a blockade will be largely symbolic, which is precisely the point. It's the method least likely to result in bloodshed, to my eye. It also allows the world to determine just how crazy Kim is. If he shoots at us, you've got irrefutable proof for the entire world that he's pretty nuts and also that his brinksmanship isn't just talk--he's genuinely dangerous. China either has to endorse the DPRK's agression (and completely burn the bridge with the US and hopefully a fair bit of the free world) or give Kim a little smackdown.

dteowner said:

It forces China to get off the fence. Right now, they play both sides quite nicely. They blackmail us in order to come to the Meeting of Six table, but they submarine anything distasteful to the DPRK.

You're right that a blockade will be largely symbolic, which is precisely the point. It's the method least likely to result in bloodshed, to my eye. It also allows the world to determine just how crazy Kim is. If he shoots at us, you've got irrefutable proof for the entire world that he's pretty nuts and also that his brinksmanship isn't just talk--he's genuinely dangerous. China either has to endorse the DPRK's agression (and completely burn the bridge with the US and hopefully a fair bit of the free world) or give Kim a little smackdown.

Click to expand...

If the DPRK fires on our vessels it would be an act of war. China, at this point, is irrelevant, and the rest of the world already believes he's fucking nuts and that his brinksmanship may not be talk. Why do we want him to start levelling Seoul and annihilating the population of South Korea? We don't want to get to a point where we prove to the world where he IS crazy. The goal is to stop it well before that. We'd be putting a huge amount of American firepower right next to Kim Jong Il, probably spooking their military into doing something stupid (or they might just assume we've decided to take them out). We'd also be parking a huge amount of firepower right next to Chinese territorial waters. If Russia parked a carrier fleet outside of Juarez, do you think we would be all that pleased?

Why would we want to piss China off and pretty much guarantee they won't support us on Iran, the DPRK, etc? Are you saying if China doesn't cut off trade with the DPRK that we're going to stop doing business with them?

North Korea is acting the way I sometimes see kids act when they play with other kids.

I may have mentioned that I coach flag football. Athletic kids have an edge over the others, naturally, but every now and then you'll see an unathletic kid compensate by playing dirty and taking cheap shots. It's always the same. They do that until a bigger kid punches them in the nose, and then they learn.

So it's usually just a temporary problem that works itself out. But it goes wrong if others decide to get involved, and I think there's another lesson to be learned there.

North Korea is in an odd position to be acting like a bully.

I do not get why many of you says they would try to blow Seoul to pieces on any sign of invasion? if they were attacked from another direction by another nation, what sense would it make to start another war at the bother and try to blow Seoul up? considering they are not so crazy?????? That is if they have as much sense as some of you think?

GothicGothicness said:

I do not get why many of you says they would try to blow Seoul to pieces on any sign of invasion? if they were attacked from another direction by another nation, what sense would it make to start another war at the bother and try to blow Seoul up? considering they are not so crazy?????? That is if they have as much sense as some of you think?

Click to expand...

Because the only countries that would attack the DPRK are the U.S., South Korea, and Japan. The DPRK has a massive amount of artillery already targeted at Seoul - every war game scenario I've heard of basically ends with Seoul being completely obliterated (mind you, something like 50 or 60% of South Korea lives in the greater Seoul area). They also have a gigantic army parked around the DMZ. The DPRK isn't concerned about ...China or Russia invading them, as you can see from the fact that their entire military is pointed straight at the ROK, and to a lesser extent, Japan.

GothicGothicness said:

I do not get why many of you says they would try to blow Seoul to pieces on any sign of invasion? if they were attacked from another direction by another nation, what sense would it make to start another war at the bother and try to blow Seoul up? considering they are not so crazy?????? That is if they have as much sense as some of you think?

Click to expand...

Because the only directions you can invade from are South Korea and China, and it's unlikely it'll be China. Attempting to invade from the sea would be mass suicide; they have way too many anti-shipping missiles for that to work out.

I doubt they'd stomp Seoul right away, but if things escalated into a shooting war that goes beyond minor naval incidents, that's how it'd start -- they know they'd lose a war of attrition, which means their only shot at victory would be by sudden, massed attack and invasion, denying the invader the use of South Korean territory as a jumping-off point, and hoping the US (or whoever) dithered about staging a nuclear counterstrike.

It probably won't work, but it just might, since the DPRK are on constant war footing and can launch an invasion very quickly, but the ROC isn't and takes some time to mobilize -- but even if they lose, the cost to South Korea would be horrific, even without nukes.

IOW, war with North Korea would be a Really Bad Idea, and if there's any way at all to avoid it, we should.

Well, it's a bang-up job so far. Sitting on hands for a massive conventional forces buildup, check. Sitting on hands for missle test launches, check. Sitting on hands for nuclear weapon test, check. Shall we throw a victory party? What's next on the agenda?

I believe the accusation generally levelled at me at this point in the argument (when the roles are reversed) is "throwing up your arms and saying it's just too complicated."

dteowner said:

Well, it's a bang-up job so far. Sitting on hands for a massive conventional forces buildup, check. Sitting on hands for missle test launches, check. Sitting on hands for nuclear weapon test, check. Shall we throw a victory party? What's next on the agenda?

I believe the accusation generally levelled at me at this point in the argument (when the roles are reversed) is "throwing up your arms and saying it's just too complicated."

Click to expand...

I'm asking you, dte. It's clear diplomacy has failed with the DPRK. (What's not clear, though, is if it's because it was bad diplomacy or because it was doomed from the start -- I'm inclined to think the former, you, I believe, the latter.)

So, other than "I would've won the goddamn war in the 1950's," what would you have done differently?

Prime Junta said:

I'm asking you, dte. It's clear diplomacy has failed with the DPRK. (What's not clear, though, is if it's because it was bad diplomacy or because it was doomed from the start -- I'm inclined to think the former, you, I believe, the latter.)

Click to expand...

So what diplomacy would be "good" with the DPRK? I doubt it's that simple when you're dealing with a goverment as single-minded as the DPRK and its "cult of personality".

JDR13 said:

So what diplomacy would be "good" with the DPRK? I doubt it's that simple when you're dealing with a goverment as single-minded as the DPRK and its "cult of personality".

Click to expand...

I don't know. I wish I had all the answers all the time, but this time I don't. The best I can do is vague ideas and observations. Such as:

(1) One big problem with diplomacy vis a vis DPRK has been inconsistency. There's been pressure, harsh words, détente, bribery, saber-rattling, incidents, and resolutions, but I honestly can't discern any clear, consistent, strategic thinking behind it. That's done a lot of damage to credibility -- promises haven't been kept, and threats haven't been followed through.

(2) The DPRK has responded to these actions in somewhat predictable ways. In particular, they like to use the nuclear program as a bargaining chip -- they do nasty shit and then promise to stop doing it if they get X, Y, and Z. And, in fact, they *have* stopped doing it -- temporarily -- if they've gotten X, Y, and Z. OTOH they don't respond well to threats and pressure -- instead, they up the ante.

Again, I don't have any ready answers, but I think that if somebody took a good, hard look at exactly what has been done over the years and exactly how the DPRK responded to it, it might be possible to come up with a coherent strategy that could keep the threat contained. What kind of pressure works, what doesn't; what kinds of carrots are attractive, what are not; where do the real red lines go. That sort of thing.

By the way, as we sit here chattering, the situation has taken a turn decidedly for the worse: the DPRK announced that they're withdrawing from the truce with the ROC, in response to the ROC joining the PSI (as described above). They also said that they regard any attempt to mess with their shipping an act of war, and will react accordingly.

[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8069457.stm ]

Still brinkmanship, but we're definitely closer to the brink now. If I was living in Seoul, right now would seem to be a good time to take a vacation in the countryside. Of some other country, preferably.

Here's a good article from Steve Clemons on arguing for increased patience on the DPRK issue, and that China does not have control over the situation like we all thought they did.

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/05/what_to_do_when/

Um, I didn't think China had control over the situation. A bit of leverage, for sure, but control, no way. Their only real interest is stability; they don't want any shooting wars near their borders, and the sure as hell don't want to get caught up in them.

Well, not "control" control, but that they could do stuff to make Kim Jong Il stop.

Walp, here's an interesting contrarian view on the DPRK nuclear shenanigans: Stratfor -- the folks who gave us the wonderfully cold bucket of water about the prospects for peace in the Middle East -- think that the North Korean nuclear weapons mean... nothing.

The essay is rather well-argued, too. I'm hoping they're right about this just about as fervently as I hope they're wrong about the M-E. Either way, they're sticking to their usual successful formula of predicting that whatever happened yesterday will continue to happen tomorrow.

[ http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/2009...ce=GWeekly&utm_campaign=none&utm_medium=email ]

Rithrandil said:

Well, not "control" control, but that they could do stuff to make Kim Jong Il stop.

Click to expand...

Not a lot, and he's got sticks to use on them too if it comes to it.

Prime Junta said:

I'm asking you, dte. It's clear diplomacy has failed with the DPRK. (What's not clear, though, is if it's because it was bad diplomacy or because it was doomed from the start -- I'm inclined to think the former, you, I believe, the latter.)

So, other than "I would've won the goddamn war in the 1950's," what would you have done differently?

Click to expand...

Actually, I believe I answered that question with a fair bit of detail. The key is getting China off the fence. The DPRK is comfortable that nothing truly bad will happen to them as long as they can count on China. Beijing isn't going to give up their highly exploitable position playing both sides until they have no choice. I'm not terribly pleased with my naval blockade plan, but it's the best way I can see to force China to either abandon DPRK or abandon a world full of export customers. Once Kim has to pay attention to his Chinese border and realizes that China won't submarine any actions out of the almighty UN, he should be much more willing to play ball. If not, he's clearly a complete illogical wackjob, which means, by the way, that diplomacy is in fact doomed from the start (if he's totally nuts).

Continuing that concept of engagement, apparently (Def Sec) Gates is off to Singapore to work on some of that diplomacy thing:

Gates to Press for Far East Unity on North Korea

The U.S. on Wednesday accused North Korea of "provocative and belligerent" behavior as Defense Secretary Robert Gates took on the delicate task of reassuring Asian allies of U.S. support without further provoking the communist government.

Gates flew to Singapore for meetings with foreign ministers aimed at a cohesive response to the North Korean atomic test. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton issued stern statements underscoring the firmness of U.S. treaty commitments to defend South Korea and Japan, U.S. allies in easy range of the North's missiles.

Click to expand...

All I can say is, I think they're starting to get on Hillary's last nerve, and that isn't somewhere a sane person would want to be:

Clinton used tough language that contrasted with statements from White House spokesman Robert Gibbs that dismissed North Korean "saber-rattling."

"North Korea has made a choice," she said. "It has chosen to violate the specific language of the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1718. It has ignored the international community. It has abrogated the obligations it entered into through the six-party talks. And it continues to act in a provocative and belligerent manner toward its neighbors. There are consequences to such actions."

Click to expand...

And what are those consequences, mmm?? Do you really want to find out, KJI??
(Hint: does the name Vince Foster ring a bell?)

And this will probably cause dte's blood to freeze(assuming it hasn't already) but apparently she totally agrees on the China thing:

Clinton said she was pleased by a unified international condemnation of North Korea that included Russia and China, North Korea's only major ally and the host of the stalled disarmament talks. The success of any new sanctions would depend on how aggressively China implements them.

Click to expand...