-
@Duluth said in North Korea:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in North Korea:
Clinton? At the time it prob seemed like a good idea. It looked like attacking NK was a terrible idea at that stage, surely helping them and bringing them into the international fold was the better option than seeing mass war on the peninsula? Turns out war was the right choice, but seriously at that point in time.. who thought that was a good idea??
Agree with that
It's also with noting that Clinton probably had the best opportunity to do something. When the demi god Kim Il-sung died things went to shit - the Soviet support had gone a few years earlier, draughts, floods and multiple famines followed. Millions died. Kim Jong-Il was relatively weak..
All true. But it has to be weighed against other known factors such as China reiterated it was against regime change. The military was twitchy.
Saying Bill had better options is like saying 0.1 is closer to 10 than .009 - it was never a viable option. We managed to get a cease-fire armistice in 1953 and our ability to adequately deal with it has decreased every year since.
-
@Samurai-Jack Cheers for that. Must be a whole lot more real there. Easy for armchair ponderers discuss military actions from the safety of a distant land, quite another thing when you literally have missiles flying over your heads with promises to attach nuclear warheads to them.
-
Ultimately the blame should be placed on the Soviets and China for creating and propping up this ghastly regime for decades.
The Kim family would probably still be freezing their arses off in some godforsaken Siberian steppe if they hadn't been given everything from those 2 powers.
-
Oh yes, it is with hindsight. However that period of 1994-97 (the years immediately after Il-sung dying) was the best chance to force change.
I disagree that we are talking about infinitesimal amounts or that the options have decreased every year.
The chaos of the famines, the leadership change and lack of Soviet support were major changes from the Kim Il-sung years. There was even a small chance of a Soviet style collapse.
Obviously the options are a lot worse now with the weapons they have developed in the last two decadesJust to be clear, I'm not necessarily talking about military action. However there was an opportunity with NK weaker economically and politically than the previous four decades to force change.
Trusting NK to follow the 'agreed framework' was naive and the normalisation of political and economic ties helped the regime not the people. -
@Rembrandt said in North Korea:
@Samurai-Jack Cheers for that. Must be a whole lot more real there. Easy for armchair ponderers discuss military actions from the safety of a distant land, quite another thing when you literally have missiles flying over your heads with promises to attach nuclear warheads to them.
We've got a plan set up trying to get out of dodge if things look bad. That requires time of course, which we are unlikely to have....
Anyway, most people I talk to seem to want something done to calm things down. I've yet to speak to my FIL or anyone much older though.
At this point, it's time to recognize NK as a nuclear power and start from there, with containment strategies. It's the least worse option and it recognizes what we already know. They have nukes, and they can use them. Forget about whether the US is in danger - deal with the real threat to SK and especially, Japan.
-
@Duluth I've no doubt that Clinton had a better chance, now that we can develop a plan without the fog of war. And I'm not quibbling about quantifying the difference either, that was facetious.
The point is it was untenable then, it's untenable now and engaging in whataboutery is an academic exercise that adds nothing to the current conundrum.
If Trump didn't want to inherit this mess, he should have stuck to reality TV and construction.
-
@antipodean said in North Korea:
If Trump didn't want to inherit this mess, he should have stuck to reality TV and construction.
You seem to have assigned an opinion to me that I don't hold
-
At least the discussion has veered off the ridiculous falsehood that Clinton supplied material to advance the nuclear weapon building.
Clinton did achieve quite a bit in regard to NK. He did take the opportunity offered to try something and his accord is regarded as delaying what turned out to be the inevitable. He offered NK an opportunity to follow the rules the rest of the world wanted them to follow. They chose to continue down another path.
As others have said, there is no solution except hope that a solution (or opportunity to delay) appears. Even the official line from the Trump administration is a negotiated reduction in nuclear capability.
NK knows that for anyone to touch them sets off a massive chain of issues. Even GWB realised that when his 'red line' turned out to be an empty threat.
I haven't seen anyone here blaming Trump for the situation with NK (much as that keeps being argued). Any finger pointing in Trumps direction is solely due to inflammatory comments.
There is a big difference between being strong and pointing out that a desire for a diplomatic approach doesn't mean that they will be weak if push comes to shove and riling up the oppostion.
In rugby terms Trumps actions have been like Ratpoo writing a village idiot piece for the opposition to hang on the dressing room wall.
The reason many people are wary of Trump's involvement is that to the outside world he appears to act and react quite randomly and off the cuff. That doesn't fill the world with safe feelings when nuclear arms are in the equation.
Luckily he finally seems to be surrounding himself with some people that know a bit and can make him hold back and assess things. -
South Korea now considering placement of US nukes on the peninsula.
SEOUL — South Korea’s defense minister on Monday said it was worth reviewing the redeployment of American tactical nuclear weapons to the Korean Peninsula to guard against the North, a step that analysts warn would sharply increase the risk of an accidental conflict.
-
@antipodean then maybe they should they should kick Kim's arse and get him to toe the line?
-
@antipodean said in North Korea:
@NTA WTF for? They can be launched from the US.
Certainly won't make the Chinese happy.
I think with tactical nukes we're just talking artillery - "A-tips" as they're known.
Strategic nukes would cover ICBM.
-
@taniwharugby said in North Korea:
@antipodean then maybe they should they should kick Kim's arse and get him to toe the line?
Ok, how?
@NTA said in North Korea:
@antipodean said in North Korea:
@NTA WTF for? They can be launched from the US.
Certainly won't make the Chinese happy.
I think with tactical nukes we're just talking artillery
Still pointless. As soon as you fling a nuke, regardless of yield, you've escalated to a full release scenario.
-
@antipodean they seem to be the only ones he listens to.
The fact you alluded to them not being happy about the US nukes in SK, I assume China probably also not happy that Kim testing NUkes on their doorstep, they are in the best position to get him to chill.
-
@taniwharugby said in North Korea:
@antipodean they seem to be the only ones he listens to.
The fact you alluded to them not being happy about the US nukes in SK, I assume China probably also not happy that Kim testing NUkes on their doorstep, they are in the best position to get him to chill.
I've no doubt they're less than pleased a despotic regime on their doorstep is developing a nuclear capability. The question is what China can do about it - the only thing they share now is a one party state and the removal of the pretence they're communist states.
Basically they're in the same place as everyone else; they can't force regime change without immense cost.
Ultimately their input may be economic; enforcing sanctions. Something they've not always been zealous about.
-
I hate to say it, but I think it's going to be all on.
KJU seems adamant that they should be able to have the same firepower as the US, and will continue to develop / test / provoke. I'm not sure that he has the balls to actually send something the US way, but I'm sure he has the balls to push things past the point of no return.
Obviously think anything is preferable to war, but just can't see this going any other way.
-
How Sony, Obama, Seth Rogen and the CIA Secretly Planned to Force Regime Change in North Korea
The secret backstory to the U.S.-North Korea standoff.
[...]
The film allegedly sparked North Korea to hack Sony and leak thousands of internal Sony emails. North Korea also warned the Obama administration not to allow the film to be released, branding it “an act of terrorism.” So, when (Bruce) Bennett invited questions at his congressional briefing, I asked him: what was his involvement in The Interview, and did he think it was effective?
At first, Bennett was elusive, saying, “I did not work on the movie.” When I reminded him that he had been listed as an adviser, he changed course. “I heard about it for the first time when I was sent a copy of the DVD by the president of Sony Pictures, who was asking, do we need to be worried about this?” he explained, inspiring a ripple of laughter throughout the room. Bennett continued: “So I had a tail-end role in trying to help them appreciate what they might be worried about.”
But there’s a lot more to the story. Now that Kim is dominating the news once again, it’s time to revisit this film and how it became a weapon in the long-running American war against North Korea.
[...]
ALTERNET link:
North Korea