Korea Thread: Fumbling to take a bite of kimchi

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Korea Thread: Fumbling to take a bite of kimchi

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Fojar38 posted:

That isn't what I said. Of course it's "rational" if you're a lovely pseudo-medieval autocracy to not want democracies to be more powerful than you and close to your borders. Guess that everyone should disarm and the US should leave their allies to fend for themselves, because then North Korea might get mad and nuke someone. After all, the desires of said pseudo-medieval autocracy are just as legitimate as Japan or South Korea's desire to not be invaded/nuked by an autocracy, right?

Of course, anyone who isn't Pevan Stan thinks that's absurd. The way that you deal with it is by constantly letting North Korea know that you're far more powerful than they are and that you are willing to use military force if necessary. That's deterrence, and the military exercises are part of it.

If you're assuming that KJU is a rational actor, the rational decision in this scenario if you are a lovely autocracy is to back down and lie to your citizens about it. Which is perfectly within KJU's capabilities. If the other side keeps on giving ground every time you talk about nukes, the rational decision is to keep on pushing nukes.

I'm pretty sure it's rational for any country to not want a major hostile power marching around troops on the border rehearsing a war. There's no reason to even bring up the forms of government there, except to push a biased framing. Georgia didn't want a powerful autocracy marching troops on their border either, though that didn't stop the US from leaving them to fend for themselves when Russia invaded.

North Korea already knows that we're far more powerful than they are, and that we're very willing to use military force against them. And that's precisely the problem. Military force is only a deterrence if we can convince them that we won't use it if they back down and disarm. Otherwise, it just spurs further escalation. It's simply impossible to make a credible case that we're more likely to invade them if they have nukes than if they don't.

# ? Aug 18, 2017 03:15

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 21, 2024 11:35

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

Main Paineframe posted:

I'm pretty sure it's rational for any country to not want a major hostile power marching around troops on the border rehearsing a war. There's no reason to even bring up the forms of government there, except to push a biased framing. Georgia didn't want a powerful autocracy marching troops on their border either, though that didn't stop the US from leaving them to fend for themselves when Russia invaded.

North Korea already knows that we're far more powerful than they are, and that we're very willing to use military force against them. And that's precisely the problem. Military force is only a deterrence if we can convince them that we won't use it if they back down and disarm. Otherwise, it just spurs further escalation. It's simply impossible to make a credible case that we're more likely to invade them if they have nukes than if they don't.

If anything that is precisely the reason that not only will NK be unwilling to give up its program, but they will use missile tests to occasionally prod within certain boundaries. The rational thing is to protect their program at almost any cost.

# ? Aug 18, 2017 03:21

Fojar38: Sep 2, 2011; Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia

also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

Main Paineframe posted:

I'm pretty sure it's rational for any country to not want a major hostile power marching around troops on the border rehearsing a war. There's no reason to even bring up the forms of government there, except to push a biased framing.

I will freely admit to being biased towards countries that aren't lovely autocracies run by mass-murdering despots.

quote:

Military force is only a deterrence if we can convince them that we won't use it if they back down and disarm.

Uh, what? No, that's not what military deterrence means at all. Military deterrence is convincing them not to take certain actions because it will bring on military retaliation. Making North Korea feel more secure is not an objective at all, especially since the US will always be more powerful than it and as long as North Korea is a lovely autocracy run by paranoid dictators it will never feel secure.

What you're proposing would require a fundamental change in the way that North Korea is run.

And to be frank, North Korea stopping the nuclear and missile tests should be the baseline, not something contingent on the USA abandoning its treaty allies.

# ? Aug 18, 2017 03:33

Conspiratiorist: Nov 12, 2015; 17th Separate Kryvyi Rih Tank Brigade named after Konstantin Pestushko
Look to my coming on the first light of the ~~fifth~~ ~~sixth~~ some day

If NK wasn't considered a rational actor then we wouldn't be in the current situation: they've had the capability to level Seoul for decades, so the only rational move if they couldn't have been expected to keep the armistice was to strike them first, as the alternative would be the DPRK starting a devastating campaign while the allied militaries weren't at full readiness. Clearly this did not happen.

As was mentioned earlier in the thread, the US strategy has been to maintain pressure and hope they'll just collapse in on themselves, pressure that involved a hell of a lot of military gaslighting, implying they were expected to be rational enough to prioritize self-preservation over responding to what for any nation would be considered clear provocation.

But this didn't work, and now they have nuclear weapons, soon maybe H-bombs and the ICBMs for them, so the US has three options:

a) Reluctantly accept that they're a nuclear power and aren't just going to harmlessly collapse in on themselves. Start treating them the same way other semi-antagonist nuclear powers are treated, rather than some rogue state that can safely be crushed at any time.
b) Military intervention. The death of hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of Koreans and Japanese is simply the price to pay to prop up the rotten corpse of non-proliferation strategy.
c) The most cynical option: escalate provocations in the hope they'll strike first, in order to more easily justify Option B.

None are good, and I don't mean ethically.

A shows all wanna-be dictators across the world that if you get Nuclear Weapons you, too, can get to sit on the big boys' table and can stop fearing military intervention to remove or destabilize your country - thoroughly undermining one of the pillars of US geopolitical strategy for the past six decades.
B would irreparably damage the entire geopolitical structure that allows the US to operate in the region at all - the damage to Seoul in specific and SK in general from a conflict, even a strictly conventional one, would destroy the assurance of maintaining the absolute integrity of her allies that keeps this system in place, and the DPRK's doctrinal orientation and deployment schema are all designed specifically to force that unacceptable trade in any potential US+SK v NK hostilities.
And C is just B but potentially much, much worse depending on how the DPRK reacts and how the US escalates, the aftermaths, and how responsibilities are ultimately assigned.

But the bottom line is that the current state of affairs has become untenable, so something will have to give in this massive Jenga Tower that is the overall US foreign policy.

And the North Koreans, and South Koreans, and Japanese, and the tens of thousands of American servicemen that will get involved in a conflict, are all just loving pawns in this game.

# ? Aug 18, 2017 03:39

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Fojar38 posted:

Uh, what? No, that's not what military deterrence means at all. Military deterrence is convincing them not to take certain actions because it will bring on military retaliation. Making North Korea feel more secure is not an objective at all, especially since the US will always be more powerful than it and as long as North Korea is a lovely autocracy run by paranoid dictators it will never feel secure.

What you're proposing would require a fundamental change in the way that North Korea is run.

And to be frank, North Korea stopping the nuclear and missile tests should be the baseline, not something contingent on the USA abandoning its treaty allies.

If they feel that there is a significant chance of military retaliation regardless of whether or not they take those certain actions, then you're not deterring anything. Besides, deterrence alone isn't reliable because typically both sides are engaging in deterrence - unless it's paired with diplomacy and a real willingness to change the relationship, it just results in a death spiral of escalations and tensions as each side ramps up their military posturing in an attempt to deter the other, as demonstrated during the Cold War. Making North Korea feel more secure absolutely needs to be our goal, because that is the only way that tensions will ever decrease. Mind you, they'll never disarm as much as we want them to (in particular, I expect them to keep the nukes forever), but it'll be an improvement.

Toning down the saber-rattling isn't the same as betraying and abandoning South Korea anyway. Sure, the South is nervous about America's level of commitment to them, but that's more due to our history of throwing small allies under the bus whenever it was convenient, not because of military exercises. Besides, South Korea has a lot more to gain from de-escalation than we do. If we end up attacking North Korea, Seoul and Tokyo are far more likely to get nuked than California is. And if we keep threatening North Korea and never actually attack when they call our bluff, then all we're doing is pointless raising tensions.

# ? Aug 18, 2017 06:20

Grapplejack: Nov 27, 2007

If your goal is the security of North Korea without any thought of international implications or ramifications of that action, then you have no problem with them having nuclear weapons.

Unfortunately our goal is not the security of North Korea, but that of our allies and the continuation of non-proliferation.

# ? Aug 18, 2017 07:00

brockan: Mar 9, 2014

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nuke-north-korea-now-its-the-only-option/article/2632108

What the fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck.

I can't believe this is being discussed.

What type of website is Washington Examiner usually? It seems to lean right, but other than that, I hadn't seen anyone post anything crazy from it before. Even though it does bring up a point about how we only survived the Cold War by pure luck and NK is structured in a way that that "luck" wouldn't be viable.

# ? Aug 21, 2017 19:57

Paradoxish: Dec 19, 2003; Will you stop going crazy in there?

brockan posted:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nuke-north-korea-now-its-the-only-option/article/2632108

What the fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck.

I can't believe this is being discussed.

What type of website is Washington Examiner usually? It seems to lean right, but other than that, I hadn't seen anyone post anything crazy from it before. Even though it does bring up a point about how we only survived the Cold War by pure luck and NK is structured in a way that that "luck" wouldn't be viable.

A conservative political tabloid. Not worth worrying about.

# ? Aug 21, 2017 20:05

brockan: Mar 9, 2014

Gotcha. Usually most tabloid sites are easy to notice and find debunkers for them, but this one was a bit more subtle about it.

# ? Aug 21, 2017 20:09

Grapplejack: Nov 27, 2007

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-syria-un-idUSKCN1B12G2

quote:

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Two North Korean shipments to a Syrian government agency responsible for the country's chemical weapons program were intercepted in the past six months, according to a confidential United Nations report on North Korea sanctions violations.

The report by a panel of independent U.N. experts, which was submitted to the U.N. Security Council earlier this month and seen by Reuters on Monday, gave no details on when or where the interdictions occurred or what the shipments contained.

"The panel is investigating reported prohibited chemical, ballistic missile and conventional arms cooperation between Syria and the DPRK (North Korea)," the experts wrote in the 37-page report.

"Two member states interdicted shipments destined for Syria. Another Member state informed the panel that it had reasons to believe that the goods were part of a KOMID contract with Syria," according to the report.

KOMID is the Korea Mining Development Trading Corporation. It was blacklisted by the Security Council in 2009 and described as Pyongyang's key arms dealer and exporter of equipment related to ballistic missiles and conventional weapons. In March 2016 the council also blacklisted two KOMID representatives in Syria.

"The consignees were Syrian entities designated by the European Union and the United States as front companies for Syria's Scientific Studies and Research Centre (SSRC), a Syrian entity identified by the Panel as cooperating with KOMID in previous prohibited item transfers," the U.N. experts wrote.

SSRC has overseen the country's chemical weapons program since the 1970s.

The U.N. experts said activities between Syria and North Korea they were investigating included cooperation on Syrian Scud missile programs and maintenance and repair of Syrian surface-to-air missiles air defense systems.

The North Korean and Syrian missions to the United Nations did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The experts said they were also investigating the use of the VX nerve agent in Malaysia to kill the estranged half-brother of North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un in February.

That would explain how they're getting the funding for their weapons programs, at least.

# ? Aug 22, 2017 03:52

chitoryu12: Apr 24, 2014

brockan posted:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nuke-north-korea-now-its-the-only-option/article/2632108

What the fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck.

I can't believe this is being discussed.

What type of website is Washington Examiner usually? It seems to lean right, but other than that, I hadn't seen anyone post anything crazy from it before. Even though it does bring up a point about how we only survived the Cold War by pure luck and NK is structured in a way that that "luck" wouldn't be viable.

I'm at "GTA IV leaving bar" levels of drunk right now. I determined I'm still sane by recognizing how crazy this article is.

# ? Aug 22, 2017 04:10

maskenfreiheit: Dec 30, 2004

Paradoxish posted:

A conservative political tabloid. Not worth worrying about.

isn't the examiner the one trump reads religiously?

# ? Aug 22, 2017 04:11

Fojar38: Sep 2, 2011; Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia

also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

maskenfreiheit posted:

isn't the examiner the one trump reads religiously?

He watches Fox News religiously

I don't think he reads anything

# ? Aug 23, 2017 01:58

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

Fojar38 posted:

He watches Fox News religiously

I don't think he reads anything

Which is fortunate because he may have just lost some more eye function! :3:

# ? Aug 23, 2017 02:13

Halloween Jack: Sep 12, 2003; I WILL CUT OFF BOTH OF MY ARMS BEFORE I VOTE FOR ANYONE THAT IS MORE POPULAR THAN BERNIE!!!!!

I've heard it said that Trump was able to pass himself off as a milquetoast NYC liberal because he read the NYT and WSJ which are pretty conservative with regard to their editorials.

Reagan was into, like, Townhall and the Weekly Standard.

# ? Aug 23, 2017 05:16

Charlz Guybon: Nov 16, 2010

School just finished an air raid drill and an F16 flew right over ahead, lower than I've ever seen. Creepy

# ? Aug 23, 2017 06:18

WarpedNaba: Feb 8, 2012; Being social makes me swell!

Halloween Jack posted:

Reagan was into, like, Townhall and the Weekly Standard.

Reagan was into the loving horoscope, how the hell did that not tip anyone off.

# ? Aug 23, 2017 07:55

maskenfreiheit: Dec 30, 2004

Charlz Guybon posted:

School just finished an air raid drill and an F16 flew right over ahead, lower than I've ever seen. Creepy

You're in Seoul?

# ? Aug 23, 2017 13:46

Willo567: Feb 5, 2015; Cheating helped me fail the test and stay on the show.

Russian bombers are flying near North Korea in a show of force

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-southkorea-bombers-idUSKCN1B40MP

Won't this cause tensions to rise?

# ? Aug 24, 2017 19:28

Fojar38: Sep 2, 2011; Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia

also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

Willo567 posted:

Russian bombers are flying near North Korea in a show of force

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-southkorea-bombers-idUSKCN1B40MP

Won't this cause tensions to rise?

Meh. Russia does not care enough about North Korea to intervene in any conflict. This is posturing.

# ? Aug 24, 2017 19:40

Willo567: Feb 5, 2015; Cheating helped me fail the test and stay on the show.

Fojar38 posted:

Meh. Russia does not care enough about North Korea to intervene in any conflict. This is posturing.

Well let's say there is a conflict between North Korea and the U.S.. How would Russia respond to the situation then?

# ? Aug 24, 2017 19:50

Fojar38: Sep 2, 2011; Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia

also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

Willo567 posted:

Well let's say there is a conflict between North Korea and the U.S.. How would Russia respond to the situation then?

They would amass troops at the border and get vocally upset with the USA, but would be unlikely to do anything to risk a shooting war with the USA. The real wildcard in that scenario is China, although I am also meh on the idea of them intervening in the conflict because the CCP's priority right now is keeping the Chinese economy afloat, and they need US cooperation to do that. They too are extremely unlikely to risk a shooting war with the USA.

# ? Aug 24, 2017 20:05

Willo567: Feb 5, 2015; Cheating helped me fail the test and stay on the show.

Fojar38 posted:

They would amass troops at the border and get vocally upset with the USA, but would be unlikely to do anything to risk a shooting war with the USA. The real wildcard in that scenario is China, although I am also meh on the idea of them intervening in the conflict because the CCP's priority right now is keeping the Chinese economy afloat, and they need US cooperation to do that. They too are extremely unlikely to risk a shooting war with the USA.

Honestly, at this point my real fear is a nuclear war between either one of the two

# ? Aug 24, 2017 20:08

Fojar38: Sep 2, 2011; Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia

also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

Willo567 posted:

Honestly, at this point my real fear is a nuclear war between either one of the two

Neither Russia nor China are suicidal enough to risk nuclear war over North Korea.

# ? Aug 24, 2017 20:09

Fiction: Apr 28, 2011

Fojar38 posted:

They would amass troops at the border and get vocally upset with the USA, but would be unlikely to do anything to risk a shooting war with the USA. The real wildcard in that scenario is China, although I am also meh on the idea of them intervening in the conflict because the CCP's priority right now is keeping the Chinese economy afloat, and they need US cooperation to do that. They too are extremely unlikely to risk a shooting war with the USA.

you are 100% wrong about this, like most of your posts in the thread- if the US attacked first, china, would definitely come to NK's aid. that's why war hasn't happened, because only the US would strike first.

# ? Aug 24, 2017 20:09

Fojar38: Sep 2, 2011; Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia

also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

Fiction posted:

if the US attacked first, china, would definitely come to NK's aid.

This would cause the immediate and irreparable collapse of China's economy regardless of the military outcome. So the question in this scenario is which is more important to the CCP; the Chinese economy, or the existence of North Korea?

# ? Aug 24, 2017 20:19

mlmp08: Jul 11, 2004; Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration; Nap Ghost

Fojar38 posted:

This would cause the immediate and irreparable collapse of China's economy regardless of the military outcome.

I'm pretty sure China could help in a lot of ways that aren't open warfare with the US.

# ? Aug 24, 2017 20:37

Fojar38: Sep 2, 2011; Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia

also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

mlmp08 posted:

I'm pretty sure China could help in a lot of ways that aren't open warfare with the US.

Sure, but it'd have to be subtle enough as to not bring on the "enemy combatant" economic treatment from the US that open warfare would bring, while at the same time being potent enough to tip the military balance into North Korea's favor and I'm having a hard time thinking of something that fits both criteria.

# ? Aug 24, 2017 20:48

mlmp08: Jul 11, 2004; Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration; Nap Ghost

Fojar38 posted:

Sure, but it'd have to be subtle enough as to not bring on the "enemy combatant" economic treatment from the US that open warfare would bring, while at the same time being potent enough to tip the military balance into North Korea's favor and I'm having a hard time thinking of something that fits both criteria.

Why would that be required for it to still really suck for the ROK/US/etc to have the Chinese aiding the DPRK?

Saying that Chinese aid to the DPRK should be downplayed is not necessarily leading down the path of favoring US first-action, but it's one of the stepping stones, if one wanted to pursue that path.

# ? Aug 24, 2017 21:04

Fojar38: Sep 2, 2011; Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia

also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

mlmp08 posted:

Why would that be required for it to still really suck for the ROK/US/etc to have the Chinese aiding the DPRK?

Sure, if their motivation is simply to give the US, South Korea, and Japan a hard time, they could. That would be an odd motivation though and the risks for China (being caught and reaping the economic consequences) seem to outweigh the potential benefits (slowing the demise of the North Korean regime.)

But I wouldn't put it past the CCP, who are notoriously bad at diplomacy.

# ? Aug 24, 2017 21:22

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Fojar38 posted:

Sure, but it'd have to be subtle enough as to not bring on the "enemy combatant" economic treatment from the US that open warfare would bring, while at the same time being potent enough to tip the military balance into North Korea's favor and I'm having a hard time thinking of something that fits both criteria.

The US can't do something like this without significantly hurting itself as well. The idea that the US could magically collapse the Chinese economy without doing heavy damage to its own seems a little dodgy, considering the extensive economic ties between the two countries.

# ? Aug 24, 2017 21:33

Fojar38: Sep 2, 2011; Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia

also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

Main Paineframe posted:

The US can't do something like this without significantly hurting itself as well. The idea that the US could magically collapse the Chinese economy without doing heavy damage to its own seems a little dodgy, considering the extensive economic ties between the two countries.

Yep, the US would feel significant economic pain as well, and a recession would almost certainly result. That being said, the US is in a far better position economically to whether the consequences than China is. The US would be facing a recession, the Chinese would be facing an existential threat, and if the question is how the Chinese might decide what to do or not do in this scenario, the potential economic consequences for China are very important. Especially in the current political environment where economic action against China has bipartisan support in the USA.

The Chinese have actually been surprisingly reserved in this current North Korea situation and that suggests that for one reason or another they have decided it serves their interests to keep a low profile.

Fojar38 fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Aug 24, 2017

# ? Aug 24, 2017 21:36