A Different Strategy for N. Korea

[Commander-K25]

Many people like to complain that Bush is a hypocrite because he pursues Iraq yet "ignores" North Korea. What many people fail to realize, however, is that North Korea is a different situation than Iraq and thus demands a different strategy.

Whereas Iraq was developing WMDS, N. Korea has them along with a very large army poised to invade a U.S. ally state South Korea. They also have missiles capable of reaching Japan, S. Korea and even the western U.S. This makes Korea less like Iraq and more like the Soviet Union. Also like the USSR, North Korea has an unstable economy that could be toppled by outside pressure. The situation is a miniature version of the Cold War and thus calls for cold war strategy, contain and undermine, not all out war which would be very costly to all sides involved as well as to the region as a whole.

An interesting article here.

[Lyddiechu]

ahh yes.. good old mutually assured destruction! dr. strangelove anyway?

i'm afraid north korea isn't that simple... and i doubt even if it was that the honorable mr. bush would have thought reusing some strategy like that. i think we should just give china free license to dispose of north korea (nk is a bitter problem for china than it is for the us!)

we could give them some special forces to help out, and just not tell the general populace about it as usual... muwahaha

[arnamenta]

At 5/21/03 04:57 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

: ...The situation is a miniature version of the Cold War and thus calls for cold war strategy, contain and undermine, not all out war which would be very costly to all sides involved as well as to the region as a whole.

And the war with Iraq isn't costly? I'm sure I don't need to remind you of the countless artifacts lost because the US forces couldn't be bothered to stop looting at museums. The nation's infrastructure has been destroyed. Not to mention nuclear sites being looted. <sarcasm> Don't you just feel so safe now?</sarcasm>

The war has cost, as of more-or-less right now, $54,092,000,000*. That's enough to hire more than one million teachers. That isn't costly?

Saudi Arabia, an American ally, has been targeted by terrorists in the war's wake. Couldn't this be the first signs of even more destabilization in the region?

-Amy
* Number found here: http://www.costofwar.com/

[Commander-K25]

At 5/21/03 07:47 PM, arnamenta wrote: And the war with Iraq isn't costly?

I'm not saying that the war with Iraq was free of charge or consequence, but it was quick and relatively painless. Remember that in truly large wars millions die, not the thousands or ten thousands of casualties that occured in Iraq.

If we went to war with North Korea, it may very well go nuclear. How many shall die then? How much shall be destroyed? Do you think what happened in Iraq will measure up in comparison?

Not to mention that North Korea has a MUCH larger, better trained and better equipped army than Iraq could ever have hoped to muster.

[arnamenta]

Ah, I fear I wasn't terribly clear. I don't think going to war with North Korea is a great idea. I think going to war in Iraq was pretty dumb too. We should have allowed the UN to finish inspections, particularly in hindsight now that there's no real evidence of a WMD threat.

Also, wouldn't it be a good idea to bring North Korea to the forfront of national debate? If things go badly there, the consequences will be far more immediate and much worse. The public ignoring of N.Korea in favor of building up momentum for the war in Iraq was, I believe, a huge mistake. But the White House doesn't seem to understand right now that we don't in fact rule the world.

[Commander-K25]

At 5/21/03 09:20 PM, arnamenta wrote: Also, wouldn't it be a good idea to bring North Korea to the forfront of national debate? If things go badly there, the consequences will be far more immediate and much worse. The public ignoring of N.Korea in favor of building up momentum for the war in Iraq was, I believe, a huge mistake. But the White House doesn't seem to understand right now that we don't in fact rule the world.

I don't think that it's being ignored. Behind-the-scenes diplomacy and strategizing is definitely going on. Just because a public show isn't made does not mean that nothing is happening. It would be interesting if this brought the U.S. and China closer together.

[Lyddiechu]

I don't think that it's being ignored. Behind-the-scenes diplomacy and strategizing is definitely going on. Just because a public show isn't made does not mean that nothing is happening. It would be interesting if this brought the U.S. and China closer together.:

aha!! a poster after my own heart... if china and the us know what is good for them.. they will certainly work closely together in the future.. due to the employment choices of my family members and a resulting reserach project i did for my high school, i have gotten to see a lot of the hobnobbing between us/china diplomats... everyone in the two state departments seems pretty optimistic and most remarkably at the chinese national day party at their washington embassy there was a whole shitload of both us and chinese military brass chatting it up.. very encouraging.

who the fuck knows with sars now.. i was supposed to go back to china for 5 weeks this summer with some language program, but stanford cancelled that part of the trip b/c of it. waaah...

[arnamenta]

Seeing the US and China work more closely together would indeed be grand. I don't think it's very likely, however, with the way China's been covering up SARS. It's hard to trust a government that could do that. And the fact they're now willing to execute people in an attempt to stop the spread...that's just wrong.

Perhaps diplomacy doesn't *have* to be out in the open, but aren't we supposed to have an open government? I think the public should be made more involved in these things, not manipulated by being fed half-truths.

[mysecondstar]

i believe the US downplaying the Korean problem is a brilliant strategy. what the North Koreans want more than anything is attention. the best way to diffuse the situation is by making it seem less of a problem than it really is. there is no way the NK can support itself for more than a few more decades. then again it could be like another Cuba that can go on seemingly forever. but even they will come to eventually. Communism works in theory but it can never work in practice so long as human nature is still a part of humanity.

[TheShrike]

At 5/21/03 04:57 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: The situation is a miniature version of the Cold War and thus calls for cold war strategy, contain and undermine, not all out war which would be very costly to all sides involved as well as to the region as a whole.

Agreed. But then again, I'm all for any political strategy that does not involve outright war.

I think I've always been kinda iffy on the North Korea situation, but the current strategy is working better than any other could possibly hope to.

[House-Of-Leaves]

Mmm, such a nice thread to stir the brain. :)

I'm rather ambivalent about the war in Iraq now, pros and cons clash in my head, and the thought of another arms race just scares the shit out of me. N. Korea IS much more like the Soviet Union than Iraq, that much is very true.

I have no doubt that somewhere, sometime, there has been strategies talked about when trying to deal with what's going on in North Korea. I agree most with mysecondstar, in that North Korea, while wanting to arm itself to defend against attack, is also just -begging- for attention. It wants to play with the big boys of the world, and wants to be considered a superpower. The more attention it receives, the more power it sucks.

It will undoubtedly need to be dealt with, but how? If I knew that, I'd be...well. A politician. I don't have any idea how I'd deal with that, because my fear gets in the way. Invading like we did in the middle east would mean death for more than just thousands. I have no doubt that there's missles trained at some key areas in the US. Scary stuff.

[arnamenta]

I'm certainly not advocating war. I think war is proof of failure.

Consider this, however: if N.Korea is begging for attention, and feels they're being ignored...what might they do to make us take notice? Especially seeing how quickly we all noticed global terrorism after 9/11.

I certainly hope it doesn't come to that, but it's a possibility.

[mysecondstar]

i read something in TIME a while back. it was an editorial that basically spoke of a strategy of unconditional kindness. in a nut shell it said that if we opened ourselves to places like Iran, Iraq, Cuba, and North Korea, flood them with McDonalds and Chevys, that they would crack under the pressure of their own people wanting more. basically take what they did after the Shuttle/Soyuz docking and the flood of goodwill that followed between the Soviets and Americans. it works in theory and in practice. but the US has a bad ass reputation to hold. god forbid they should give that up...

[FUNKbrs]

At 5/28/03 12:37 AM, mysecondstar wrote: i read something in TIME a while back. it was an editorial that basically spoke of a strategy of unconditional kindness. in a nut shell it said that if we opened ourselves to places like Iran, Iraq, Cuba, and North Korea, flood them with McDonalds and Chevys, that they would crack under the pressure of their own people wanting more. basically take what they did after the Shuttle/Soyuz docking and the flood of goodwill that followed between the Soviets and Americans. it works in theory and in practice. but the US has a bad ass reputation to hold. god forbid they should give that up...

actually it was the Russians who invented that strategy. The famous quote "we will bury you" was actually meant to be an economic threat, not a military one. However, the definition of a superpower is economic strength, and not military strength (at least to me). If you notice, quite a bit of the backlash at America was directed at McDonald's, because America's world domination has always economic, instead of military. Everyone wants what we have, but they don't want to have to go through us to get it. Which is why NK built(?) a nuke in the first place, in order to be considered on the same military ground as the US, with all the economic power that implies.

[Commander-K25]

At 5/28/03 12:37 AM, mysecondstar wrote: i read something in TIME a while back. it was an editorial that basically spoke of a strategy of unconditional kindness. in a nut shell it said that if we opened ourselves to places like Iran, Iraq, Cuba, and North Korea, flood them with McDonalds and Chevys, that they would crack under the pressure of their own people wanting more.

It worked on Eastern Europe in the 80s. They realized, "Hey, America sells us great stuff and the government giuves us crap. Maybe we ought to warm up to the West a bit more."

[Dewbs789]

Yo guys must remember yes North Korea does have a single nuke and one of the lrest armies ever created, nd the nuke could reach the western coast. Remember even if they do lunach a nuke(who needs the wes coast anyway) america will unleah every last nuke we have and turn NK into a huge freakin crater and the leader of NK knows that and won't everluanch it unless under extreme pressure.The uke isonly there so that North Korea can look big and bad. And the army won't invade Sk because between the two nations is a freakin 5 mile wide mine field. So I don't think there jut going to run over the mines.

[Kenney333]

its not like north korea is planning a nuclear attack anytime soon, theyre not monsters,and lemme get this strait, your supporting how the cold war was handled

[antiqkk]

At 5/31/03 12:20 AM, Dewbs789 wrote: Yo guys must remember yes North Korea does have a single nuke and one of the lrest armies ever created, nd the nuke could reach the western coast. Remember even if they do lunach a nuke(who needs the wes coast anyway) america will unleah every last nuke we have and turn NK into a huge freakin crater and the leader of NK knows that and won't everluanch it unless under extreme pressure.The uke isonly there so that North Korea can look big and bad. And the army won't invade Sk because between the two nations is a freakin 5 mile wide mine field. So I don't think there jut going to run over the mines.

Yes they have the nuke so they can look big and the US won't just dared to run them over like Iraq.
Why does US have the nukes then? For peace reasons? No to look big as well.

[Commander-K25]

At 5/31/03 10:49 PM, Kenney333 wrote: its not like north korea is planning a nuclear attack anytime soon, theyre not monsters,and lemme get this strait, your supporting how the cold war was handled

Yes, to some extent I do. The contain and undermine strategy prevented a nuclear war that would likely have destroyed the world. I think the fact that we're all alive today say something to it's success.

[mysecondstar]

At 5/31/03 12:20 AM, Dewbs789 wrote: Yo guys must remember yes North Korea does have a single nuke and one of the lrest armies ever created, nd the nuke could reach the western coast. Remember even if they do lunach a nuke(who needs the wes coast anyway) america will unleah every last nuke we have and turn NK into a huge freakin crater and the leader of NK knows that and won't everluanch it unless under extreme pressure.The uke isonly there so that North Korea can look big and bad. And the army won't invade Sk because between the two nations is a freakin 5 mile wide mine field. So I don't think there jut going to run over the mines.

oh my where to begin...

we'll start with your nuke shinangian. no one will every dare use a nuke on anyone else. a nuke is more of a diplomatic tool than a weapon. nothing turns heads more than awe and fear. and the sheer thought of firing nukes on the Korean penninsula is laughable. the penninsula itself is so small that the radiation caused by a barrage of nuclear warheads would cause neaarly irreversable damage to the earth and the air. and one strong gust to the south will spread that radiation to the south. and if it goes far enough it will render Seoul (20 miles south of the DMZ) uninhabitable. that means displacing 20+ million people from one of the largest metropolises in the world. let's not forget about the long term effects on the people that are exposed.

and about this North Korean invasion, Seoul is 20 miles from the DMZ as i said. well withing artillery range. so that same metropolis that is in danger from radiation if a nuclear bomb were to be detonated across the border would be in danger of shelling as well. no easy answers.

[bumcheekcity]

At 5/21/03 08:32 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

At 5/21/03 07:47 PM, arnamenta wrote: And the war with Iraq isn't costly?

America gets their money back, and more some. I hear its oil mostly.

Now theres a suprise...

[fantom326]

At 5/21/03 04:57 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

Whereas Iraq was developing WMDS, N. Korea has them along with a very large army poised to invade a U.S. ally state South Korea.

they still havent porved that iraq had any "WMDs", did they, commader asshat?

[mysecondstar]

At 6/1/03 07:58 PM, fantom326 wrote:

At 5/21/03 04:57 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

Whereas Iraq was developing WMDS, N. Korea has them along with a very large army poised to invade a U.S. ally state South Korea.

they still havent porved that iraq had any "WMDs", did they, commader asshat?

there was proof from the first Gulf War and before that there were WMD. they used them on the Kurds. want more proof? nad the North Koreans have the technology and the resources to create ICBMs and outfit them with nuclear warheads. so don't be a dolt. pay more attention to the news and quit reading just the headlines.

[fantom326]

At 6/1/03 08:22 PM, mysecondstar wrote:

At 6/1/03 07:58 PM, fantom326 wrote:

At 5/21/03 04:57 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

Whereas Iraq was developing WMDS, N. Korea has them along with a very large army poised to invade a U.S. ally state South Korea.

they still havent porved that iraq had any "WMDs", did they, commader asshat?

there was proof from the first Gulf War and before that there were WMD. they used them on the Kurds. want more proof? nad the North Koreans have the technology and the resources to create ICBMs and outfit them with nuclear warheads. so don't be a dolt. pay more attention to the news and quit reading just the headlines.

yes, i know they used to have them. every dumbass flag waving yahoo uses that kurdish incident to bolster support for war. however, that was then, this is now. the UN had sent a decree to iraq for them to be destroyed after the gulf war. one of the supposed main reasons for us going over there was that we suspected that they still had the chemical weapons. however, they have still not yet been uncovered.

[Commander-K25]

At 6/1/03 07:58 PM, fantom326 wrote: they still havent porved that iraq had any "WMDs", did they, commader asshat?

If you could:

A) spell,

B) read what I wrote more carefully,

C) not jump to conclusions

and

D) not resort to petty personal attacks,

I might give you a real response.

[mysecondstar]

At 6/1/03 09:31 PM, fantom326 wrote: yes, i know they used to have them. every dumbass flag waving yahoo uses that kurdish incident to bolster support for war. however, that was then, this is now. the UN had sent a decree to iraq for them to be destroyed after the gulf war. one of the supposed main reasons for us going over there was that we suspected that they still had the chemical weapons. however, they have still not yet been uncovered.

i thought this was a North Korea thread. but here i go anyway.

the demanded that Iraq dispose of its WMD. but from then until now there has been no proof of cooperation from the Iraqis. so it would only makes sense that if they had them then and didn't destroy them since then they are still there. i'm just putting one and one together.

[fantom326]

At 6/1/03 09:46 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

At 6/1/03 07:58 PM, fantom326 wrote: they still havent porved that iraq had any "WMDs", did they, commader asshat?

If you could:

A) spell,

B) read what I wrote more carefully,

C) not jump to conclusions

and

D) not resort to petty personal attacks,

I might give you a real response.

good job pointing out petty grammatical mistakes i make while typing, asshole. i dont think i jumped to any conclusions, i just made a judgement using what i was given. maybe you should elaborate on your fucking statements if youre gonna blame me for being judgemental. and i didnt make any personal attacks, seeing as i dont know anything about you, all i did was call you a name.

[Commander-K25]

At 6/2/03 03:47 PM, fantom326 wrote: they still havent porved that iraq had any "WMDs", did they, commader asshat?

I will overlook your offensive attitude, pathetic name-calling and general n00bishness and give you a reply:

You seem to think that I'm am saying that Iraq had WMDs, even though this not related to the topic and you are very obviously picking a fight over a trivial piece of side information. Even if you don't believe that Iraq has or had WMDs leading up to Gulf War II, you can't deny that in their history, at some point, they were developing some. The UN even confirmed this after Gulf War I, that's why they were ordered to destroy them.

All, of this is irrelevant to the topic which happens to be North Korea. It was a piece of side information provided for comparison.

You won't get any more responses from me on this so discuss North Korea or:

[fantom326]

At 6/2/03 07:46 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

At 6/2/03 03:47 PM, fantom326 wrote: they still havent porved that iraq had any "WMDs", did they, commader asshat?

I will overlook your offensive attitude, pathetic name-calling and general n00bishness and give you a reply:

You seem to think that I'm am saying that Iraq had WMDs, even though this not related to the topic and you are very obviously picking a fight over a trivial piece of side information. Even if you don't believe that Iraq has or had WMDs leading up to Gulf War II, you can't deny that in their history, at some point, they were developing some. The UN even confirmed this after Gulf War I, that's why they were ordered to destroy them.

All, of this is irrelevant to the topic which happens to be North Korea. It was a piece of side information provided for comparison.

You won't get any more responses from me on this so discuss North Korea or:

look, asshole, i was just pointing something out. youre the one who started with the accusations of me using petty personal attacks and whatnot.

the issue is important because it reflects the stupidity of going in and invading a country because of an assumption. i suspect this is the same thing that will happen with iran, who looks to be the next great satan, and just as likely, NORTH KOREA, which is entirely relevant. fucking asshole. thats right, IM NAMECALLING YOU. PERSONAL ATTACK, YOU ARROGANT PRICK.

[fantom326]

At 6/1/03 09:49 PM, mysecondstar wrote:

At 6/1/03 09:31 PM, fantom326 wrote: yes, i know they used to have them. every dumbass flag waving yahoo uses that kurdish incident to bolster support for war. however, that was then, this is now. the UN had sent a decree to iraq for them to be destroyed after the gulf war. one of the supposed main reasons for us going over there was that we suspected that they still had the chemical weapons. however, they have still not yet been uncovered.

i thought this was a North Korea thread. but here i go anyway.

the demanded that Iraq dispose of its WMD. but from then until now there has been no proof of cooperation from the Iraqis. so it would only makes sense that if they had them then and didn't destroy them since then they are still there. i'm just putting one and one together.

you cant prove you DONT have something, thats simple orwellian doublespeak. it should be the inspectors job to prove that they are harboring the deadly arms, not iraq's job to prove that they destroyed them. i mean, youre saying theyre still there, but nothing was found. i wouldnt put it above bush to simply plant them there, either.