North Korea- - - -how concerned should we be?

[goldberry]

Also, another thought on why I personally take it seriously. We didn't end up in a nuclear war with Russia because both sides realized, as someone already said, they push the button, we push the button. But, that reasoning only applies when dealing with sane people. If you are dealing with someone who is not sane or reasonable, who says that reasoning will keep them from doing anything?

[Aslana]

Also, another thought on why I personally take it seriously. We didn't end up in a nuclear war with Russia because both sides realized, as someone already said, they push the button, we push the button. But, that reasoning only applies when dealing with sane people. If you are dealing with someone who is not sane or reasonable, who says that reasoning will keep them from doing anything?

 

Many of us have already answered this. There is too much at stake for the surrounding countries to let him do anything unreasonable. He won't be pushing any button because it doesn't exist, and whether he is insane or not does not matter. China and Russia and surrounding countries just are not going to let it get that far. They simply won't allow it. So he can be as insane as wants. No one is going to allow it.

[LibraryLover]

On facebook from a friend. :D

 

LOL. :)

[gardenmom5]

It was interesting to hear her ideas about the future possibility of a reunified Korea, too, whether it's possible or likely.

 

it will not go as smoothly as germany (which wasn't smooth), where both sides wanted it and it was relatively peacefully.

[Aslana]

it will not go as smoothly as germany (which wasn't smooth), where both sides wanted it and it was relatively peacefully.

 

I don't think it will go as horribly as some think. Yes, it would mean the absolute destruction and downfall of an entire regime (that's spans generations), but if reports are true, this won't take much either because Posturing Piglet has already eliminated many of those in his (and our way).

 

It may not be peaceful, but it won't be as bad as some think either.

[gardenmom5]

I don't think it will go as horribly as some think. Yes, it would mean the absolute destruction and downfall of an entire regime (that's spans generations), but if reports are true, this won't take much either because Posturing Piglet has already eliminated many of those in his (and our way).

 

It may not be peaceful, but it won't be as bad as some think either.

it shouldn't take long to take down the brat, I'm surprised his generals haven't done it yet. (though to be fair - he has killed a number of his father's generals and advisors and replaced them with synchophants.) china seems to be getting fed up with him too. not sure he realizes that.

 

the biggest problems with reunification will be an extreme lack of infrastructure and the people having to completely change how they think after living under a very oppressive regime for 50+ years.

 

 

eta: not sure where the mickey lover comes from. it was his older half-brother, the previous heir apparent, who was caught using a fake passport while sneaking into japan to go to disneyland tokyo. (and was 'disinherited').

[Runningmom80]

Forgive if this is a stupid question, but here is what I don't get. We invaded Iraq because they 'supposedly' had weapons of mass destruction (among other reasons, I know, but that was the tipping point supposedly). North Korea not only HAS nuclear capabilities, but has threatened the US directly. Posturing or not, how do we let that go? Why is this "no big deal" when the Iraq situation was an immediate threat to security?

 

I'm not sure how to answer this a-politically. :)

[Catwoman]

I'm not sure how to answer this a-politically. :)

 

I don't think there is a way to answer it a-politically... but if you manage to do it, I think you should get some sort of award. :D

[VeritasMama]

 

 

I don't think there is a way to answer it a-politically... but if you manage to do it, I think you should get some sort of award. :D

 

 

I'm not commenting on the Iraq situation ( as to whether or not it was necessary) but one difference between the two regimes is that Iraq had no real allies to speak of, at least not powerful allies willing to take a stand in their favor. We can't just march into North Korea, China, and in the past, and now to a lesser extent, Russia stand in the way. It is a cease fire, we're technically still in a state of conflict with them, and the past 50 years have been spent trying to make sure NK is simply too weak to do anything destructive. China also has a vested interest in keeping NK in line, and so we have been able to rely on them to do much of our dirty work.

[Catwoman]

I'm not commenting on the Iraq situation ( as to whether or not it was necessary) but one difference between the two regimes is that Iraq had no real allies to speak of, at least not powerful allies willing to take a stand in their favor. We can't just march into North Korea, China, and in the past, and now to a lesser extent, Russia stand in the way. It is a cease fire, we're technically still in a state of conflict with them, and the past 50 years have been spent trying to make sure NK is simply too weak to do anything destructive. China also has a vested interest in keeping NK in line, and so we have been able to rely on them to do much of our dirty work.

 

 

:party: :party: :party:

 

You did it! You win the award!!!

 

(I really didn't think anyone would be able to do it without commenting on the Iraq stuff.)

[Heather in Neverland]

Ok, given that this is the WTM boards... am I the only one who dug out SOTW4 to get a little more background on this? Because I honestly have no recollection whatsoever of studying the Korean War at all. And that's with multiple college level US history courses as well as standard high school world history.

 

I mean, I'm sure we studied it, but I think we were rushing to get through history at that point and it was overshadowed by WWII and Vietnam.

 

My knowledge of the Korean War came from watching MASH as a child. :)

[PeacefulChaos]

I just hope he leaves SK alone, too.

I'm not particularly concerned about the US.

[Laurie4b]

Forgive if this is a stupid question, but here is what I don't get. We invaded Iraq because they 'supposedly' had weapons of mass destruction (among other reasons, I know, but that was the tipping point supposedly). North Korea not only HAS nuclear capabilities, but has threatened the US directly. Posturing or not, how do we let that go? Why is this "no big deal" when the Iraq situation was an immediate threat to security?

 

 

Maybe because this is par for the course with North Korea--lots of saber-rattling, no action. The saber-rattling has cultural-political explanations that explain the threats. It's like the Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf. Who listens after a while? (On the other hand, one can't entirely be sure there isn't a wolf , so we deployed defensive power, which seems wise but not overkill.)

[1bassoon]

:party: :party: :party:

 

You did it! You win the award!!!

 

(I really didn't think anyone would be able to do it without commenting on the Iraq stuff.)

 

Does she get a kilt, or a cupcake?

 

Nicely played, VeritasMama, nicely played.

[VeritasMama]

 

 

How about a cupcake delivered by a guy in a kilt?

 

This sounds perfect to me, but can I request it be a red velvet cupcake?

[Catwoman]

My contacts are telling me that we should worry about Guam.

 

Reported.

 

Here we go again with the Copy & Paste Troll.

 

This person needs to get a life. Or be sent to North Korea.

[Spy Car]

Forgive if this is a stupid question, but here is what I don't get. We invaded Iraq because they 'supposedly' had weapons of mass destruction (among other reasons, I know, but that was the tipping point supposedly). North Korea not only HAS nuclear capabilities, but has threatened the US directly. Posturing or not, how do we let that go? Why is this "no big deal" when the Iraq situation was an immediate threat to security?

 

 

 

I don't think there is a way to answer it a-politically... but if you manage to do it, I think you should get some sort of award. :D

 

 

I was totally ready to take on this challenge when I saw...

 

 

 

I'm not commenting on the Iraq situation ( as to whether or not it was necessary) but one difference between the two regimes is that Iraq had no real allies to speak of, at least not powerful allies willing to take a stand in their favor. We can't just march into North Korea, China, and in the past, and now to a lesser extent, Russia stand in the way. It is a cease fire, we're technically still in a state of conflict with them, and the past 50 years have been spent trying to make sure NK is simply too weak to do anything destructive. China also has a vested interest in keeping NK in line, and so we have been able to rely on them to do much of our dirty work.

 

 

Very astute post.

 

I'd amplify a few points, and add a few of my own.

 

Saddam's Iraq not only had no allies (although Russia, France, and even the US made money supplying Iraq weaponry) they had a lot of regional enemies.

 

Remember that Iran had fought a protracted war with Iraq (which was launched by Saddam). This was a very bloody affair. IMS estimates are between 650,000 to over a million people were killed in that conflict. There was real enmity there. And while we might be "the Great Satan" to some in Theran, Saddam was worse. The Iranians knew that if the US overthrew Saddam that is would be very likely that his Baathist government (which was dominated by a Sunnite majority) would be replaced by a majority Shi'a government. It was very much in Iran's interest (geo-political and theological) to have a brother Shite state that would look towards Iran for guidance, rather than the arch-enemy Saddam.

 

So while Iran was somewhat discomforted to have US troops on two of their borders (Afghanistan also borders Iran) they were none-the-less delighted the US was dislodging its biggest regional threat ( Saddam) and potentially installing a Shite government that might become an Iranian client state. They could not believe their good fortune.

 

The Kuwaitis had been raped by Saddam. They were thrilled to be a launching ground for the invasion.

 

The Saudis felt threatened by Saddam as well. They did (and do) object to the idea that Iraq would go from a Sunni dominated state to one dominated by Shia, but Saddam was not a friend. Syria and Iraq were on bad terms. Jordan would have preferred a Sunni state remain in Iraq, but would not stick their necks out to save Saddam.

 

So Iraq was alone. They really did not have much capacity to cause harm (especially given their ultimate lack of WMDs) especially when facing the United States military and our allies. Saddam's army was easily crushed with low casulties in terrain that was perfect in matching our capacity to destroy. His tanks and open positions of his military encampment made Iraqi troops "sitting ducks."

 

Not to mention that Iraq not only sits on a huge oil reserve, but is at the head of the Persian Gulf (through which much of the world's oil flows), so Saddam was potentially destabilizing to the world economy. So there was "incentive" to act in our "vital interests," and a we faced a war we believed we could easily win, and we were in a post-911 mode where we wanted to hit back somewhere.

 

North Korea is a very different kettle of fish. The Chinese "alliance" (which is many ways a head-ache for China) is only one part of the problem.

 

Another huge (but often ignored by the press) problem is NKs conventional military capacity, most especially their huge artillery infrastructure. North Korea has a vast complex of hardened artillery pieces. If memory serves the estimates I recall from several years back were more than 13,000 sites. Even if we could eventually overwhelm the North Korean army (which we could) it would take some time to destroy so many hardened sites. Some military estimates are that in that time NK artillery fire could destroy much of Seoul (which is close to the DMZ) and that a million South Koreans might perish. Some some military analysts think these casualty estimates are exaggerated, but in the best case there would be terrible loss of life and propery in th capital city of one of the world's most booming economies.

 

Not to mention nuclear weapons. NK might not have them miniaturized enough to launch on missiles, or missiles they can launch reliably or with reliable accuracy, but on their own territory? They could certainly detonate their nuclear arsenal. And would anyone be surprised if North Korea has biological or chemical weapons?

 

And there is no "vital interest" in invading North Korea. We have a vital interest in protecting South Korea, but a war with North Korea (even a short and victorious one for us) could be devastating for South Korea. And after we "won," we and South Korea would "own it." Expensive proposition.

 

So do we treat emerging threats differently (depending on what we can do about it)? You bet!

 

There are reasons firmly behind the differing reactions. The overal circumstances are quite different even if some of the threats (real and imagined) are similar.

 

Bill

[Aslana]

 

What do you think he'd possibly try to do? They know just as well as anyone else that any real provocation (not just words) would lead to their total destruction. They may have the bomb, but their arsenal is still puny compared to the USA. Why do they act in this crazy manner? Probably some internal power struggle, I'd guess. Also, if they had not been acting like this for the last few decades and didn't have the bomb, they'd be long gone already.

 

See Spy Car's post above. He's spot on with "what he'd possibly try to do". He simply does not have what he claims--which is why it is posturing. But he does have something and even if we did know what that something was exactly, we still know he's not as much of a threat to US and to most of the world as he claims.

 

Yes, he could decimate local area, including his own. But that's about all he could do and we'd come in and help repair so that China, Russia, and other surrounding areas don't have to deal with the fall-out.

[Aslana]

I'm not sure why you are picking on me, but I am one of the ones who originally said almost exactly what you are saying now. Way back on page one. And I said it in response to several different questions.

[goldberry]

 

So do we treat emerging threats differently (depending on what we can do about it)? You bet!

 

There a reasons firmly behind the differing reactions. The overal circumstances are quite different even if some of the threats (real and imagined) are similar.

 

Bill

 

 

Thanks, concise and informative answer.

[myfunnybunch]

we'd come in and help repair so that China, Russia, and other surrounding areas don't have to deal with the fall-out.

 

 

This is a huge part of the issue, however. Yeah, we could probably wipe him out pretty quickly. But do we want to get involved in having to rebuild and repair? Can we afford it? Aside from the fact that they're right next door to SK, who would likely suffer a great deal of "if we're going down, you are too" damage, South Korea is very concerned about the economic impact of a complete North Korean collapse, whether it happens as a result of outside intervention or not.

 

Cat

[Aslana]

 

This is a huge part of the issue, however. Yeah, we could probably wipe him out pretty quickly. But do we want to get involved in having to rebuild and repair? Can we afford it? Aside from the fact that they're right next door to SK, who would likely suffer a great deal of "if we're going down, you are too" damage, South Korea is very concerned about the economic impact of a complete North Korean collapse, whether it happens as a result of outside intervention or not.

 

Cat

 

 

 

I do understand that but what I meant by us coming in and helping with the fallout is that we wouldn't necessarily give all the money towards repair or all the time or all of anything. I could see us bargaining with China in such a way that relieves our debt to them if we offer to help out with this. I could see that. No, we aren't going to fight China or Russia and no, we aren't going to shoulder all of the clean up so to speak, but I can see us stepping in to offer this if it meant relieving trillions in debt to the nation.

 

And yes, SK is concerned about the economic impact--I do get that too. But I think this is one instance where all parties involved--even if we do not like each other--will work together to get rid of that thing we loathe the most.

[Ameena]

 

 

I do understand that but what I meant by us coming in and helping with the fallout is that we wouldn't necessarily give all the money towards repair or all the time or all of anything. I could see us bargaining with China in such a way that relieves our debt to them if we offer to help out with this. I could see that. No, we aren't going to fight China or Russia and no, we aren't going to shoulder all of the clean up so to speak, but I can see us stepping in to offer this if it meant relieving trillions in debt to the nation.

 

And yes, SK is concerned about the economic impact--I do get that too. But I think this is one instance where all parties involved--even if we do not like each other--will work together to get rid of that thing we loathe the most.

 

 

This.

 

Or I could see China and possibly Russia getting uneasy over NK instability, and making a deal with the US to forgive all or part of the debt if the US would come in and "take care of the problem" by lending forces & aid. That way China wouldn't look bad for starting a war, and everyone {except NK} would go away happy to not have to deal with a mentally unstable county. Kinda like how the scrawny kid getting beat up at school by a small bully employs a bigger bully {or older brother} to take care of the smaller bully.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

 

This.

 

Or I could see China and possibly Russia getting uneasy over NK instability, and making a deal with the US to forgive all or part of the debt if the US would come in and "take care of the problem" by lending forces & aid. That way China wouldn't look bad for starting a war, and everyone {except NK} would go away happy to not have to deal with a mentally unstable county. Kinda like how the scrawny kid getting beat up at school by a small bully employs a bigger bully {or older brother} to take care of the smaller bully.

 

Not this.

 

China owns around 8% of US debt. The amount of US debt owned outside of the US by foreign governments is vastly over stated.

[Ameena]

 

Not this.

 

China owns around 8% of US debt. The amount of US debt owned outside of the US by foreign governments is vastly over stated.

 

True, but here we are not looking at JUST China's portion. If it were to happen, I'm betting it would be a group effort from the countries threatened by NK. When you add up the amount of national debt owned by China, SK, Russia, Japan, & Hong Kong {which I'm considering part of China as they are now}, you get nearly HALF the national debt owned by foreign countries. So around 20% of the total national debt would be wiped out - maybe more if other countries like SIngapore joined in. We can safely say it would be somewhere between 15% and 25%, which is a pretty good sized chunk. In this age of budget cuts and unbalanced US budgets, I think the US would jump at the possibility of wiping out such a large chunk of the debt. Especially if it happened in an election year.

 

Plus, war makes money. It's sad but true - war = jobs both for servicemembers & civilians at home and abroad, plus then you have the trickle-down into industries that support the war effort. ALL of which are currently being cut back due to budget shortfalls. It's a big part of what finally brought us out of the Great Depression - WWII. And Jobs are a BIG issue here, as is the dislike for the current military cutbacks. A good active war, sponsored by several of the Asian nations, could be just what the USA needs to finally kick this long recession / depression.

 

Note I said ACTIVE war - while yes the Iraq / OEF / whatever they are calling it now war was a war, I do not consider it an active war in the same way as say WWI or WWII or even Vietnam when much much more industry & manpower was devoted to the war effort. The current Iraq war always seemed to me to just be a reallocation of resources rather than a large industry & job maker. And yes, I live in a military town FWIW and come from a Military family. Sorry if that offends anyone.

[Spy Car]

 

 

 

This.

 

Or I could see China and possibly Russia getting uneasy over NK instability, and making a deal with the US to forgive all or part of the debt if the US would come in and "take care of the problem" by lending forces & aid. That way China wouldn't look bad for starting a war, and everyone {except NK} would go away happy to not have to deal with a mentally unstable county. Kinda like how the scrawny kid getting beat up at school by a small bully employs a bigger bully {or older brother} to take care of the smaller bully.

 

I really can't imagine a scenario where China (and/or Russia) would pay for a US military adventure where we use our forces to overthrow one of their nominal allies. That is not doing to happen.

 

Bill

[SKL]

I don't believe in worrying about things I've no control over, and this certainly qualifies under that criterion. As far as history, I'm not a war buff, but I remember recent examples such as "Mother of All Wars" and "We had no idea the Libyans were planning that." Blowing hot air? Maybe. A threat we aren't sufficiently clued in on? Maybe. Regardless, I can't do anything about it, and I don't have room in my brain for that right now. Maybe after my sinuses clear . . . and I get through the over 1,600 action items in my inbox . . . .

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

True, but here we are not looking at JUST China's portion. If it were to happen, I'm betting it would be a group effort from the countries threatened by NK. When you add up the amount of national debt owned by China, SK, Russia, Japan, & Hong Kong {which I'm considering part of China as they are now}, you get nearly HALF the national debt owned by foreign countries. So around 20% of the total national debt would be wiped out - maybe more if other countries like SIngapore joined in. We can safely say it would be somewhere between 15% and 25%, which is a pretty good sized chunk. In this age of budget cuts and unbalanced US budgets, I think the US would jump at the possibility of wiping out such a large chunk of the debt. Especially if it happened in an election year.

 

No offense, but I don't believe you quite understand exactly how those debt securities work. And no, I don't believe the US government would openly admit going to war against NK to offset less than 20% of our total debt obligations.

[gardenmom5]

I think this is one instance where all parties involved--even if we do not like each other--will work together to get rid of that thing we loathe the most.

 

 

the whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"? except once that common enemy is gone, things don't go so well.

[treestarfae]

Anybody watching the news lately on this?

[Aslana]

Yes and even though it appears as though he's "poised and ready", he won't get very far. We've got people in places he never knew existed. China has people, Russia, Japan, South Korea--we all have people in places he doesn't know about--we will take him out before he does us.

[Melissa in Australia]

changed my mind, decided not to post :coolgleamA: