|
Anosmoman posted:How would you have responded differently? ocumsprug's argument implied that my position was that the US should withdraw from the Korean peninsula, which is not apparent in anything I've said. I've pretty clearly been advocating for a greater effort on the part of the US to negotiate with NK in good faith in order to bring them back into the NPT.
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 15:38 |
|
|
There isn't any indication that North Korea actually has a nuclear stockpile. All indications point to them only having nukes sitting around when they're being prepared for a test. So "nonproliferation" doesn't really make sense there, America's already destroyed most of the nukes they've ever built, and North Korea destroys all their nukes through tests and failed tests (though I suppose if the test fails, that means you didn't really have nuclear weapon in it to begin with?).
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:ocumsprug's argument implied that my position was that the US should withdraw from the Korean peninsula, which is not apparent in anything I've said. I've pretty clearly been advocating for a greater effort on the part of the US to negotiate with NK in good faith in order to bring them back into the NPT. The US stated a peace treaty is contingent on denuclearization and the onus is on NK to show some movement there. That seems to be in line with what you want? The US will negotiate as long as the negotiations are about nukes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Really? 'You first' is our diplomatic stance toward NK? You'd almost think the US was trying to maintain the status quo on the Korean peninsula, nukes and all. The problem, which has been brewing for some years, is the domestic political cost of making concessions and deals with the ~axis of evil~. Just look at how much political tantruming happened over the Iran deal. Due to the risk of political showdown, the administration isn't bothering with steps toward gradual warming of relations, they're just doing all-or-nothing superdeals like with Iran.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:The US stated a peace treaty is contingent on denuclearization and the onus is on NK to show some movement there. That seems to be in line with what you want? The US will negotiate as long as the negotiations are about nukes. I read the quote as implying that the state department considers Korean progress on denuclearization to be a precondition to any negotiation at all, which strikes me as deliberately obstructive since denuclearization is the obvious topic for negotiation in the first place, and NK has no other way to achieve a non-supine bargaining position. fishmech posted:There isn't any indication that North Korea actually has a nuclear stockpile. All indications point to them only having nukes sitting around when they're being prepared for a test. So "nonproliferation" doesn't really make sense there, America's already destroyed most of the nukes they've ever built, and North Korea destroys all their nukes through tests and failed tests (though I suppose if the test fails, that means you didn't really have nuclear weapon in it to begin with?). Interesting, what I've read has generally indicated the opposite. Do you have a source? Main Paineframe posted:The problem, which has been brewing for some years, is the domestic political cost of making concessions and deals with the ~axis of evil~. Just look at how much political tantruming happened over the Iran deal. Due to the risk of political showdown, the administration isn't bothering with steps toward gradual warming of relations, they're just doing all-or-nothing superdeals like with Iran. I think this is generally right, I just think it's terrifying that my representatives are selling out nonproliferation for domestic popularity. Juffo-Wup fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Jan 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:I read the quote as implying that the state department considers Korean progress on denuclearization to be a precondition to any negotiation at all, which strikes me as deliberately obstructive since denuclearization is the obvious topic for negotiation in the first place, and NK has no other way to achieve a non-supine bargaining position. The US doesn't have a great bargaining position either. They can only stop military drills and pull military away from the border. They will have a hard time influencing trade between NK and China or SK. Really, they need to be involved in the concessions but the current situation of both China's and SK's internal economy makes that more difficult.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:The US doesn't have a great bargaining position either. They can only stop military drills and pull military away from the border. They will have a hard time influencing trade between NK and China or SK. Really, they need to be involved in the concessions but the current situation of both China's and SK's internal economy makes that more difficult. In the past, the US got a reasonable amount of NK cooperation by promising fuel oil and food aid, and unfreezing their international assets. Why not again?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:
One of the big reports posted way back in the thread mentioned it as a side note in a document mostly about "what would happen if North Korea collapses?". Many pages back, but I don't think the situation has changed - North Korea only has access to small supplies of nuclear materials, and they've done a good number of "test" firings, which has lead the experts behind that paper to think that they don't have any stockpiles of working weapons outside of ones being built for a test. Since their current designs remain unsuitable for most deployment methods besides their very slow heavy bombers, they're not exactly an asset worth keeping around and maintaining. Juffo-Wup posted:In the past, the US got a reasonable amount of NK cooperation by promising fuel oil and food aid, and unfreezing their international assets. Why not again? What has that North Korean "cooperation" really gotten the rest of the world though? They're not exactly managing to ruin things for us at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:In the past, the US got a reasonable amount of NK cooperation by promising fuel oil and food aid, and unfreezing their international assets. Why not again? Not providing aid in response to saber-rattling was a deliberate change in NK-global relations that occurred because the previous approach incentivized aggressive behavior. Why go back? Their cooperation was always simply a ruse until the next round of provocation to obtain more aid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:Not providing aid in response to saber-rattling was a deliberate change in NK-global relations that occurred because the previous approach incentivized aggressive behavior. Why go back? Their cooperation was always simply a ruse until the next round of provocation to obtain more aid. Yes, if you manage to convince yourself that The Enemy is an irrational brute that will squander any opportunity to advance their interests in favor of short term advantage then there will never be any incentive on our part to extend an olive branch ever again, that's right. Well done, you've doomed the world to perpetual war. If it's not clear, I'm disputing your account of the historical record. e: fishmech posted:One of the big reports posted way back in the thread mentioned it as a side note in a document mostly about "what would happen if North Korea collapses?". Many pages back, but I don't think the situation has changed - North Korea only has access to small supplies of nuclear materials, and they've done a good number of "test" firings, which has lead the experts behind that paper to think that they don't have any stockpiles of working weapons outside of ones being built for a test. Since their current designs remain unsuitable for most deployment methods besides their very slow heavy bombers, they're not exactly an asset worth keeping around and maintaining. This report suggests that NK has about 10-15 warheads now, and may have as many as 30-50 by 2020. And it's pretty clear from their testing program that they're working on the deliverability problem. So how much do we want to gamble on the conviction that they're not going to make any progress there? Honestly, it is astounding to me that I am having to work to convince people that a rogue nuclear state is a Bad Thing. I expected to have trouble convincing people that the Kim regime can be negotiated with, but I really did not expect such a blase attitude about the existence of a growing nuclear weapons program in a nation that is ostensibly hostile to US interests. Bizzarre. Juffo-Wup fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Yes, if you manage to convince yourself that The Enemy is an irrational brute that will squander any opportunity to advance their interests in favor of short term advantage then there will never be any incentive on our part to extend an olive branch ever again, that's right. Well done, you've doomed the world to perpetual war. Fortunately North Korea agreed to halt the nuclear weapons program back in 1994 in exchange for aid when they originally threatened to withdraw from the NPT. This, of course, lasted until 2002 when North Korea withdrew from the NPT and the 1994 agreements. Fortunately North Korea was then engaged in the 6 party talks and during those talks agreed to halt work on all nuclear weapons and nuclear programs in 2005. Following this agreement and during the continuing talks North Korea detonated their first two bombs and resumed ballistic missile tests, until in 2009 the talks broke down on the topic of verifying that North Korea was actually doing the things it agreed to do. Upon withdrawing from the talks North Korea claimed it was no longer bound to any of the agreements made during them. The problem isn't so much getting North Korea to agree to cease the nuclear program in exchange for aid money and concessions, the problem is getting North Korea to actually cease the nuclear program after it agrees to do so. The US doesn't have a whole lot of leverage over North Korea, North Korea isn't too interested in opening itself up to the world, and it certainly appears that North Korea believes that keeping the program running is in their best interests - agreements to the contrary aside.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Yes, if you manage to convince yourself that The Enemy is an irrational brute that will squander any opportunity to advance their interests in favor of short term advantage then there will never be any incentive on our part to extend an olive branch ever again, that's right. Well done, you've doomed the world to perpetual war. Again, what action do you want to take? If North Korea figures that having deliverable nukes is in its best interest and can develop it despite sanctions then that's what it is going to do. You can't use violence against them because it would be a giant economic disaster and they know that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Honestly, it is astounding to me that I am having to work to convince people that a rogue nuclear state is a Bad Thing. I expected to have trouble convincing people that the Kim regime can be negotiated with, but I really did not expect such a blase attitude about the existence of a growing nuclear weapons program in a nation that is ostensibly hostile to US interests. Bizzarre. North Korea can't do anything without ceasing to exist. For a regime that views its own continuity as its primary concern that's a problem, and one a slowly growing nuclear stockpile doesn't fix. It's not that they plan to do something, it's that they want to raise the costs of something being done to them to an "unacceptable" level. e: In other words, the status quo is not actually changing—the stakes of changing it are. Dux Supremus fucked around with this message at 13:06 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 13:04
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Fortunately North Korea agreed to halt the nuclear weapons program back in 1994 in exchange for aid when they originally threatened to withdraw from the NPT. This, of course, lasted until 2002 when North Korea withdrew from the NPT and the 1994 agreements. After years of the the US falling behind on delivering promises of fuel oil and beginning construction of new light water reactors, North Korea nonetheless complied with commitments to begin shutting down Yongbyon, this progress being verified by UN inspectors. At which point the Bush administration started to demand that the North start following through on commitments ahead of schedule, without offering the same in return. The result was the 2009 test. To me, this is pretty clearly the historical narrative: there were hard-line elements both in the DPRK and in the west that didn't ultimately want a successful deal. With the 2000 US election, that faction got into power in the US and was happy to give hard-line North Koreans the excuse that they needed to say the US has no interest in fair dealing. As a result, whatever progress had been made up to that point was torpedoed and NK began the long process of rehabilitating Yongbyon. Again, as long as you believe of the rogue state du jour that any expressed interest in reconciliation on their part is some kind of dastardly lie, you are simply giving up on arms control as a policy goal. Like, perpetually rising nuclear tensions are your best case scenario. Does this not occur to you, or what? Dux Supremus posted:North Korea can't feasibly impose mutually assured destruction (ever, really) and their delivery systems are and will remain poo poo for the foreseeable future. Optimistic: http://38north.org/2015/03/jschilling031215/ Less optimistic: http://www.janes.com/article/50510/us-military-views-north-korean-icbm-as-operational Or maybe you're right and the North Koreans will struggle indefinitely to perfect a decades-old technology. Juffo-Wup fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:I honestly don't know. What degree of likelihood do you think would amount to an unacceptable risk? Honestly, the way that the parties involved reckon risk I think any likelihood is probably too much for them. Even a totally peaceful regime change has so many challenges and problems it's mind boggling. Juffo-Wup posted:Yes, if you manage to convince yourself that The Enemy is an irrational brute that will squander any opportunity to advance their interests in favor of short term advantage then there will never be any incentive on our part to extend an olive branch ever again, that's right. Well done, you've doomed the world to perpetual war. The DPRK has made it beyond clear that they're going to maintain their nuclear program no matter what. The DPRK is like a geopolitical version of the boy who cried wolf. After a while it's just tough to take them seriously at all, and going to maximum red alert every time they do some saber rattling is extremely counter-productive. Honestly, far more than any kind of movement by the DPRK military I'd be more worried about sharing of nuclear fuel and secrets with rogue actors.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:After years of the the US falling behind on delivering promises of fuel oil and beginning construction of new light water reactors, North Korea nonetheless complied with commitments to begin shutting down Yongbyon, this progress being verified by UN inspectors. At which point the Bush administration started to demand that the North start following through on commitments ahead of schedule, without offering the same in return. The result was the 2009 test. Meanwhile: The various IAEA reports to the effect that North Korea wasn't complying with inspections and was probably running the nuclear weapons program throughout the process. This seems especially likely given that they went from no bomb to having a bomb during one such period. You are also taking the North Koreans at their word concerning the reasons for their breaking the agreements. Additionally, the first bomb test (the fizzle) was in 2006, less than a year after their agreement at the six party talks and a full 3 years prior to the North Koreans withdrawing from said talks after the other parties involved moved to get inspections to verify compliance (which was pretty loving reasonable given the bomb testing!). Warbadger fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Yes, if you manage to convince yourself that The Enemy is an irrational brute that will squander any opportunity to advance their interests in favor of short term advantage then there will never be any incentive on our part to extend an olive branch ever again, that's right. Well done, you've doomed the world to perpetual war. Phew! Good thing I was just talking about NK and not all of international diplomacy. I wouldn't want eternal war on my conscience. FYI I don't think it's irrational or unusually brutish for an international pariah state to exploit that position for material gain. On the contrary, if everyone was afraid to topple you for fear of having to pick up the mess and would willingly give you stuff in response to acting crazy, you would saber rattle for fun and profit too. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Or maybe you're right and the North Koreans will struggle indefinitely to perfect a decades-old technology. In other words, your fears rely seem to rely upon the very kind of thinking you've criticized others for: you must think the " irrational [brutes]" are wantonly suicidal to be genuinely worried about them, because that's the only kind of behavior that would ever drive them to dare think about actually doing anything with their nukes. Awful lot of fuss over a bunch of expensive paperweights. Dux Supremus fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Jan 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
I think I have made it perfectly clear that the danger of a nuclear North Korea is not that they will launch a suicidal first strike against the US, but that the credible threat of unacceptable losses raises the cost of military intervention against them to such a degree as to give them considerable freedom in conducting their internal and international affairs. We know that international incidents, misunderstandings, and provocations are bound to happen, and these situations are much harder to de-escalate as long as the nuclear threat is present. Does it matter if NK ICBMs are to short ranged and too few to wipe out the entire US when we know that Seoul or Tokyo are under threat? More generally, I want to respond to what has been a pretty common argument in this thread recently: that North Korea was less than honest in carrying out their obligations under the AF, so they really made their own bed. Specifically, I found the 'Boy who cried wolf' metaphor really interesting. The important thing to remember about that story is that the boy dies at the end . So while, yes, one lesson is not to lie because people won't believe you when you need them to, the often overlooked lesson is that when the consequences are unacceptable, we, the townspeople, have to work very hard not to let someone become the boy who cried wolf. My argument is that a North Korea with a credible nuclear threat is such an outcome, and so we townspeople (read: the US) really needs a spotless record. NK cheating doesn't give the US the right to cheat, because the US is the one given special powers under the NPT. If the US wants to prove that it has the moral high ground, then any collapse in negotiations had better be 100% attributable to the rogue state. And I argue that to the extent that this is not the case, US foreign policymakers are getting priorities badly wrong, to the detriment of anyone whose interest is in a safe and predictable world. Edit: Just for clarification, whatever else may be at issue, is there any disagreement that a denuclearized Koeran peninsula is a high-priority policy goal? I am starting to wonder. Juffo-Wup fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Jan 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:I think I have made it perfectly clear that the danger of a nuclear North Korea is not that they will launch a suicidal first strike against the US, but that the credible threat of unacceptable losses raises the cost of military intervention against them to such a degree as to give them considerable freedom in conducting their internal and international affairs. We know that international incidents, misunderstandings, and provocations are bound to happen, and these situations are much harder to de-escalate as long as the nuclear threat is present. Does it matter if NK ICBMs are to short ranged and too few to wipe out the entire US when we know that Seoul or Tokyo are under threat? As I said the first time, nothing about the status quo is changing; the costs of changing it are. That should only worry you if you're interested in changing it. Meanwhile, one then has to ask: why doesn't the thing that's actually kept it from being changed for 60 years worry you? What do you mean by high-priority policy goal anyway? Like, as in, of all US policy goals? I don't know what rank I'd give it but I wouldn't call it top 10 issue, for example.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:I think I have made it perfectly clear that the danger of a nuclear North Korea is not that they will launch a suicidal first strike against the US, but that the credible threat of unacceptable losses raises the cost of military intervention against them to such a degree as to give them considerable freedom in conducting their internal and international affairs. We know that international incidents, misunderstandings, and provocations are bound to happen, and these situations are much harder to de-escalate as long as the nuclear threat is present. Does it matter if NK ICBMs are to short ranged and too few to wipe out the entire US when we know that Seoul or Tokyo are under threat? North Korea has already had the credible threat of Soviet backing before the Soviet Union collapsed, and then afterwards the massive economic threat of "you'll have to deal with 25 million starving people" since then. Both are much more significant than "we might someday be able to send one nuke at you, after which you will nuke us with 1000". The economic threat also looms larger than at the early 90s, due to the experience Germany's had just reintegrating East Germany, which wasn't nearly as behind. Dux Supremus posted:Seoul has been under threat from several thousand artillery pieces since 1953. In fact, it's been North Korea's conventional forces that have deterred military intervention against them for 60 years. The losses were already unacceptable for South Korea considering they involved the capital being devastated and potentially several million casualties. Just FYI, the actual expected loss if North Korea were to try to use their remaining artillery on Seoul (mostly, the northern suburbs considering their range) is 60,000 dead in a scenario where they're just trying to rack up civilian deaths, and much fewer dead if they attempt to hit military targets. To kill millions in Seoul, North Korea would need to get their whole bomber fleet over the city and get at least some ground troops in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Dux Supremus posted:Seoul has been under threat from several thousand artillery pieces since 1953. In fact, it's been North Korea's conventional forces that have deterred military intervention against them for 60 years. The losses were already unacceptable for South Korea considering they involved the capital being devastated and potentially several million casualties. Why do you think the status quo has persisted so long to begin with? Your argument is that nukes will give North Korea even more latitude, but they already have that latitude, which is why they've been tolerated for as long as they have. All they really give North Korea is more reach in being annoying; they spread the risk off the Korean peninsula. But the overwhelming majority of the risk remains concentrated there, because nukes are a game with their own rules that are actually more binding, not liberating. If anything, they constrain North Korea's options, because the US would much more readily escalate in kind due to their presence. Your argument seems to depend entirely on the premise that the outcome of cascading escalation is made no greater by the threat of theatre-wide use of nuclear weapons over the threat of massed heavy artillery. If you really believe that then I guess I'm not sure how to dissuade you. My position is that nuclear weapons increase the stakes of escalation, and that (paradoxically) by increasing the stakes of escalation we increase its likelihood. So, de-escalation being imperative, we're best off accomplishing that through disarmament. But then this is all stuff I've already said. I think we've probably got as far as we're likely to get with this discussion, so unless someone thinks I've left their point totally unaddressed, I'll bow out for the time being.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
fishmech posted:To kill millions in Seoul, North Korea would need to get their whole bomber fleet over the city and get at least some ground troops in. Juffo-Wup posted:My position is that nuclear weapons increase the stakes of escalation, and that (paradoxically) by increasing the stakes of escalation we increase its likelihood.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
Dux Supremus posted:The tl;dr of my original effort-post here is that if North Korea manages to mature its nukes and ICBMs into something credible, it's going to take at least another decade, and then they'll have several dozen lovely antiquated nukes to fight whatever the US nuclear force looks like then with its 1,550 strategic warheads under New START. There is no conceivable way for North Korea to "win" a nuclear conflict, but there are lots of ways for it to definitively lose one, and it will never catch up. Actually, if North Korea gets a credible nuclear threat then they win! They won't ever be able to overcome the US in a nuclear war, but they don't need to - the mere presence of usable nuclear weaponry guarantees North Korea continuity of government forever, because the total collapse of a nuclear state is a nightmare scenario and the perfect way for nukes to go missing, get stolen, or end up in the hands of some desperate warlord too busy trying to conquer the country for himself to bother with international relations. Also, while North Korea's nukes are only probably 1950s-level or so, let's not forget what nuclear warfare looked like back then. People mostly remember the strategic bombing, but before that there were some pretty crazy tactical weapons floating around. Rather than a cruise missile exchange, think of North Korea as more like Japan in 1945 - zero force projection capabilities, and so much air and sea inferiority that they can't help but sit back and get bombed to oblivion, but they can still make a ground invasion of their own country absurdly costly if they're willing to be self-desttuctive enough. And defensive use of nuclear weapons against an invading army is certainly pretty self-destructive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 13:31
|
|
|
If North Korea had delivery systems they would still be big and mounted to missiles, and in 1 or 2 places. The regime massively distrusts cities outside of Pyongyang. The ussr had a much worse situation with how small and spread their nukes are. Like every action movie in the 90s was based on it. Especially since if they collapsed so badly for nukes to be stolen, China and SK would be on the other side of the border in an instant to minimize economic damage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:If North Korea had delivery systems they would still be big and mounted to missiles, and in 1 or 2 places. The regime massively distrusts cities outside of Pyongyang. The ussr had a much worse situation with how small and spread their nukes are. Like every action movie in the 90s was based on it. You're forgetting the crazy poo poo that was around in the late 40s and early 50s. Not every nuclear weapon is plane-dropped or missile-launched. We had nuclear artillery stationed in South Korea for a few years, and I'm pretty sure poo poo like nuclear landmines were at least explored and experimented with sometime during the 50s. Even before cruise missiles and MAD, it was understood to be a bad idea to back a nuclear state up against the wall with an existential threat ground invasion, and the nuclear battlefield was always expected to be a miserable hellscape no one really wanted to send ground troops into. Sure, the collateral damage of that kind of stuff is fairly significant, which is one reason why it all got replaced as soon as possible, but how many lives would you be willing to bet on "no way North Korea would set off a tactical nuke on their own territory"?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:If North Korea had delivery systems they would still be big and mounted to missiles, and in 1 or 2 places. The regime massively distrusts cities outside of Pyongyang. The ussr had a much worse situation with how small and spread their nukes are. Like every action movie in the 90s was based on it. Unless they've got some good medium range ballistic missiles (no idea), they can't launch poo poo. Yep, they have a rocket capable of orbiting a satellite (which pretty much worked, I was quite impressed, it is literally a giant SCUD, actually 4 of them bolted together), but it takes about 2 months to set up on a very well observed launch pad. At that point, cruise missiles happen. No more rocket.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Actually, if North Korea gets a credible nuclear threat then they win! They won't ever be able to overcome the US in a nuclear war, but they don't need to - the mere presence of usable nuclear weaponry guarantees North Korea continuity of government forever, because the total collapse of a nuclear state is a nightmare scenario and the perfect way for nukes to go missing, get stolen, or end up in the hands of some desperate warlord too busy trying to conquer the country for himself to bother with international relations. They already have effectively guaranteed continuity-of-government for the reasons already outlined in this thread: the collapse of the North Korean state would be unacceptably costly to all of its neighbors, and in fact probably the world at large since dragging down the South Korean economy might well kick off a recession in the global economy. It's difficult to imagine a scenario, short of actually attempting to invade South Korea or launch a nuclear weapon at another country, that would actually prompt other countries to invade and conquer North Korea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Hexyflexy posted:Unless they've got some good medium range ballistic missiles (no idea), they can't launch poo poo. Yep, they have a rocket capable of orbiting a satellite (which pretty much worked, I was quite impressed, it is literally a giant SCUD, actually 4 of them bolted together), but it takes about 2 months to set up on a very well observed launch pad. North Korea has good medium range ballistic missiles - the No Dong. Can carry a heavy warhead, can hit everything in South Korea and most of Japan, including Tokyo. Good enough for North Korea to sell to Pakistan* who use it as their strategic weapon platform : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghauri_(missile) http://www.dawn.com/news/1176096 And Iran: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahab-3 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9371821/Iran-fires-missile-capable-of-hitting-Israel.html Uncle Jam posted:If North Korea had delivery systems they would still be big and mounted to missiles, and in 1 or 2 places. North Korea is actively working on an SLBM. yes, an SLBM. http://38north.org/2016/01/sinpo010516/ *North Korea gave the No Dongs to Pakistan at least partly in exchange for nuclear know how. We don't know exactly what Pakistan gave them, but Libya - LIBYA! - got uranium warhead designs from the same network. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/04/world/warhead-blueprints-link-libya-project-to-pakistan-figure.html?_r=0 mediadave fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Jan 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Yes, if you manage to convince yourself that The Enemy is an irrational brute that will squander any opportunity to advance their interests in favor of short term advantage then there will never be any incentive on our part to extend an olive branch ever again, that's right. Well done, you've doomed the world to perpetual war. The end of your post belies the crux of your misunderstanding. NK is not hostile to US interests. NK doesn't give a poo poo about how the USA runs itself. The regime wants to survive, it has no ambitions beyond that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:ocumsprug's argument implied that my position was that the US should withdraw from the Korean peninsula, which is not apparent in anything I've said. I've pretty clearly been advocating for a greater effort on the part of the US to negotiate with NK in good faith in order to bring them back into the NPT. Why should we negotiate with people who have proven, repeatedly, that they will break any agreement they make as soon as it is convenient for them?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Why should we negotiate with people who have proven, repeatedly, that they will break any agreement they make as soon as it is convenient for them? I've already addressed this, by disputing the premise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
So apparently Kim got himself a new hostage: North Korea says it has arrested a US student accused of committing a "hostile act" against the state. quote:State news agency KCNA identified him as University of Virginia student Otto Frederick Warmbier. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35379583
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
In unexpected and completely unprecedented turn of events, hermit kingdom acquires new bargaining chip.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 16:17
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Look I know north Korea is beautiful and an amazing place in a lot of ways, but tourism there directly funds the regime and I can't believe western people go there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
Huh. Classes are canceled and the University is practically closed today, but I'm surprised President Sullivan hasn't already sent out an email about this. What do you have to do to get arrested as a tourist in North Korea? My impression is that while tourists are minded at all times, they're given a lot of leeway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Huh. Classes are canceled and the University is practically closed today, but I'm surprised President Sullivan hasn't already sent out an email about this. It's usually about information. One guy was leaving bibles around, another Korean war vet wanted to meet some old war buddies, and of course those journalists. It wouldn't surprise me if this idiot thought he should partake in intellectual discourse about capitalism or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:What do you have to do to get arrested as a tourist in North Korea? My impression is that while tourists are minded at all times, they're given a lot of leeway. 1) He wandered away from a tour group and got caught, leading to calls of espionage. 2) As above, he started arguing politics or the blessings of capitalism either too loudly or too close to someone important. 3) He snuck a GPS active device in with his stuff and got caught. 4) He got really loving unlucky and they grabbed him just so they could have a political bargaining chip.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:I've already addressed this, by disputing the premise. Well, you disputed them but your reasons were a bit lacking. You pointed out that some of the aid was supposedly not delivered by the US as scheduled, basically an attempt to pin North Korea's nuclear program on the behavior of conservative American politicians. Even if we take what you said at face value, that was only one of the two major agreements to halt the nuclear weapons program that North Korea has broken and isn't really a rock solid justification given that a shitload of aid was, in fact, provided. It also didn't explain their initial withdrawal from the NPT (right around the same time the US withdrew the nukes from South Korea) or the fact that inspectors reported that North Korea was not complying with inspections and showed a shitload of irregularities indicating that North Korea may never have halted the program anyways during the agreement you're talking about. Or the expulsion of the inspectors, the refusal to allow inspection to confirm compliance after the 6 party talks, etc. So yeah, in the past the US/China/etc. have been successful in reaching agreements on halting the nuclear program. However, North Korea likely never complied with those agreements, has never permitted the level of inspection necessary to verify compliance, and did in fact dismiss them when they felt like it. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Jan 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 15:38 |
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:It's usually about information. One guy was leaving bibles around, another Korean war vet wanted to meet some old war buddies, and of course those journalists. It wouldn't surprise me if this idiot thought he should partake in intellectual discourse about capitalism or something. You're probably right and it is may well be something he did, but I really feel like we should wait for some sort of evidence of personal misconduct before blaming the victim.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 20:00
|
|
