6 ms·
American Illusions and Korean Realities: Preventing Conflict on Korean Peninsula
- ams6110 9y agoWhat is this 38north.org? It reads like a DPRK propaganda machine. "there is no sign that North Korea is contemplating an imminent launch which would make it a preemptive strike" Other than Kim's direct threats to do so? Edit: on further reading, I strike my first sentence. The author's credentials and site sponsors seem legit. Disagree with the thrust of the article though.
- IntronExon 9y agoAs it says on the site, it’s the US-Korea Institute at John Hopkins. So no, not DPRK propaganda, but also not the US propaganda you may be attuned to. AFAIK it’s one of the most respected and non-partisan sources for information on the peninsula. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/38_North https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/38_North
- danbruc 9y agoOther than Kim's direct threats to do so? Did he actually [relatively recently] state something along that line that was not conditioned on the violation of North Korea's sovereignty or something similar, i.e. an offensive attack?
- paulddraper 9y agoLast fall: > A telling blow should be dealt to them who have not yet come to senses after the launch of our ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile) over the Japanese archipelago > Let’s reduce the U.S. mainland into ashes and darkness. Let’s vent our spite with mobilization of all retaliation means which have been prepared till now > [The U.S. should be] beaten to death like a rabid dog > The four islands of the archipelago should be sunken into the sea by the nuclear bomb of Juche. Japan is no longer needed to exist near us It was not conditional. These were in response to support of UN security counsel sanctions following the ICBM launched over Japan.
- coldtea 9y agoSo just like threats that have been made by US on various occasions for various independent countries, e.g.: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/sep/22/pakistan.usa https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/sep/22/pakistan.usa >It was not conditional. These were in response to support of UN security counsel sanctions following the ICMB launched over Japan. If they were in response, they sure sound like conditional then.
- finanmech 9y agoSo it appears you live in western europe, and you aren't concerned about north korea because there's no immediate threat, even though millions might die in US. Well, maybe you will have some empathy if after america falls, North Korea decides to target europe with russia.
- coldtea 9y agoI indeed live in Western Europe, and I'm more concerned with the pissing game between the US and NK than with the NK alone (which minds its own business generally and is isolationist). France had attacked them in the 19th century, and the US went to war with Korea in the 50s (with French support), not the other way around. Their playing with fire and pissing match with Islam (including pissing whole populations, funding rogue groups, and their favorite regimes in the region) has already costs all of us dearly, including in Europe. Heck, we still have an influx of desperate peoples from every country they destabilized in the past 10-15 years. Say what you want about colonial European powers, but scum as it were, it still managed to control 2/3rds of the globe with much more nuance and diplomacy than the barbarians at the other side of the Atlantic. >Well, maybe you will have some empathy if after america falls, North Korea decides to target europe with russia. I also don't read many fairy tales presented as political analysis.
- dang 9y agoSince you appear to have created this account for political and national battle, which is against the rules of this site, I've banned it. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and email hn@ycombinator.com.
- coldtea 9y ago>What is this 38north.org? It reads like a DPRK propaganda machine. Because it doesn't go well with the yellow "serious" media and official "experts" that shape 99% of the narrative?
- jernfrost 9y agoMirrors my sentiment except written more elegantly. Although I spelled it out more clearly that a nuclearly armed north korea is something we simple have to learn to live with. https://medium.com/p/ebf86a16ebee?source=linkShare-c2fa2c34f40c-1517160923 https://medium.com/p/ebf86a16ebee?source=linkShare-c2fa2c34f...
- maxxxxx 9y agoAt least half of American foreign policy is always geared towards scoring politics points internally. A lot of the actions have nothing to do with the actual situation in a foreign country but with the situation at home. Korea is a good example and the whole middle East situation another one.
- finanmech 9y agoFACT: China, Russia is supporting North Korea despite sanctions http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/24/news/economy/treasury-north-korea-sanctions/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/24/news/economy/treasury-north-... ANALYSIS: North Korea would fall without oil support https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-13/sanctions-a-blow-to-north-korea-but-oil-cut-needed-for-knock-out https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-13/sanctions... But what do you expect from dicatorships in China and Russia. It's a good thing we already are sanctioning Russia, and we're starting to impose tariffs on China (solar panels, washing machines, soon steel and aluminum) and fines on China (forced tech transfers from US companies to Chinese government). China is starting to falter economically, with labor cost rising, middle income trap, massive debt, capital outflow, factories moving out of China to SEA or back to the states. We need to put more pressure on China, or else North Korea will be the puppet that sends a nuclear missile straight into Silicon Valley
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- Udik 9y ago> We need to put more pressure on China, or else North Korea will be the puppet that sends a nuclear missile straight into Silicon Valley What? What is the logic behind this conclusion?
- SubiculumCode 9y agoA countervailing assessment. http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/08/its-time-to-bomb-north-korea/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/08/its-time-to-bomb-north-k...
- icebraining 9y agoSounds like a guy whose assessments we can trust: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Luttwak#Predictions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Luttwak#Predictions I like how he dismisses the potential horrific consequences to the SK population with the argument "well, they should have moved when we told them". Fuck this guy, frankly.
- SubiculumCode 9y agoI think that you are right in that Seoul would be an absolute tragedy. That said, if (and I really mean if) the situation could be abstracted to a choice between an American city or Seoul getting bombed, then for an those charged with protecting American national interests, the choice would be a no brainer. Now back to that if. The current regime in NK is rational and interested in self-preservation above most else. That is generally agreed upon. So it is not likely they would attack first. So Seoul vs American City is not probably a real choice. That said, they have no wish to integrate into the international order, frequently make threats of mass destruction, and seem likely o try to use nuke capability/threats to make demands on their neighbors. They are flying missiles over Japan. Then there is the fact that the regime is genuinely evil to their people, which makes political upheaval more likely given any weakness, sudden events, etc. And frankly, I do not like the threat of nuclear exchanges that can reach my family and friends from an actor as irresponsible, immoral, and backasswards as NK. It is already a tragedy that the largest countries have nukes, but proliferation is very dangerous.
- boomboomsubban 9y agoWow. The only reason given to attack is to stop China from developing a better relationship with South Korea. And he points to the past success stories of the Israeli armed forces in Syria and Iraq.
- calimac 9y agoI think the author really loves America
- icebraining 9y agoEver since the Trump/NK crisis began, I've been thinking if it's not just an application of the Madman theory by Trump. Of course, I wasn't the only one[1], but that article (written in October) says that "it’s hard to see the North Koreans backing down in hopes that Mr. Trump will return to reason and be a stable, rational negotiating partner", yet isn't exactly what they did since then? The top article says that the "Trump administration’s policy (...) has significantly increased the risk of a disastrous war", but has it? Who would actually start a war over that policy? The author himself says that the DPKR is trying to defuse tensions, so who else? Except for a few sleepless nights for the citizens in range of a NK ICBM, the results of the current "crisis" seem mostly positive. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/26/opinion/the-madness-behind-trumps-madman-strategy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/26/opinion/the-madness-behin...
- Udik 9y ago> yet isn't exactly what they did since then? It doesn't look like. They did what they wanted to do (test their nukes and ballistic missiles) and now they're offering the carrot of better relations with their south counterpart. Trump has been substantially ignored.
- icebraining 9y agoWhy are they offering that carrot now, if not as a reaction to Trump?
- IntronExon 9y agoWhat carrot? They’re just replaying the “Sunshime Policy” symbolic crap from the 80’s. This is pure DPRK playbook material to drive a political wedge between the ROK and US.
- Udik 9y agoI'd say because they're done anyway with what they were doing, for the moment. They don't need to launch missiles all the time.
- 9y ago
- snomad 9y agoThis article is too busy looking at the trees to see the forest. Three of China's top 5 trading partners are the US, Japan, and South Korea - it's economy has thrived for the last decade+ because of those nations most impacted by North Korean threats. China may not have that much leverage, but they know where their bread is buttered. More importantly, China wants to be a global power. The US government policies while directly failures vis-a-vis North Korea, also highlight China's impotence to other players on the world stage. To take that final global power stride, they will need to deal with North Korea at some point. Bigger picture, I feel like whenever these kind of analytical pieces surfaced in the past, they rightly always included a point about proliferation, something that seems missing these days. If the world moves on and grudgingly accepts North Korean nukes, what stops Japan from getting one? How about Taiwan or South Korea? Same concern goes with Iran's program - what stops Saudi Arabia, Turkey or Egypt from getting one? It is a slippery slope argument, but the consequences of the number of nuclear powers doubling are pretty dang grave, maybe it is one slope we can keep an eye on.
- JBlue42 9y agoI agree with your premise here and might be taking it off topic but Western media tends to portray China striving to be a global power but, I would propose, aren't they already there? They're a key manufacturer and exporter in the world economy, are making inroads in terms of military prowess, and has some of the biggest influence in their region and probably soon, via the soft power infrastructure projects, in Africa as well. The US and Russia are still playing games in the Middle East but there's not a day that goes by that you don't see some news out of China.