[torsoboy]

North Korea has once again tested a nuclear weapon, this time it was the size of the A-bomb dropped on Nagasaki: Link

With their ever increasing hostility to the rest of the world, and their nuclear capabilities, what do you think should be done?

[shifuimam]

Hostile takeover?

There's a picture on Wikipedia of Madeline Albright visiting North Korea and shaking hands with Kim Il-Jong II in some sort of diplomatic visit. That photo just pissed me off - diplomacy is not going to work with someone who amounts to an insane, corrupt, power-hungry, totalitarian dictator. The guy needs to be put up against a wall and shot. He's responsible for an enormous quantity of human rights violations against his own people - more than even Fidel Castro.

Calm measures and diplomacy aren't going to work. Remember how the US nuked Japan in order to end World War II? Such a drastic and violent measure ultimately was required to end the war. Seems like some similar measure needs to be taken against North Korea. It would end innocent lives there, but it would also have the much longer-term effect of ending the totalitarian chokehold the government has on its people in that country.

[torsoboy]

The innocent lives lost would be very sad, but the remainder of the country would finally be free from their tyrannical leader. They would learn that they don't have to be in poverty their whole lives... they could open the border with South Korea and start to live fulfilling lives.

China would be pissed though.

[Kerrigan]

America has a duty to protect Japan from wanton nuclear intimidation (ironic, isn't it?).

On that basis, Obama needs to show Korea that America is not bluffing.

I think that Obama needs to send in aircraft carriers (that always frightens dictators), and then vow to shoot down any further test missiles.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Hostile takeover?

There's a picture on Wikipedia of Madeline Albright visiting North Korea and shaking hands with Kim Il-Jong II in some sort of diplomatic visit. That photo just pissed me off - diplomacy is not going to work with someone who amounts to an insane, corrupt, power-hungry, totalitarian dictator. The guy needs to be put up against a wall and shot. He's responsible for an enormous quantity of human rights violations against his own people - more than even Fidel Castro.

Calm measures and diplomacy aren't going to work. Remember how the US nuked Japan in order to end World War II? Such a drastic and violent measure ultimately was required to end the war. Seems like some similar measure needs to be taken against North Korea. It would end innocent lives there, but it would also have the much longer-term effect of ending the totalitarian chokehold the government has on its people in that country.

was it this one?


as far as bombing the plant, it shouldn't be too hard to find.

[ghporter]

In addition to adding sanctions, (which is what I voted for) we should do three other things. Cut off ALL food aid, blanket the country with broadcasts they can't jam letting the North Korean people know that Whack Job II, their "beloved leader" is playing games with THEIR food, and if they continue to produce enriched uranium, bomb the crap out of their production facilities because they have demonstrated that they intend to use those facilities to blackmail everyone around them.

The North Korean people are just pawns to Kim Jong-il; he's proven that time and again. HIS interests should be interdicted, not theirs.

[besson3c]

Why does it have to be all on us? There are reasons why many other countries have a vested interest in this as well and might be willing to take the same sorts of actions being proposed here. I say team up with several other countries if we are going to do anything at all, the last thing we want is another expensive unilateral war. We aren't the only country with a military.

[dcmacdaddy]

Where is the option to choose:

A nuclear North Korea is a problem primarily for South Korea, China, Japan and other Asian countries and NOT a problem for the United States.

[ort888]

What are we supposed to do? Attack? We're already fighting two wars. We're not the world's police force. Human rights violations are going on all over the world. We just can't fix them all.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

In addition to adding sanctions, (which is what I voted for) we should do three other things. Cut off ALL food aid, blanket the country with broadcasts they can't jam letting the North Korean people know that Whack Job II, their "beloved leader" is playing games with THEIR food, and if they continue to produce enriched uranium, bomb the crap out of their production facilities because they have demonstrated that they intend to use those facilities to blackmail everyone around them..

And so much for Seoul...

[Tiresias]

Tell them that what they are doing is wrong, but do nothing further.
Keep adding on new sanctions... eventually they will have to comply.
Nothing. They are an independent country and can do what they want.

99.99 percent of South Koreans would elect one of these three options, and probably the first or last. The overthrow of the Great Leader's regime would have a significant and negative effect on the economic and social stability of South Korea. For one, there would be a sudden migration of unskilled North Koreans into the prosperous South; the emergence of a second-class citizenry; an enormous tax burden; increased unemployment; crime; instability, etc.

Most South Koreans, understandably, prefer things just the way they are, thank you very much—and the Imperialistic American mythos of redemptive violence be damned!

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why does it have to be all on us? There are reasons why many other countries have a vested interest in this as well and might be willing to take the same sorts of actions being proposed here. I say team up with several other countries if we are going to do anything at all, the last thing we want is another expensive unilateral war. We aren't the only country with a military.

No, but it does seem like we have a stronger military and more financial and people resources than other first-world countries.

I think that as the most powerful country on the planet, we have an obligation to extend aid to other countries in need of assistance of all kinds. In the case of North Korea, it's about damn time someone does something to free the citizens from the stunning oppression they've endured for so long.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

No, but it does seem like we have a stronger military and more financial and people resources than other first-world countries.

Is our "stronger military" the one fighting two wars simultaneously and many of the soldiers on their third or fourth tour?
I think our "financial and people resources" are nothing to brag about in compared to other first-world countries. Or are you forgetting how our financial system melted down last year and took an existing financial crisis (mortgage failures) and turned it into a global financial crisis.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I think that as the most powerful country on the planet, we have an obligation to extend aid to other countries in need of assistance of all kinds. In the case of North Korea, it's about damn time someone does something to free the citizens from the stunning oppression they've endured for so long.

What do you think makes us the "most powerful country on the planet"?

And if "we have an obligation to extend aid to other countries in need of assistance of all kinds" why haven't we done anything to resolve the crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan or helped to restore a working political structure to Somalia? I would much rather see the US military helping to restore a stable political structure in Sudan or Somalia then make plans to fight a war (nuclear or otherwise) with North Korea.

[Dakar V]

Time travel back to 2003 and invade them instead?

Under the realm of possible options, I'm undecided. I thought that train wreck a few years back was an assassination attempt gone awry.

[mattyb]

I'd fly over the country with a B-52 filled with South Korean newspapers and magazines - and then drop the whole load over the most densely populated areas.

I was tempted to suggest DVDs or CDs as well but I get the impression that 99.9% of the population don't have access to the proper equipment.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why does it have to be all on us? There are reasons why many other countries have a vested interest in this as well and might be willing to take the same sorts of actions being proposed here. I say team up with several other countries if we are going to do anything at all, the last thing we want is another expensive unilateral war. We aren't the only country with a military.

There is a bit of a problem with Japan doing anything militarily against North Korea.
Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The full text of the article in Japanese:
“ 第九条　日本国民は、正義と秩序を� �調とする国際平和を誠実に希求し、� ��権の発動たる戦争と、武力による威 嚇又は武力の行使は、国際紛争を解� �する手段としては、永久にこれを放� ��する。

二　前項の目的を達するため、陸海� �軍その他の戦力は、これを保持しな� ��。国の交戦権は、これを認めない。
”

The official English translation of the article reads:
“ ARTICLE 9. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. (2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized. ”

There are those in Japan the want the "Japan Self-Defense Forces" dismantled because it violates article 9. The "Japan Self-Defense Forces" were created as part of the national police ( loophole) in response to the Korean Police Action (which is officially in a cease fire) and the creation of communist China.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Where is the option to choose:

A nuclear North Korea is a problem primarily for South Korea, China, Japan and other Asian countries and NOT a problem for the United States.

China's their only friend.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

China's their only friend.

Yeah, I know that. But I wouldn't put it past Kim Jong-Il or one of his military leaders to go after China (in addition to South Korea) if they ever decided to use their nuclear weapons.

I expect China has a plan to block the NK border and in case of some crisis of leadership when Kim dies. I can envision the Chinese government not wanting hordes of North Koreans pouring over the border if/when the dictatorial leadership structure of North Korea collapses.

[ghporter]

Tiresias makes a great point. Before the North Korean people are prepared to integrate into a free, united Korea, they need preparation. They need skills. They need jobs to practice those skills. They need nutrition so that they can handle the kind of work unskilled and semi-skilled people do in Korea. They could stand to grow several inches as a people-last time I saw the number it was something like North Koreans are 3 or 4 inches shorter than their southern counterparts, all due to malnutrition.

In short, removing Kim from power and just arbitrarily merging the two states would NOT be a good thing. This is why I suggested adding sanctions and allowing the northern population to find out who's responsible for their hunger. I suggested military action against their nuclear facilities only because it would seriously reduce their ability to harass or blackmail their neighbors. I for one did NOT suggest bombing the crap out of the country, nor assassinating Kim-who I think is better handled by an angry North Korean mob that knows what he's done to them and their families. Think of Musolini or Ceauşescu...

[torsoboy]

They fired more missiles today, after they had been condemned by the UN. Story: North Korea fires more rockets | Reuters

It seems like they are preparing for some sort of action, and are saying to the rest of the world, "bring it on." Though they would surely lose. Very quickly. There may be 1 million people in their army, but 1 million starving soldiers can't defend against missiles fired from hundreds of miles away with pinpoint accuracy.

My choice is to bomb the nuclear facilities, and all of their underground missile systems so that this madness will stop. They can declare war with America if they want, but lets see them try to get their soldiers to our soil to act on that declaration. Destroy their missile capabilities, and then let them stew about it. When they build up their weapon system again, do it again.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

No, but it does seem like we have a stronger military and more financial and people resources than other first-world countries.

I think that as the most powerful country on the planet, we have an obligation to extend aid to other countries in need of assistance of all kinds. In the case of North Korea, it's about damn time someone does something to free the citizens from the stunning oppression they've endured for so long.

I think the military of, say, China, is quite capable.

Why is it that some Republicans are comfortable with offering military aid everywhere, but not so much domestic financial aid? Many of the same arguments used against welfare could be used against foreign aid, no?

[OAW]

All of those advocating the bombing of North Korea have yet to mention the logical consequence of such an action. Specifically, the conventional missile and artillery attack on Seoul by the North that would certainly follow. That, of course, would lead to all-out war on the Korean Peninsula. Would the North lose? Without question. However, as our situation in Iraq and Afghanistan have so clearly demonstrated .... it's one thing to win the war by defeating an opposing army. It's quite another to control and provide security for a population of millions after said "victory".

OAW

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Tiresias makes a great point. Before the North Korean people are prepared to integrate into a free, united Korea, they need preparation. They need skills. They need jobs to practice those skills. They need nutrition so that they can handle the kind of work unskilled and semi-skilled people do in Korea. They could stand to grow several inches as a people-last time I saw the number it was something like North Koreans are 3 or 4 inches shorter than their southern counterparts, all due to malnutrition.

In short, removing Kim from power and just arbitrarily merging the two states would NOT be a good thing. This is why I suggested adding sanctions and allowing the northern population to find out who's responsible for their hunger. I suggested military action against their nuclear facilities only because it would seriously reduce their ability to harass or blackmail their neighbors. I for one did NOT suggest bombing the crap out of the country, nor assassinating Kim-who I think is better handled by an angry North Korean mob that knows what he's done to them and their families. Think of Musolini or Ceauşescu...

Kim intentionally keeps himself strong and his people weak. You may as well hope that the ants notice who keeps spraying them with Raid.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why does it have to be all on us? ........... I say team up with several other countries if we are going to do anything at all, the last thing we want is another expensive unilateral war. We aren't the only country with a military.

It doesn't have to be but the EU member nations are worthless.
They won't even commit the troops and resources to take care of the situations in Africa. The rest of the Western nations love to whine and posture about the troubles in the world but stay at arm's length when it comes to involvement. I am sure the UN will be all over this nuke thing in North Korea and all will be well

[besson3c]

Also, the whole problem with offering military aid is that in general it is usually not a selfless act but something that is based on our own political strategic interests. I think that the people receiving this aid see this and know this, and therefore wouldn't be inclined to see our help as actual aid unless this could be overlooked in comparison to the alternatives.

When does aid become some sort of invasion? Was removing Saddam Hussein an act of aid or invasion?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Kim intentionally keeps himself strong and his people weak. You may as well hope that the ants notice who keeps spraying them with Raid.

Very true. I didn't say my idea would work, just that that's what I think should be done.

[Zeeb]

The North Koreans aren't at the point where they would be able to deliver a nuke to the U.S. so this isn't our concern yet. Since the United States is forever demonized for any military action it takes(sometimes deserved & sometimes not), my opinion is to let North Korea's neighbors sort it out. We also can't afford it--let someone else pay for it.

On the other hand, Obama might use an incident like this to prove he's got teeth and bomb the nuclear facilities anyway. Currently, he's been a tad too diplomatic and runs the risk of being viewed as a softie.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think the military of, say, China, is quite capable.

Why is it that some Republicans are comfortable with offering military aid everywhere, but not so much domestic financial aid? Many of the same arguments used against welfare could be used against foreign aid, no?

Not really. Doling out welfare checks to single mothers isn't remotely the same as trying to stop genocide or severe oppression in another country. In the case of domestic aid, you're talking about giving money to people who ultimately do have a choice not to accept it and instead support themselves. In the case of places like North Korea, you're talking about a country whose entire population has no choice but to live under an oppressive totalitarian regime.

Broke people in the United States have it damn easy compared to other countries. I'd much rather see my tax dollars going to people who actually need it - you know, people in third-world countries dying of starvation and exposure and illnesses that have long been eradicated in the United States.

[shifuimam]

Also: North Korea launched two short-range missiles in the wee hours of May 26.

They're asking for trouble, and they know it.

[PB2K]

They should use a tactical EMP to scare the hell out of the North Korean elite

it won't cost lives but the country's military will be in ruins for years. Propaganda will also fail and ordinary people might start to revolt

[torsoboy]

Well, they (North Korea) have now said that if South Korea stops any of their cargo ships to check for weapon materials, they will react with a military strike against them. I think their leader is feeling his age, and wants to see some action before he dies. He is pushing for war, and is praying for something that will allow him to send in the troops.

BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | N Korea threatens military action

All of their top military leaders need to be taken out of the picture.

[OreoCookie]

My thoughts on this:
(1) Strong-arm China behind closed doors into giving up blocking sanctions and such. Without having China on board, it's pretty much pointless to move against North Korea. China could accidentally turn off the gas supply (`for unexpected maintenance') as it did once not too long ago.
(2) Erode power by natural means. To openly attack a country with nuclear capabilities is irresponsible. One creative way would be to convince China to stop turning back North Koreans (who illegally work in China, yes, they're that poor) and instead move them to, say, South Korea. At one point the North Korean government has to make a decision: either curb the exodus by force or to accept that people leave. This was one main contributing factor to the fall of the iron curtain.
(3) Make North Korea even more dependent on foreign aid. That has also worked rather well in Germany, in the end, the GDR was dependent on money from Western Germany to pay for election time presents and sustenance of the state. This also gives more leverage in negotiations.
(4) Contain the problem until Kim Jong Il is about to (or forced to) hand over power.

[Wiskedjak]

As fun as it is to have wet dreams about a nuclear war with N. Korea, I don't think there's much that can be done militarily. The risk that N. Korea might be able to counter attack with a nuclear weapon is simply too great. Even Bush was unwilling to take military action against them. Nevermind the justifications; has N. Korea stated any threats against any countries?

I don't think the options extend much beyond those outlined by OreoCookie above.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

It doesn't have to be but the EU member nations are worthless.
They won't even commit the troops and resources to take care of the situations in Africa. The rest of the Western nations love to whine and posture about the troubles in the world but stay at arm's length when it comes to involvement. I am sure the UN will be all over this nuke thing in North Korea and all will be well

QFT

I have to say that Obama's strategy thus far is not so bad. He's moving forward with the plan to seize all NKorea ships with WMDs on board. NKorea is bitching about how this constitutes an act of war and they will respond with military strikes, but something tells me they will bend over and take it.

This is a much better strategy than the Clinton/Bush policy of wining and dining Korea, giving them more money and aid and expecting them to keep their promises.

[turtle777]

My vote: make a parking lot out of North Korea.

And they don't have / need a store to go with it

-t

[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

My vote: make a parking lot out of North Korea.

And they don't have / need a store to go with it

-t

Something tells me our allies in South Korea and Japan wouldn't appreciate the "fallout" from such a move. Not to mention the Chinese.

OAW

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

QFT

I have to say that Obama's strategy thus far is not so bad. He's moving forward with the plan to seize all NKorea ships with WMDs on board. NKorea is bitching about how this constitutes an act of war and they will respond with military strikes, but something tells me they will bend over and take it.

This is a much better strategy than the Clinton/Bush policy of wining and dining Korea, giving them more money and aid and expecting them to keep their promises.

I was reading a PDF of Madeleine Albright's visit to North Korea during her tenure as Secretary of State under Clinton. During her talk with Kim Jong Il, he agreed that they wouldn't develop nuclear weapons (I think - I'd have to go back and find the document). Anyone who believes a word that comes out of that whack job's mouth is a fool.

[OreoCookie]

I think it's naive to think that Albright (or anyone else involved) has believed Kim Jong Il.

[Kerrigan]

London Times says it nicely:

The US-North Korean Agreed Framework, devised in 1994 through the diplomacy of the former President Jimmy Carter, was supposed to ensure that North Korea would shut down its nuclear facilities in return for the delivery of 500,000 tons of heavy oil and the construction of two light-water nuclear reactors.

Such feckless naivety undermined Western security. North Korea merely resumed a secret programme for the enrichment of uranium, reopened its nuclear facilities at Yongbyon and withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

[....]

All that is now open to the Western powers is an awareness of the threat, recognition of the character of the regime, stringent sanctions and willingness to interdict North Korean shipping and air traffic that might carry nuclear materials. It will be a long wait. There is no other course.

[olePigeon]

North Korea just stated it would commit full military force against the U.S. and South Korea if we continued to search North Korean vessels for banned materials.

This is getting worse and worse. Hope Obama's ready to be the next Nixon (in terms of diplomacy, obviously.)

[Kerrigan]

I don't think it's too much to worry about. They are always saying that this or that constitutes an act of war.

North Korea, not even with the full support of China, wants a war with the US and its allies. The US and Japan are the two biggest economies in the world. Japan could re-militarize in a heartbeat, and between these two countries there is not a single other group of nations that could keep up in a war.

So my point is that America's position in the Pacific is still sufficiently strong to be a deterrent for North Korea and China.

[ghporter]

Were North Korea to take any military action against South Korea, the results would be extremely devastating. Much of South Korea would be damaged, but the north could literally be wiped out. Action against the south could be seen as an act of war against their neighbors; while there is no real alliance between Japan and South Korea on this, if Kim attacks the south, Japan should feel like the next target.

So say Kim lobs some of his low-dollar SCUDS at Seoul. He blows up a lot of real estate and kills a bunch of civilians. Before the missiles hit, both the ROK and US forces in the peninsula would be ready to launch a retaliatory strike that would cripple both DPRK military forces AND what pitiful infrastructure exists in the north. Fewer people killed, but a significantly bigger strategic effect. And Kim knows this. The question is, is he psychotic enough to think he can get anywhere by firing those missiles?

[Wiskedjak]

I find it pretty difficult to believe that N. Korea wants a war with the US. What would be the possible goal behind such a desire? Thinking that these are madmen bent on destruction is simply naive. Dictators have only one goal: maintain the power they have and grow it if possible. War with the US wouldn't accomplish either goal and it's naive to believe that Kim doesn't know this.

More likely, Kim believes that he can secure himself from attack by showing all of his enemies the cost of doing so: nuclear retaliation.

It's easy to want to believe that such a person's only goal is simple destruction. But, he didn't rise to and maintain power because he was stupid and reckless; believing otherwise is stupid and reckless.

[PB2K]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Something tells me our allies in South Korea and Japan wouldn't appreciate the "fallout" from such a move. Not to mention the Chinese.

OAW

how about secretly upgrading their next kiloton test to a few megatons?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

So say Kim lobs some of his low-dollar SCUDS at Seoul. He blows up a lot of real estate and kills a bunch of civilians. Before the missiles hit, both the ROK and US forces in the peninsula would be ready to launch a retaliatory strike that would cripple both DPRK military forces AND what pitiful infrastructure exists in the north. Fewer people killed, but a significantly bigger strategic effect. And Kim knows this.

Not to mention Japan and its high-tech military. I also don't think China will sit idly by and twiddle their thumbs if push comes to shove.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The question is, is he psychotic enough to think he can get anywhere by firing those missiles?

He's not psychotic, Kim Jong Il's actions have their own internal logic, he's not clinically insane. People always like to portray dictators and and other politicians they don't like as insane, but then they miss the predictable patterns. Insane people break with predictable patterns. In my opinion, Kim Jong Il's goal is to get recognition and other (much more urgently needed) things from the international community -- and the US in particular. Their nuclear warheads guarantee that the international community cannot choose Option B.

[pooka]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Their nuclear warheads guarantee that the international community cannot choose Option B.

Unless we show them that WE are absolutely loco and call their bluff.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Not to mention Japan and its high-tech military. I also don't think China will sit idly by and twiddle their thumbs if push comes to shove.

As I posted above, the Japanese constitution forbids the use of military force. The "Japan Self-Defense Forces" are part of the national police.

The official English translation of the article reads:
“ ARTICLE 9. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. (2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized. ”

[Shaddim]

We should:

- Harshly condemn their leadership
- Setup Patriot missile batteries at all strategic points, protecting Seoul, Tokyo, and other valuable targets
- Completely lock out all aid, even if that means sabotaging Chinese aid
- Bombard them with every form of propaganda we can come up with (I like the magazine idea)
- Insert covert operatives to insight revolts and riots
- Watch them collapse under their own weight

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

We should:

- Harshly condemn their leadership
- Setup Patriot missile batteries at all strategic points, protecting Seoul, Tokyo, and other valuable targets
- Completely lock out all aid, even if that means sabotaging Chinese aid
- Bombard them with every form of propaganda we can come up with (I like the magazine idea)
- Insert covert operatives to insight revolts and riots
- Watch them collapse under their own weight

And when North Korea collapses and hundreds of thousands if not millions of its citizens start pouring over the Chinese and South Korean borders then what? Has it occurred to you that both China and South Korea agree that this would be a catastrophe for their countries? Which is why, thus far, they have both pursued policies that would not threaten the stability of the North Korean regime?

OAW

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OAW 

And when North Korea collapses and hundreds of thousands if not millions of its citizens start pouring over the Chinese and South Korean borders then what? Has it occurred to you that both China and South Korea agree that this would be a catastrophe for their countries? Which is why, thus far, they have both pursued policies that would not threaten the stability of the North Korean regime?

OAW

Chinese border, possibly. South Korean border, not going to happen. There that nasty little area known as the DMZ between the N&S, and allegedly it's heavily mined.