5 ms·

Even assuming it's not already too late for that: what could they do? NK is already sanctioned to the max. And the few leavers that they can still pull probably

by samus 4y ago

Even assuming it's not already too late for that: what could they do? NK is already sanctioned to the max. And the few leavers that they can still pull probably wouldn't be enough to stop them at this point. And them being so close to China and SK makes any direct military action against them likely to trigger WW3.

retrac 4y ago
If JP/SK/US did decide on military action against North Korea, I would expect China to stand back, close their border, and do nothing but make loud protest noises. They're not keen on sharing a border with a US client state. They're also not keen on a rogue North Korea with nukes. The main issue is that, even without nuclear weapons, North Korea has enough conventional arms, including chemical weapons, to cause horrific damage to South Korea. Seoul's entire urban area is within artillery range of the DMZ. I've seen estimates of varying credibility but most experts speak of hundreds of thousands of deaths on the first day of shelling, if a full-scale war broke out on the Korean peninsula.
- FpUser 4y ago
  >"If JP/SK/US did decide on military action against North Korea" NK is no longer part of NPT. Would not this war be illegal? How does it correspond with "we are the nation of laws"? >"I would expect China to stand back" And what if it does not?
  - retrac 4y ago
    I know quite well, as you probably do, that international law has zero bearing on the military decisions made by the USA in terms of its interests. Yes, it'd be illegal, unless the UN Security Council gave its blessing. Just like the second Gulf War was illegal. That has never stopped the US before. > How does it correspond with "we are the nation of laws"? It does not. The United States government rejects the idea it is restricted by international law on these matters. As for South Korea, it can argue it's an internal domestic matter.
    - FpUser 4y ago
      >"That has never stopped the US before" I know this much. My question was largely rhetorical.
  - colechristensen 4y ago
    “Illegal war” is just a phrase to make political noise about military action you don’t like. There are treaties, not laws, and no body to actually enforce laws, it’s just diplomacy. General practices are agreed upon but they’re basically just loose agreements.
  - lucb1e 4y ago
    NPT = Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/ https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/) --your friendly neighborhood unusual acronym lookup robot
bmitc 4y ago
I have been wondering: is North Korea an example of sanctions not working or having the opposite effect? By sanctioning North Korea to the moon and back, they have no other choice but to bottle up, tighten the hatches, take an authoritarian stance, deal with people willing to do deals under the table, and search for ways to strike back. Since they don't have the capability of building a traditional military force, they go for the biggest thing they can: nuclear missiles. Meanwhile, their people starve and suffer. Are there not alternative policies that would work a little better? North Korea just seems like a cornered badger and will continue to act like one. If you "opened" up the country by reducing some sanctions, it seems they'd have to adapt to be more civilized. These are more questions than statements.
- avereveard 4y ago
  We tried detente and appeasement various times and at various stages, it usually doesn't work
  - bmitc 4y ago
    What is the end game with North Korea though? It seems the only options are: * It collapses on its own or there's an internal revolution or coup. This would be a mess though because of the whole China, Russia, South Korea claims probably. * It does something drastic and attacks and then gets invaded. That also seems a mess because now it's China, Russia, South Korea, and the U.S. and maybe Japan, depending on who it attacks.
    - avereveard 4y ago
      It's complicated because states diplomacy exists in a condition of pure anarchy, but "disarmament in exchange of security guarantees" is another option. One might draw parallel with Ukraine, which is fair, but turns out it wasn't USA the untrustworthy party to the agreement, and they didn't get a defensive alliance out of it, which showed to be a necessity and raises the bar considerably

by samus 4y ago

retrac 4y ago

If JP/SK/US did decide on military action against North Korea, I would expect China to stand back, close their border, and do nothing but make loud protest noises. They're not keen on sharing a border with a US client state. They're also not keen on a rogue North Korea with nukes. The main issue is that, even without nuclear weapons, North Korea has enough conventional arms, including chemical weapons, to cause horrific damage to South Korea. Seoul's entire urban area is within artillery range of the DMZ. I've seen estimates of varying credibility but most experts speak of hundreds of thousands of deaths on the first day of shelling, if a full-scale war broke out on the Korean peninsula.

FpUser 4y ago
>"If JP/SK/US did decide on military action against North Korea" NK is no longer part of NPT. Would not this war be illegal? How does it correspond with "we are the nation of laws"? >"I would expect China to stand back" And what if it does not?
- retrac 4y ago
  I know quite well, as you probably do, that international law has zero bearing on the military decisions made by the USA in terms of its interests. Yes, it'd be illegal, unless the UN Security Council gave its blessing. Just like the second Gulf War was illegal. That has never stopped the US before. > How does it correspond with "we are the nation of laws"? It does not. The United States government rejects the idea it is restricted by international law on these matters. As for South Korea, it can argue it's an internal domestic matter.
  - FpUser 4y ago
    >"That has never stopped the US before" I know this much. My question was largely rhetorical.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  “Illegal war” is just a phrase to make political noise about military action you don’t like. There are treaties, not laws, and no body to actually enforce laws, it’s just diplomacy. General practices are agreed upon but they’re basically just loose agreements.
- lucb1e 4y ago
  NPT = Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/ https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/) --your friendly neighborhood unusual acronym lookup robot

bmitc 4y ago

I have been wondering: is North Korea an example of sanctions not working or having the opposite effect? By sanctioning North Korea to the moon and back, they have no other choice but to bottle up, tighten the hatches, take an authoritarian stance, deal with people willing to do deals under the table, and search for ways to strike back. Since they don't have the capability of building a traditional military force, they go for the biggest thing they can: nuclear missiles. Meanwhile, their people starve and suffer. Are there not alternative policies that would work a little better? North Korea just seems like a cornered badger and will continue to act like one. If you "opened" up the country by reducing some sanctions, it seems they'd have to adapt to be more civilized. These are more questions than statements.

avereveard 4y ago
We tried detente and appeasement various times and at various stages, it usually doesn't work
- bmitc 4y ago
  What is the end game with North Korea though? It seems the only options are: * It collapses on its own or there's an internal revolution or coup. This would be a mess though because of the whole China, Russia, South Korea claims probably. * It does something drastic and attacks and then gets invaded. That also seems a mess because now it's China, Russia, South Korea, and the U.S. and maybe Japan, depending on who it attacks.
  - avereveard 4y ago
    It's complicated because states diplomacy exists in a condition of pure anarchy, but "disarmament in exchange of security guarantees" is another option. One might draw parallel with Ukraine, which is fair, but turns out it wasn't USA the untrustworthy party to the agreement, and they didn't get a defensive alliance out of it, which showed to be a necessity and raises the bar considerably