@hightor,
Finn wrote:The hypothetical Martian may have a difficult time understanding this but it's not a matter of NK's nuclear ambitions being "wrong" as it is their being perceived as very dangerous to certain more powerful nations.
Martian Friend wrote:A hypothetical Martian might understand that but an actual North Korean, which sees "certain more powerful nations" as a threat to the regime, might not.
And I have no problem with the
average North Korean feeling threatened by certain more powerful nations and wanting to see something done about it, however the only
actual North Koreans who are realistically threatened are members of the dictatorial Kim regime.
You (or the Martian) seem to be viewing NK as no different than any other sovereign nation and, of course, it is not, if only for the manner in which it enslaves millions of North Korea; never mind it's international escapades like actively attacking South Korea, detaining and torturing foreign nationals, and kidnapping Japanese citizens. Does your Martian friend also wonder why governments refuse to recognize the
right of criminal cartels to defend themselves?
In any case, as I've noted, it doesn't matter what any North Korean feels in this regard. That's not the way the world works, and for good reason. Nations that blatantly trample on the sovereign rights of other nations (Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, the Soviet Union, Iraq, and modern Russia) are opposed by much of the rest of the world, and with military force if need be.
This isn't some sort of ideal system of global justice organized by certain nations (The UN, arguably, was an attempt to such a thing but had largely failed for numerous reasons), it's simply the practical result of any nation's overly aggressive disregard for the sovereign rights of other nations. Nations or empires of sufficient power have been able to very successfully conquer and maintain under their boot other "nations" for very long periods of time (Rome, the Mongols, the Persians etc), but eventually they fall and opposition from their conquests is always a factor.
In the 21st Century, it is highly unlikely that any such similar empire will rise, but really only thanks to nuclear weapons. If there is a catastrophic exchange of these weapons and humanity survives, it won't be long before empires reemerge, and the process repeats itself.
Finn wrote:Have you been hosting this Martian and are you responsible for his poor education?
Martian Friend wrote:No, Finn, I don't "host" hypothetical creations or attempt to educate them.
But you create them and put words in their hypothetical mouths. I appreciate that at the end of your post you interjected a wry jab at Trump, and it was amusing, unless it is indicative of ignorance of the true nature of Kim and his regime. I doubt this is the case, but one wry comment deserves another.
Martian Friend wrote:But I did run across an interesting article on nuclear diplomacy
HERE. A few excerpts:
Quote:North Korea is years beyond the nuclear “breakout” the US so fears in Iran. Pyongyang’s first nuclear test was more than a decade ago. Four more have followed with yields up to twice the size of the Hiroshima bomb. The country is believed to have around twenty fission bombs and to be progressing along the path to a much larger hydrogen bomb. Moreover, the regime is consistently making faster progress on missile technology than US intelligence has expected, including the stunning July 4 test of what appears to be a bona fide intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). North Korea’s shorter-range missiles can now be fired from mobile launchers rather than fixed sites, and fueled with solid rather than liquid fuel. Both of these advances make preparation for a missile launch much quicker and harder to detect. The crucial remaining unknowns are how long it will take Pyongyang to perfect an ICBM capable of reaching the continental US and to miniaturize nuclear weapons so that they can be delivered atop a missile.
(...)
Above all, in neither country is there an attractive military option. North Korea is capable of inflicting millions of casualties on South Korea with conventional heavy artillery before those guns could be silenced. Negotiation is therefore unavoidable. This means that a winner-take-all goal (comparable to the zero-enrichment position vis-à-vis Iran) is unachievable. Time spent pursuing one will be wasted.
Instead, as with Iran, what can be achieved has to be calibrated against present circumstances. In view of Pyongyang’s large nuclear arsenal and advanced missile delivery systems, the long-standing US insistence that North Korea agree to complete denuclearization as a precondition to talks is far out of date and must be dropped.
(...)
Ultimately, then, the only approach that might work is one that has not yet been tried: a joint effort by the US and China. As an eventual outcome, both sides’ interests would be met by a unified, denuclearized, neutral Korea. While this end state is not hard to define, the process of getting there would be tortuous and require a degree of mutual trust between Washington and Beijing that does not now exist. Small, confidence-building steps would be needed over a long period. North and South Korea would have to find an acceptable basis for reunification—overcoming mountains of difficulty in bringing together a dictatorship that is nothing without its weapons and a democracy whose economy is more than one hundred times larger. North–South agreements signed in 1991 and 2000 point to a confederation between the two states as the means of starting the process.
The effort would take years. In the meantime, the US and the world will have to depend on a determined defense and, more importantly, deterrence. Rhetorical bluster and military gestures—like firing off missiles in response to North Korean tests—only confirm the regime’s paranoia and undermine US credibility. Pyongyang will not be frightened into changing direction at this late date. Washington can and should tighten sanctions on Chinese banks and companies trading with North Korea, and continue to pressure Beijing into taking a tougher stance. But it would be a huge mistake to make this issue the sole test of the US–China relationship, as President Trump repeatedly suggests he will do. That would be to trade one strategic threat for two.
[/quote]
[/quote]
The idea that the NK nuclear threat is a ship that has already sailed is nothing new. You might want to see if you can find an article that appeared in Atlantic Monthly that I think is superior to the one you've linked.
In any case the idea of a negotiated unification of Korea doesn't just border on, it resides within the absurd. The author writes that the "end state" is not hard to define, and I suppose that's true in the sense that a fanciful description of any Utopian vision is not particularly difficult. What is exceedingly difficult is to define (and which the author seems to make no attempt at) what the "beginning state" will look like and what magical joint efforts of the US and China will eventually bring it to his "end state"
Unless the proposal for a unified NK means either A) Kim becomes the Dear Leader of all of Korea or B) The Kim regime is allowed to continue its oppression of millions of Koreans, it has no chance at all of coming to be. When the author writes it would take years, it's quite an understatement, because such an effort would require the decades involved in seeing the current Kim die or deposed and not be succeeded by a comparable tyrant. This is a fantasy.
The advantage of unification for NK is obvious providing the Kim regime maintains control of the North: The day after the agreement is signed all of their domestic problems related to energy, food, and commerce would be on the way to rapid elimination. What would be the advantage to SK? The Kim regime would not suddenly become overwhelmed with patriotic fervor and adopt an entirely different view of the South. What are actions toward an international war would simply become the threat of a civil war. The idea is spectacularly idiotic.
He is correct that there are no easy answers and, again, this is hardly a reflection of brilliant insight. Unless the US has weapons and intelligence that go far, far beyond what anyone believes it does, any attempt to overwhelm NK by force will result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands if not millions of Koreans, the partial if not total destruction of Seoul, thousands of US military casualties, and quite possibly a deadly attack on Japan. It's nightmare scenario that is only
acceptable as retaliation against a NK nuclear strike on a US city, and even then, I've little doubt that an American president would be urged by some advisers to find an alternative means of responding.
A more feasible (but only in relative terms) plan would be to take out Kim and his key subordinates, however I can't imagine this would be possible without the active assistance of China, and the chances of that are very slim indeed. If the effort is botched and unsuccessful it could lead to the nightmare scenario described above and even if it is successful, there's no guarantee that the China's quislings who would be necessary to pull it off and clearly would expect to assume control of NK as their reward, would be any better than Kim & Co.
Unfortunately a long succession of American presidents who all kicked the NK can down the road have placed us in our current situation.
I do, however disagree with the notion that any aggressive action by the US or SK is ill advised because it with confirm the North Korean's paranoia.
They know full well how the US views their ballistic missile test, and, clearly, have no concern about confirming American paranoia. Despite what your Martian friend might think, it is unfathomable that the North Koreans view these tests strictly in terms of the normal efforts of any country to assure it's defense and would be amazed and surprised if the US felt threatened by them and took action. Whether or not they have any intentions of every launching a nuclear strike against the US, the whole purpose of the tests is to send a threatening message to the US.
Time and time again, people such as this author make the huge mistake of viewing tyrants like Kim through the prism of rationality. I don't believe he is so insane as to doubt or welcome the retaliation of the US should one of its cities be hit by a NK nuclear missile, but risk taking, aggression and brutality are driving forces in these tyrants. How could any "sane" or "reasonable" leader think that he could invade, with impunity, Kuwait and not be subject to a massive military response? Saddam didn't even have nukes he could use as a bluff. With his nuclear arsenal, Putin had a much greater justification for anticipating that their would be no military response to his annexation of Crimea, but he couldn't be certain. Nevertheless he took the risk based on his valid assumption that Europe and the US wouldn't do anything to stop him. Good grief, President Obama wouldn't even provide the Ukraine with requested weaponry, instead sending them military food rations that had to seem more insulting than helpful.
All of these tyrants have had great success through brutal acts of suppression that create a very effective measure of intimidation. They've done it and it works, and most people go with what works for them. Their view of people and nations is that there are the strong and iron willed (themselves) and there are the weak and indecisive. Time and time again the civilized nations of the world have given tyrants reason to doubt their resolve and encouraged further aggression.
Assuming that it can be certain of success, the US should destroy the next ballistic missile the North Koreans test. Of course they will rant and rave about US aggression and they might even pull off one of their mini-stunts, but at least they will have to start wondering if they actually have a totally clear path towards developing the means to nuke one of our cities. Would it be a risk? Absolutely, but one worth taking. They are not acting like a nation that believes the US is poised to swoop down on them and crush the regime so there's no paranoia to confirm. Each step of the way they have been met only with harsh words and sanctions that hurt only North Korean citizens and not the members of the regime or the military. They need to be shown that there might be a line which we will not allow them to cross or they will continue on their merry way, entirely unafraid of us.
