|
chitoryu12 posted:Truman never actually got a declaration of war from Congress before sending in the troops, and the US has never extended diplomatic relations with North Korea officially recognizing them. North Korea and South Korea are still technically at war and are just under an armistice with no peace agreement signed, but that's South Korea. There was no need to get a congressional declaration of war, there was a UN declaration of war and US troops were placed under the UN command. They in fact still are under UN command, it was never disbanded. The UN request overrides any need for congress to declare war, due to how the treaties work.
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:46 |
|
|
Of course the only reason that UN action was able to go forward was because the Soviets walked away from the table thinking everyone would stop doing things if they weren't there (lmao) and because the ROC still had the Chinese seat on the security council. Neither of those things are likely to happen/true today.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Of course the only reason that UN action was able to go forward was because the Soviets walked away from the table thinking everyone would stop doing things if they weren't there (lmao) and because the ROC still had the Chinese seat on the security council. Neither of those things are likely to happen/true today. They don't need to happen. UN Command is still in place, North Korea is still at war with it. No security council ruling is needed to return to war, all that's needed is for the armistice to be broken by one side or the other, unilaterally. The UN security council could try to pass a resolution disbanding UN Command, but I'd be surprised if the US and UK did not veto such an action. So far breaches of the armistice have not been followed by going to full on war, but the US leadership had also so far been relatively sane, and the South Korean leadership relatively sane or held back by US influence. That sort of thing can't be guaranteed with Trump.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
Doesn't matter now, Mattis and Tillerson have walked back Pence and Trump's North Korea rhettoric https://twitter.com/jessicaschulb/status/857331157377187842
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
that was released the same day it was reported the us has been setting up thaad under cover of darkness in direct defiance of rok so who knows what it actually means in the grand scheme of things
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:that was released the same day it was reported the us has been setting up thaad under cover of darkness in direct defiance of rok so who knows what it actually means in the grand scheme of things There's lots of US stuff set up in South Korea, doesn't mean much other than more whining.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
Another good article in Foreign Policy: Kim Jong Un Is a Survivor, Not a Madman http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/04/26/kim-jong-un-is-a-survivor-not-a-madman/ quote:
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
fishmech posted:They don't need to happen. UN Command is still in place, North Korea is still at war with it. No security council ruling is needed to return to war, all that's needed is for the armistice to be broken by one side or the other, unilaterally. The UN security council could try to pass a resolution disbanding UN Command, but I'd be surprised if the US and UK did not veto such an action. I just looked it up and you're right. In fact in 1994 the UN reaffirmed that UN Command still exists and is under the command of the USA, and its continuation or dissolution is a matter for the US government to decide. The Soviets walking out of that meeting is such a hilarious self-own to have had ramifications this far into the future.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
mediadave posted:Another good article in Foreign Policy: yep
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
So what happens when North Korea manages to get an ICBM / miniaturized nuclear weapon? Do we remove the sanctions at that point? What does that say for other countries like Iran that we have similar sanctions on? how heavily will that affect non-proliferation?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:So what happens when North Korea manages to get an ICBM / miniaturized nuclear weapon? Do we remove the sanctions at that point? What does that say for other countries like Iran that we have similar sanctions on? how heavily will that affect non-proliferation? Why would we remove the sanctions? Just because they have a functional ICBM doesn't mean that there's any reason to stop applying diplomatic pressure for disarmament. North Korea is never going to have an arsenal that poses any kind of existential threat to the US, which means the threat they pose to their neighbors is always going to be limited by the absolutely massive retaliation they'd face if they ever did anything legitimately insane. North Korea's only winning move in the long run is to sit down to disarmament talks, and that doesn't change at all just because they develop a functional delivery system.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 07:19
|
|
|
My knowledge on Iran isn't all that good, but I don't think they're quite as vocal about the whole 'Turn the imperialists' lands into a sea of flames' rhetoric.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 08:08
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Why would we remove the sanctions? Just because they have a functional ICBM doesn't mean that there's any reason to stop applying diplomatic pressure for disarmament. North Korea is never going to have an arsenal that poses any kind of existential threat to the US, which means the threat they pose to their neighbors is always going to be limited by the absolutely massive retaliation they'd face if they ever did anything legitimately insane. North Korea's only winning move in the long run is to sit down to disarmament talks, and that doesn't change at all just because they develop a functional delivery system. Your argument is primarily centered around the idea that they will never use the nuclear weapon. You're also missing the point that they suddenly have the ability to kill millions of people with the push of a button, and that absolutely changes any diplomatic means you have of approaching them. In other words, the argument changes from "you shouldn't have these" to "I have one, what are you going to do about it?" And why would you immediately dismiss any threats by them that they would be willing to use that weapon? Hell, the ICBM example is only because they could hit our shore; if they manage to get a IRBM or MRBM that is functional and reliable, and they manage to shrink their warheads enough, suddenly they're using Japan or South Korea as their pushpin, and you're left with the bargaining position of "they could very well nuke one of these cities if their demands aren't met". And it doesn't have to be an existential threat, as anyone would be hard pressed to justify chancing that many lives. WarpedNaba posted:My knowledge on Iran isn't all that good, but I don't think they're quite as vocal about the whole 'Turn the imperialists' lands into a sea of flames' rhetoric. It's primarily what we do when North Korea gets a nuclear weapon that will set the tone for these other regimes. If we step down, or if they force us to step down, any sane nation will absolutely try to get their hands on similar weaponry to prevent the US from loving with them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 08:27
|
|
|
I feel like the logical respones to "Meet our demands or we will nuke X" is "If X gets nuked we and pretty much everyone else is going to glass your country"
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 08:33
|
|
|
It's lose-lose at that point, if it gets that far. Either it happens and you look bad for letting it happen and having all those deaths, or it doesn't, but you still have a nuclear missile hanging out inside of an unstable regime. I don't know, I hope my argument makes sense. My opinion on the matter shifted due to some of KJU's recent actions implying that he is far, far more serious about obtaining these weapons than his father or grandfather were.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 08:43
|
|
|
Oh it totally is a lose lose but I dont think people are going to tolerate a state openly using nuclear weapons to make demands, especially one that is as much as a pariah as NK.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 09:08
|
|
|
Telsa Cola posted:Oh it totally is a lose lose but I dont think people are going to tolerate a state openly using nuclear weapons to make demands, especially one that is as much as a pariah as NK. That's basically what's been happening since the first test, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 09:32
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:That's basically what's been happening since the first test, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 09:35
|
|
|
Well, that nothing will change was my point. The fact that the nation (Such as it is) still remains after so many years of bellicose screaming does imply a fair amount of tolerance, given the potential states. And that ain't counting the food aid - although I'd be pretty surprised if that was still happening.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 09:45
|
|
|
Maybe this is a stupid question (maybe all my questions are stupid questions) but is there any way to interdict artillery fire? The THAAD system is to stop missiles right? I never hear about NK sending missiles to SK, only to...well...right where I live, in northeastern Japan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 10:03
|
|
|
Nnnnno. The thing with missiles is that they're constantly firing out hot exhaust for a fair bit, meaning they're pretty easy to track by their heat signature if you know where to look - sending something to hit it in the timeframe between launch, lock and landing is a tricky as hell thing, but that's what THAAD hopes to achieve. Artillery shells are much smaller, not nearly as hot, and generally go up and down in, what. a minute at most? The only way to stop that stuff from coming down is to blow up the artillery sites before they fire 'em. Could be off, but that's how I understand it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 10:21
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:Nnnnno. The thing with missiles is that they're constantly firing out hot exhaust for a fair bit, meaning they're pretty easy to track by their heat signature if you know where to look - sending something to hit it in the timeframe between launch, lock and landing is a tricky as hell thing, but that's what THAAD hopes to achieve. No, it's good. The current conventional response is to accept that you'll be hit by artillery, but then quickly tracking where it comes from and vaporize the offending battery by air or counterbattery. E: unless you can strike first, of course.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 10:41
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:Artillery shells are much smaller, not nearly as hot, and generally go up and down in, what. a minute at most? The only way to stop that stuff from coming down is to blow up the artillery sites before they fire 'em. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_High_Energy_Laser http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1677075-upgraded-stryker-laser-incinerates-drones Lasers is always the answer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 11:05
|
|
|
There's C-RAM systems that are capable of knocking even mortar shells out of the air, but it's not 100% effective even against fairly sporadic fire. The number of batteries that would be firing on Seoul in the event of a conflict would overwhelm any reasonable defense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 13:20
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:Your argument is primarily centered around the idea that they will never use the nuclear weapon. You're also missing the point that they suddenly have the ability to kill millions of people with the push of a button, and that absolutely changes any diplomatic means you have of approaching them. In other words, the argument changes from "you shouldn't have these" to "I have one, what are you going to do about it?" And why would you immediately dismiss any threats by them that they would be willing to use that weapon? Hell, the ICBM example is only because they could hit our shore; if they manage to get a IRBM or MRBM that is functional and reliable, and they manage to shrink their warheads enough, suddenly they're using Japan or South Korea as their pushpin, and you're left with the bargaining position of "they could very well nuke one of these cities if their demands aren't met". I honestly don't know what point it is that you're trying to make here. My argument is that sanctions won't be lifted because the reason for imposing those sanctions in the first place won't have meaningfully changed. Nobody is going to back down from applying diplomatic and economic pressure just because North Korea starts threatening to launch missiles, and North Korea isn't going to actually launch any missiles because the only possible result of that would be the total destruction of the current regime. This idea that a state with a small arsenal of nuclear weapons can hold the world hostage like some kind of Bond supervillain is incredibly naive. A functional nuclear arsenal buys you one exactly one thing: protection from being invaded by the US as long as it's more dangerous to invade than it is to do nothing. That deterrent effect is gone the instant North Korea actually uses their weapons on anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 13:48
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:Well, that nothing will change was my point. The fact that the nation (Such as it is) still remains after so many years of bellicose screaming does imply a fair amount of tolerance, given the potential states. I don't think there's been any direct aid from the US, Japan or South Korea in at least 10 years. UN agencies are still in North Korea though, in somewhat constrained forms.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 13:47
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:North Korea's only winning move in the long run is to sit down to disarmament talks, and that doesn't change at all just because they develop a functional delivery system. How so? They (the regime) don't really need a deal. Sanctions and aggressive posturing only give retroactive justification to North Korea's isolation. This isn't the early 90s anymore, North Korea is developing haphazardly but progressively, and many North Koreans are even getting rich. South Korean soap operas etc may be an issue, but the fact we're even talking about North Korean peasants with TVs, DVD players and the regular electricity supply to use them show that a lot of North Korean tropes no longer hold true. And if North Korea does do a deal? Maybe it'll mean somewhat faster economic growth and inward investment - but from the regime point of view, that only endangers them. And they've learned the lesson of Libya indeed, they know what happened to Gaddafi - why would they ever put their trust in the West? mediadave fucked around with this message at 15:13 on Apr 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 13:55
|
|
|
Question to the thread - what would the deal look like that you would be happy with and which you think North Korea would also go for? I'm thinking a good deal on their space programme would be tempting - say they can continue launch SLVs (under fairly constrained parameters) and also get a generous number of free satellite launches and even astronaut launches by the Russians. That gives the regime a bit of great power futurism to dazzle the people with, and a bit of cover to draw down elsewhere. As far as security guarantees though, I can't see the North Koreans ever agreeing to anything that doesn't include complete US withdrawal from South Korea, and explicit guarantees that the West wouldn't interfere in any internal North Korean conflict or uprising situation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 14:00
|
|
|
Looking at North Korean propaganda posters at http://www.koreanposters.com/ which is run by an Italian company which buys the posters directly from the DPRK, or so they claim. Well this one, called "Let us become human bombs" stands out for its throwback to Japanese kamikaze-ism: My favorite though has to be "Let us launch an all-people campaign to breed rabbits in schools and work-places!"  mediadave posted:As far as security guarantees though, I can't see the North Koreans ever agreeing to anything that doesn't include complete US withdrawal from South Korea, and explicit guarantees that the West wouldn't interfere in any internal North Korean conflict or uprising situation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
BrutalistMcDonalds posted:My favorite though has to be "Let us launch an all-people campaign to breed rabbits in schools and work-places!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:Your argument is primarily centered around the idea that they will never use the nuclear weapon. You're also missing the point that they suddenly have the ability to kill millions of people with the push of a button, and that absolutely changes any diplomatic means you have of approaching them. In other words, the argument changes from "you shouldn't have these" to "I have one, what are you going to do about it?" And why would you immediately dismiss any threats by them that they would be willing to use that weapon? Hell, the ICBM example is only because they could hit our shore; if they manage to get a IRBM or MRBM that is functional and reliable, and they manage to shrink their warheads enough, suddenly they're using Japan or South Korea as their pushpin, and you're left with the bargaining position of "they could very well nuke one of these cities if their demands aren't met". And it doesn't have to be an existential threat, as anyone would be hard pressed to justify chancing that many lives. North Korea already does have the ability to kill lots of people in exchange for the end of their regime. That's a fair part of why their regime continues to exist, and a large portion of why the US is unwilling to do anything tougher than imposing worthless sanctions and refusing to send them foreign aid. Nuclear weapons will increase the number of people they can kill, but doesn't change the fundamental trade-off. We've already set the example for nations interested in nuclear weapons: Libya and Iraq, which cooperated with UN demands for peaceful disarmament and were nevertheless targeted by the US for regime change at the first opportunity, and Israel, whose clandestine nuclear program is treated far differently from those of their neighbors.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
I don't know if people really realise yet the real-politic disaster that intervention in the Libyan civil war represented. The Libyan disarmament model really was presented as a model for other countries to follow, particularly North Korea. Unfortunately, the US never really advertised the invisible clause that said "If you disarm and do everything we tell you, we will bomb your armed forces and arm and support with special forces the insurgents who will knife rape and execute you." Needless to say though, I think Kim Jong Un will be assuming that any deal he does with the US will include that clause. The ‘Libya Model’ Could Help Disarm North Korea https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/the-libya-model-could-help-disarm-north-korea/ Libya Nuclear Deal may Be a Model for North Korea http://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-2006-05-25-voa35/312662.html The Libyan disarmament model http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/1356788041043 Nuclear Dominoes: Will North Korea Follow Libya's Lead? http://apjjf.org/-Mark-Caprio/1650/article.pdf
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
It's really amazing how fast goons have forgotten the whole "Ghaddafi was literally about to carry out a Rape of Nanking in one of his own cities rather than even considering giving up some power" aspect of the intervention and now the narrative has become "one day the USA bombed Libya for no reason." The alternate universe scenario is one where the West did nothing and people smugly post "Guess that the West will tolerate any sort of evil carried out by dictators as long as it serves their interests, heh" Fojar38 fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Apr 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
I feel like the result of NK getting an ICBM is Korean reunification since we can no longer do everything in our power to stop it as we are now.Fojar38 posted:It's really amazing how fast goons have forgotten the whole "Ghaddafi was literally about to carry out a Rape of Nanking in one of his own cities rather than even considering giving up some power" aspect of the intervention and now the narrative has become "one day the USA bombed Libya for no reason." yeah i'm sure those people being sold in slave markets understand dude
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
Fiction posted:yeah i'm sure those people being sold in slave markets understand dude Perhaps you should consider that there wasn't any good course of action to be taken because Ghaddafi was a psychotic monster and the decision was to roll the dice and intervene to maybe get a better outcome rather than to do nothing and get a guaranteed bad outcome Nah
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
Fiction posted:I feel like the result of NK getting an ICBM is Korean reunification since we can no longer do everything in our power to stop it as we are now. Meanwhile, in the other country where the dictator was left in power and went hog-wild on the population we've got pamphlets covering the nitty-gritty details on sex-slave ownership.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
it's really amazing how quickly idiot goons believed the mass rape army myth that was later disproven by the un (after the jamahiriya was destroyed, of course)
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:It's really amazing how fast goons have forgotten the whole "Ghaddafi was literally about to carry out a Rape of Nanking in one of his own cities rather than even considering giving up some power" aspect of the intervention and now the narrative has become "one day the USA bombed Libya for no reason." Well, I think it's fairly safe to say the US probably wouldn't have bombed Libya if Gaddafi had nuclear ICBMs! And that's a fairly important point when talking about nuclear disarmament, because the only countries the US is pushing to disarm right now are countries that the US would also like to bomb if given an opportunity. Whether or not we consider that bombing is moral isn't going to matter much to those countries.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Well, I think it's fairly safe to say the US probably wouldn't have bombed Libya if Gaddafi had nuclear ICBMs! And that's a fairly important point when talking about nuclear disarmament, because the only countries the US is pushing to disarm right now are countries that the US would also like to bomb if given an opportunity. Which is to say, the only countries that are seeking nuclear ICBM's are the ones that would like to be able to carry out a massive civilian purge of one of their own cities if they wanted to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:46 |
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Perhaps you should consider that there wasn't any good course of action to be taken because Ghaddafi was a psychotic monster and the decision was to roll the dice and intervene to maybe get a better outcome rather than to do nothing and get a guaranteed bad outcome Yeah I know your guys' argument is always "well it could have been worse" when it comes to destabilizing entire countries.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 16:07
|
|