T Nation

Looking Through Kims Eyes...

The basic situation hasn’t changed in 50 years; it was a stalemate then and it is a stalemate now. Back then it was a stalemate because of the backing of external powers of course.

Eventually North Korea devoloped a sufficient conventional capicity to deter attack- through an ability to inflict unacceptable losses on our allies and our troops stationed nearby rather than an ability to wina prolonged war- even as the willingness of outside powers to intervene on its behalf waned. By the late 80s the CIA was speculating that they might have a nuke, although it’s an open question of when they actually got their POS weapon.

The rhetoric may be different now than it was ten years ago but the situation is still the same. Back during the Clinton administration it was in the best interest of the North to be a cock tease to try to get what sustanance it could out of the outside world.

It was at the same time in the best interest of Clinton and the rest of the world to see if there was a negotiated solution to be had. There was really nothing much to lose given the situation while the possible gains were worthwhile.

At this point they think they have more to gain by talking tough, whether they think they’re going to get bribed to shut up or if they think they can rally support at home through a crisis. The Chinese may be getting annoyed with them but the primary goal of the Chinese is to prevent a mess forming on their border. If NK imploded then they would face massive imigration problems, the possibility of civil war on their border and the possibility a few decades down the line of a more powerful unified Korea with which to contend. They want to status quo, albiet much more quiet than it has been lately.

The only real danger is if Kim feals collapse is imminent. He is presumably aware of what happens to dictators and their families when they’re toppeled by coup or popular revolution. Hint- it involves the gruesome death of everyone out to the 3rd cousins. Either Machiavelli read human nature well or everyone has read Machiavelli. So as long as he doesn’t feel that a full scale war is less dangerous than the status quo, the status quo will prevail. A palace coup will likely be his ultimate end if he takes things too far though. The eunics can get upity if they feel their own master is more of a threat than the outside forces.

Short version of the story: There is no story.
Go lift weights and worry about whether or not you need a male escort to your car.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Ren wrote:
But hey, if we hadn’t chased after mythical WMDs in Iraq we’d actually have some leverage against these countries that flaunt theirs…

Yea, hindsight is terrefic isn’t it.

[/quote]

Hindsight? Hindsight?

Are you saying everybody agreed Iraq had wmds? Lots of people knew for sure they didn’t. These people were dismissed by Bush.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
A rather clever article here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/16/usa_pleased_to_be_of_service/

In short, Kim wants the US threat at his borders to distract people from deteriorating domestic conditions.

Kim Jung-Il has stated publicly that he intends to nuke us, unless we negotiate with him, something that has never worked in the past. He has threatened us in no uncertain terms. How would you like it if he said he intended to nuke Brussels? [/quote]

I would say “bring it on”. His test fizzled. Had it worked they still wouldn’t be able to build a deployable weapon. This will take several years up to a decade. And they wouldn’t be able to get it to the target.

[quote]
North Korea should, as we speak, be a nuclear wasteland. Millions of innocents will die, whether here or in the USA, if this nut does as he says.
I believe him. Do you trust him to do otherwise?[/quote]

How very intelligent of you. So your answer to the nut would be to go apeshit stark raving mad?

And this has worked in the past?

Anyway, the challenge was to look at the situation from the other side. You failed.

Pull out of S. Korea, Japan, etc. Sign a non-aggression treaty with NK. That is, no matter who they attack, as long as it isn’t us, let them be. Trade with them.

In fact, if they’re just after a deterant, sell them the tech to get it right. Hey, they’re not actually crazy enough to use it ouside of a deterant, right? Besides, they’ll eventually get it right themselves, why not make a profit. Otherwise, leave them completely alone.

Let that side of the world spend their own wealth and military to deal with him. We’re the big bad bully US, remember? Let someone else play world police. Mind our own business.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Pull out of S. Korea, Japan, etc. Sign a non-aggression treaty with NK. That is, no matter who they attack, as long as it isn’t us, let them be. Trade with them.

In fact, if they’re just after a deterant, sell them the tech to get it right. Hey, they’re not actually crazy enough to use it ouside of a deterant, right? Besides, they’ll eventually get it right themselves, why not make a profit. Otherwise, leave them completely alone.

Let that side of the world spend their own wealth and military to deal with him. We’re the big bad bully US, remember? Let someone else play world police. Mind our own business. [/quote]

I think that China and both North and South Korea are terrified of that ever happening. Japan would then be forced to beef up its own military (it currently spends only 1% of its GNP on defence, and still has a quite respectable air and sea force), scrap article 9 of its Constitution (foisted on it by MacArthur, and stating that Japan does not have the sovereign right to use war as a tool of foreign policy), and maybe even develop its own nuclear capacity.

Japan’s nuclear energy program has resulted in a stockpile of nearly fifty tons of weapons-grade plutonium, and it would only take the combination of US troops pulling out of Korea and Japan, a more belligerent North Korea (which could quite easily launch a missile attack against Tokyo and Osaka at any time) and the election of a nationalist Prime Minister for this plutonium to be translated into nuclear warheads. And does anyone doubt that a Japanese-made missile would be extremely accurate and reliable?

This in turn would spark an arms race between China and Japan. Which side would the US likely back if this happened? Hopefully I’ll be somewhere in the Southern Hemisphere by that time.

Oh, and Headhunter? Let me know before you guys turn Pyongyang into a nuclear wasteland, will you? I’d hate to be downwind.

[quote]etaco wrote:
Short version of the story: There is no story.
Go lift weights and worry about whether or not you need a male escort to your car.[/quote]

etaco wins the thread.

NK is pathetic and has the GDP equal to Haiti. China’s elite have been using words like “regime change” in the past week. It’s all Kim can do to stop a coup right now, his people are on the edge of revolt.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
A rather clever article here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/16/usa_pleased_to_be_of_service/

In short, Kim wants the US threat at his borders to distract people from deteriorating domestic conditions.

Kim Jung-Il has stated publicly that he intends to nuke us, unless we negotiate with him, something that has never worked in the past. He has threatened us in no uncertain terms. How would you like it if he said he intended to nuke Brussels?

I would say “bring it on”. His test fizzled. Had it worked they still wouldn’t be able to build a deployable weapon. This will take several years up to a decade. And they wouldn’t be able to get it to the target.

North Korea should, as we speak, be a nuclear wasteland. Millions of innocents will die, whether here or in the USA, if this nut does as he says.
I believe him. Do you trust him to do otherwise?

How very intelligent of you. So your answer to the nut would be to go apeshit stark raving mad?

And this has worked in the past?

Anyway, the challenge was to look at the situation from the other side. You failed.[/quote]

Yup, I’m unable to see the world from the eyes of a guy who runs death camps (4 huge ones) and starves his people. Kim IS the Satan you libs portray Bush to be — so, no I have nothing in common with that beast. I’ll leave that for you, Wreckless.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Oh, and Headhunter? Let me know before you guys turn Pyongyang into a nuclear wasteland, will you? I’d hate to be downwind.[/quote]

The advance word I got was October 30th. The RNC is planning this as an ‘October Surprise’, to keep the House and Senate. We all know that Bush and Co. want to replicate the Reichstag fire.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Kim IS the Satan you libs portray Bush to be — [/quote]

I would suspect that turning NK into a glass parking lot is a bit of hyperbole on your part, right?

You are spot-on with this assessment here. Kim IS a bad guy who needs to go the way of Saddam, and I fully support any action the Chinese take in removing his sorry ass, be that supporting an insurrection of his own people, or going in and regime changing him directly as we did in Iraq.

Can we just agree that his direct threats against us are posturing and wishful thinking? Honestly, the guy is all but about to be dethroned already. They call it the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, but there isn’t a shred of Democracy over there. It’s a Monarchy more than anything, as Kim inherited NK from his dad.

The best thing for us to do, IMHO, is ignore his BS and allow the Chinese to clean house. They are motivated by saving face, right? Well it’s time to save some face right now. NK is an embarrassment to communist nations everywhere.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
100meters wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
A rather clever article here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/16/usa_pleased_to_be_of_service/

In short, Kim wants the US threat at his borders to distract people from deteriorating domestic conditions.

Kim Jung-Il has stated publicly that he intends to nuke us, unless we negotiate with him, something that has never worked in the past. He has threatened us in no uncertain terms. How would you like it if he said he intended to nuke Brussels?

North Korea should, as we speak, be a nuclear wasteland. Millions of innocents will die, whether here or in the USA, if this nut does as he says.
I believe him. Do you trust him to do otherwise?

He still can’t nuke us.

Didn’t Kim send you the memo?

Seriously though, how do you know this? Secondly, even if he can’t, should we wait until he can? How do you negotiate with a psychopath like Kim?

Kill them now, when its easier, or kill 'em later when many more will die. Pick one — and your time is running out.

Tick
Tick
Tick

[/quote]

If that same logic was used during the cold war Russia AND the United States would be nuclear wastelands. Don’t forget either that plans drawn up by the Pentagon call for 50,000 US servicemen and 800,000 South Koreans would be dead within the first 50 days of war. The weatherman can’t predict the weather a week from now so how can you predict that they will nuke us for sure? Russia never nuked us. India never nuked Pakistan and vice versa.

[quote]jason1122 wrote:

If that same logic was used during the cold war Russia AND the United States would be nuclear wastelands. Don’t forget either that plans drawn up by the Pentagon call for 50,000 US servicemen and 800,000 South Koreans would be dead within the first 50 days of war. The weatherman can’t predict the weather a week from now so how can you predict that they will nuke us for sure? Russia never nuked us. India never nuked Pakistan and vice versa. [/quote]

I know that Kruschev said ‘We will bury you!’, but I don’t recall reading that they said they we’re intending to nuke us. Did they say that? I don’t know. I do know that Kim did; it was all over the headlines.

Bluster is an Asian tradition (as in the Middle East), but they should understand how WE think, if we’re supposed to understand how THEY think. If an American said, ‘I’m going to buy a shotgun and shoot your whole family!’, you would not wait and give him the opportunity to carry out his threat. Why should we wait for him to nuke LA or Chicago? Why are millions of innocents in Asia more important than millions of innocents HERE?

War sucks, no doubt about it. But waiting simply means more deaths and destruction. We can’t put our heads in the sand and hope it goes away. We’ve tried that and see what we got?

Kill 'em all now. Kill or be killed.
Tick…
Tick…
Tick…

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
jason1122 wrote:

If that same logic was used during the cold war Russia AND the United States would be nuclear wastelands. Don’t forget either that plans drawn up by the Pentagon call for 50,000 US servicemen and 800,000 South Koreans would be dead within the first 50 days of war. The weatherman can’t predict the weather a week from now so how can you predict that they will nuke us for sure? Russia never nuked us. India never nuked Pakistan and vice versa.

I know that Kruschev said ‘We will bury you!’, but I don’t recall reading that they said they we’re intending to nuke us. Did they say that? I don’t know. I do know that Kim did; it was all over the headlines.

Bluster is an Asian tradition (as in the Middle East), but they should understand how WE think, if we’re supposed to understand how THEY think. If an American said, ‘I’m going to buy a shotgun and shoot your whole family!’, you would not wait and give him the opportunity to carry out his threat. Why should we wait for him to nuke LA or Chicago? Why are millions of innocents in Asia more important than millions of innocents HERE?

War sucks, no doubt about it. But waiting simply means more deaths and destruction. We can’t put our heads in the sand and hope it goes away. We’ve tried that and see what we got?

Kill 'em all now. Kill or be killed.
Tick…
Tick…
Tick…
[/quote]

so why exactly are millions in Asia worth LESS than here?

First of all, it’s highly unlikely that any nation would EVER threaten the U.S. if the U.S. hadn’t first threatened them. We’re surrounded by two oceans on the east and west, with close friends to the north and south, on the other side of the world from Europe and Asia. Never in history has a nation been more blessed by the circumstances of it’s geography.
Countless Libertarian and paleo-conservative commentators have pointed out the simple truth that America doesn’t have a national defense – it has a national offense.

The Libertarian solution to foreign policy disputes is simple and elegant.

First, recall all of the troops stationed around the world and put them on the boarders (not all of them would be needed for this purpose, so the size of the army could be downsized).

Second, take the money that is currently being dumped into the foreign war-machine and put it towards R&D for a new missile defense system, using a contractor from the private sector.

Likely within 5 years, we would have a working, iron-clad missile defense, and could never again be threatened by another nation. The military budget could be cut in half and still be on par with just about any country.

This is a strategy that would actually work. Attempting to be the world’s policeman, stationing troops in 150 countries, hasn’t and won’t. It will only bankrupt this country.

[quote]Ren wrote:

War sucks, no doubt about it. But waiting simply means more deaths and destruction. We can’t put our heads in the sand and hope it goes away. We’ve tried that and see what we got?

Kill 'em all now. Kill or be killed.
Tick…
Tick…
Tick…

so why exactly are millions in Asia worth LESS than here?[/quote]

You have to choose. Do you choose millions in Asia or millions in, say, California?
Tick
Tick
Tick

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
First of all, it’s highly unlikely that any nation would EVER threaten the U.S. if the U.S. hadn’t first threatened them. We’re surrounded by two oceans on the east and west, with close friends to the north and south, on the other side of the world from Europe and Asia. Never in history has a nation been more blessed by the circumstances of it’s geography.
Countless Libertarian and paleo-conservative commentators have pointed out the simple truth that America doesn’t have a national defense – it has a national offense.

The Libertarian solution to foreign policy disputes is simple and elegant.

First, recall all of the troops stationed around the world and put them on the boarders (not all of them would be needed for this purpose, so the size of the army could be downsized).

Second, take the money that is currently being dumped into the foreign war-machine and put it towards R&D for a new missile defense system, using a contractor from the private sector.

Likely within 5 years, we would have a working, iron-clad missile defense, and could never again be threatened by another nation. The military budget could be cut in half and still be on par with just about any country.

This is a strategy that would actually work. Attempting to be the world’s policeman, stationing troops in 150 countries, hasn’t and won’t. It will only bankrupt this country.[/quote]

Foreign countries need to ante up for protection. Right now, The USA is the glue holding this shitpot world together. Pull back and every little dictator or tribal chieftain will confiscate foreign investment. The world would become MUCH more poor and markets would collapse. International commerce would simply vanish.

Make foreign countries like Germany pay their fucking way. They get the benefit of American power at no cost.

Even better would be to return the advantage to the offense. Make defense VERY costly. Use nanotech and brain wave manipulation to lobotomize hostile populations into docility.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Ren wrote:

War sucks, no doubt about it. But waiting simply means more deaths and destruction. We can’t put our heads in the sand and hope it goes away. We’ve tried that and see what we got?

Kill 'em all now. Kill or be killed.
Tick…
Tick…
Tick…

so why exactly are millions in Asia worth LESS than here?

You have to choose. Do you choose millions in Asia or millions in, say, California?
Tick
Tick
Tick

[/quote]

Hilarious that obviously neither would be the best and most likely choice.

Still hard to believe that you can “teach”.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Ren wrote:

so why exactly are millions in Asia worth LESS than here?

You have to choose. Do you choose millions in Asia or millions in, say, California?
Tick
Tick
Tick

[/quote]

Why would it have to be millions on either side?

Listen, Herman Hanneken was able to infiltrate a heavily-guarded Haitian rebel camp and take out Supreme Leader Charlemagne Peralte with a single shot from his Colt .45, then escape with the body. He was a 26-year-old Marine Corps sergeant, with no information on Peralte’s whereabouts, no photographs, drawings or even descriptions of his target, and no special training in what would now be termed “black ops” (he did, however, put on blackface: as a blonde-haired, blue-eyed white guy, he would have had a little trouble passing as a Haitian).

So why is it that today, when we have literally hundreds of thousands of spooks running around in the CIA, the NSA, SOCOM and half a dozen other alphabet soup spec-op agencies, can’t we find ONE assassin capable of taking out this pathetic little worm?

Maybe we can find a Marine sergeant who can speak Korean…

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
jason1122 wrote:

If that same logic was used during the cold war Russia AND the United States would be nuclear wastelands. Don’t forget either that plans drawn up by the Pentagon call for 50,000 US servicemen and 800,000 South Koreans would be dead within the first 50 days of war. The weatherman can’t predict the weather a week from now so how can you predict that they will nuke us for sure? Russia never nuked us. India never nuked Pakistan and vice versa.

I know that Kruschev said ‘We will bury you!’, but I don’t recall reading that they said they we’re intending to nuke us. Did they say that? I don’t know. I do know that Kim did; it was all over the headlines.

Bluster is an Asian tradition (as in the Middle East), but they should understand how WE think, if we’re supposed to understand how THEY think. If an American said, ‘I’m going to buy a shotgun and shoot your whole family!’, you would not wait and give him the opportunity to carry out his threat. Why should we wait for him to nuke LA or Chicago? Why are millions of innocents in Asia more important than millions of innocents HERE?

War sucks, no doubt about it. But waiting simply means more deaths and destruction. We can’t put our heads in the sand and hope it goes away. We’ve tried that and see what we got?

Kill 'em all now. Kill or be killed.
Tick…
Tick…
Tick…
[/quote]

This is the logic that I can’t understand. Where is it stated that since Kim JI said that he will nuke us that it will - beyond any reason of doubt be carried out? Look at it logically. Did he say that because he is desperate to get anyone’s attention because of the deteriorating conditions of his country or because when and if he ever does develop a nuke that can fit on one of his crappy missiles he is going to commit suicide and lob one over to the US? When Clinton was president we had UN inspectors in the Country making sure he couldn’t build any more nukes than the 1 or 2 he already had. And now low and behold when Bush takes office the UN inspectors were kicked out, Kim is enriching uranium as fast as he can spin it through is centrifuges, and he’s testing nukes - Surprise, Surprise! You want to make sure we don’t get nuked AND we don’t lose 50,000 servicemen? You HELP Kim build a light water reactor for energy like we promised him in the past. In return UN inspectors are allowed back in the country to make sure no more uranium is being enriched. You let up on economic sanctions but keep sanctions on ballistic missile parts in place. You (as Kim has SUGGESTED TO BUSH) talk to North Korea directly. You give them token amounts of grain, etc. just as South Korea has been doing through their Sun Shine policy. You try to establish some sort of PEACE. This is what Kim wants. Some economic help. Assurance that we aren’t going to wipe him off the map. And recognition within the international community. A whole lot better than war. You Bushites had your chance with Iraq and according to every - and I mean EVERY fricken intelligence agency we have you have made the chances of a terrorist attack on our country even greater. Thanks!

Anyone who is ready to commit to death 50,000 US servicemen and women (and 800,000 South Korean civilians, not that you care which is obvious in your statements above) based on a SUSPICION - in my opinion even isn’t an American. How un-patriotic can you get?!?!

[quote]jason1122 wrote:
Anyone who is ready to commit to death 50,000 US servicemen and women (and 800,000 South Korean civilians, not that you care which is obvious in your statements above) based on a SUSPICION - in my opinion even isn’t an American. How un-patriotic can you get?!?![/quote]

Hey, HH would be the first one in there, leading the way for his high school students. In fact if Bush decides to turn NK into a “nucular wasteland” HH wants to ride the bomb in just like 'ol Slim Pickins. But darn it, they won’t let him, cause after all he has “asthma”, or vaginal dryness, or something that keeps him from doing anything but talking shit on the internet.

Regime often creates as many if not more problems than it solves. Iraq is a great example, although the current situation in NK is much different than Iraq of 2002. If we just take out KJI, who would take over? Some other nut most likely. Probably a weak one, making for a very unstable governement, possible with nukes. Nobody wants that.

The only permanent, realistic solution to NK is to reunite NK and SK, Germany style.

To do this, Kim has to go, preferably at the hands of his own people. The NK military leaders have to be involved in the coup and then step aside for democratic leadership. The best way to do this is to infiltrate them and buy them off, then get them out of the country. SK has to be the backbone of a worldwide humanitarian and rebuilding effort. This includes sending thousands of infrastructure personnel into NK such as medical personnel, engineers, teachers, communictaions specialists, etc.

The biggest roadblock to this would be China who will be unwilling to have democracy at its backdoor across the river. But that could be negotiated as well.

The only problem is, there is no profit to be made in this for the world; just SK, and that is after probably decades of investment in the North. The world would be creating more industrial competition in the long run, and the US government actually likes having a bad guy to grab headlines from all the BS we have going on here they don’t want publicized.

So, the reality, we will continue with containment.