how does North Korea 'end'?

[Roadkill]

Probably goes a bit deeper, in terms of what actual action would stir up. Remember that it's not just SK that NK fulminates against, it's the Japanese too, so the Chinese have to balance upsetting primary trading partners with effectively preventing most of the population of NK heading for the Chinese border if Kim 3 decides to act out his issues about having a small dick.

Exactly. On a wider scale it's about the balance of power in Asia. Twenty years ago the US might have gone steaming in, but now it has to consider what China wants - or, more to the point, doesn't want. I'm sure the Chinese don't want the Americans on the Korean peninsula if they can possibly avoid it, which does beg the question of how they will react if NK does do something daft.

 

[Casually Red]

Which terms and how?

paragraph 13d which forbid the build up of military offensive capabilites and the introduction of nuclear weapons

The US unilaterally abrogated the terms and turned south korea into a massive nuclear base back in the 50s, , ignoring protests from its UN allies, and has ratcheted it up ever since

http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v23p2/d187

http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v23p2/d240

The mock live fire invasion exercises and the simulated nuclear bombing of the DPRK render the armistice terms pretty meaningless, as did the decision to introduce nuclear weapons to korea and point them at the north . DPRK wants an enforcable peace treaty instead .

 

[ViolentPanda]

A bit simplistic that. The wargames have been going on forever and both sides are at it. NK does the same close to the SK border and in recent years is the only party to show naked aggression such nuke and missile testing and the sinking and shellings mentioned by Gavin above.

Part of the problem may be that NK's military (i.e. the boots on the ground, rather than the generals) are equipped to about the same level they were in the 1970s, except for the "elite" units and political troops. Infantry armed with AKs and RPGs are great if the other side's armour is of the same quality as yours, not so cool if (as the SK military do) your opponents have up-to-date arms and armour.
Kim 3 knows that in terms of a land war, he's fucked even if he mobilises the entire population. SK alone have the materiel to kick NK into next year, so his nuclear posing is eminently rational to him and his clique. He can threaten far more than just his immediate neighbours. He can also tacitly menace US military holdings and the Japanese islands.

 

[Casually Red]

So what they actually called for then was a peace treaty completely on their own terms, rather than the agreed 1953 terms, removing any conditions that were placed on themselves whatsoever. As an argument, by a state currently committing massive human rights abuses, it's a complete straw man.

I'm genuinely amazed anyone with a care for their fellow man could see refusing to engage with an idea like this as the fault of America and others.

what do you reckon the death toll of innocent civilians from US imperialism has been been since the 1950s alone . Where in the name of fuck does their moral superiority derive from ==their white ness. Where does the moral superiority of a south korean military dictatorship derive from .

The united states , the only country on earth that has used atmoic weapons against a civilian population..twice..made a mockery of the armisitice just a few years after it was signed by bringing its nukes to Korea and pointing them at the north . And theyve been pointing there for the last 50 years . DPRK has a perfect right to demand a peace treaty that will see them give up theirs if the US take theirs the fuck out as well .

 

[ViolentPanda]

It seems pretty clear that what's driving the current escalation of tension is North Korean politics, and IMO that is probably what will settle the crisis one way or another. No-one is likely to to launch a pre-emptive strike against NK, but if it does carry out its threats to attack South Korea, Japan or even the USA (although that's probably an empty threat) then there almost certainly will be a military response, whose scale will be determined primarily by how far the Americans think they can go without pissing the Chinese off too much.

Kim Jong Un is inexperienced, and in a weaker position than his father. Historically, NK has tended to use threats to win concessions or greater aid. If Kim can deliver that this time then his game of bluff will have worked and that will strengthen his domestic position. Problem is, it's clear that the Americans and others aren't going to play that game this time. So if Kim can't deliver, what then? Being seen to back down could damage him fatally, and it's not inconceivable that hardliners within the military could push him into a situation of having to start a war or face a coup, which is where the real danger lies. Either that, or a different and perhaps more moderate element within the regime could topple him. In the end, we don't really know enough about the workings of the regime and the factions within it - insofar as they exist - to judge.

It's all a bit redolent of the Cuban missile crisis, in a way, although a lot less scary as the chances of it spiralling into a major nuclear war are slim. Either way, it's all very unpredictable and could end quite quickly and potentially very nastily indeed for the Koreans on both sides of the border.

Yup. Although SK could probably manage being overrun by NK infantry formations and/or pounded by artillery, getting their cities turned to glass from NK's nukes would be bad, even if SK/the US didn't respond in kind, and used conventional weapons in any fightback.
Also, Japan is better-armed and better-prepared for offensive operations than it was even 10-15 years ago, so Japan's historical policy of ignoring NK or deploying diplomacy as a primary tool may be firmly in the past.

 

[co-op]

The location of the sinking is not disputed and there's no way it was in North Korean waters as determined by the United Nations (see map, post #72). You can argue that the Northern Limit Line was unfair if you like but you'd need to take that up with the UN. The fact remains that the ship was sunk in what are internationally recognised as NON-DPRK waters.

Baengyeong Island is part of South Korea.



If you read into the sinking in any depth you'll likely come to the conclusion that this is firmly in Jazzz territory.

There is an element of doubt, largely from a Russian study saying it wasn't a North Korean torpedo and the Chinese saying it was likely an American mine. But then they would wouldn't they.

Apologies, if your map is right that is correct - there have been so many incursions and the initial press reports reported that it happened in "disputed water" - which is normally western press code for "North Korean waters" (or Iranian or whoever). I had assumed that it was just another of those. I'm intrigued by the ambiguity though - normally if it happens clearly in "our" water the press are pretty damned quick to scream about it.

What about the ambiguity about what sank this thing though - abandoned South Korean mine? US sub? There's plenty of doubt there. On the whole the North seems quite happy to claim its own actions, not hide them and they've been pretty clear they didn't do it.

 

[later]

Exactly. On a wider scale it's about the balance of power in Asia. Twenty years ago the US might have gone steaming in, but now it has to consider what China wants - or, more to the point, doesn't want. I'm sure the Chinese don't want the Americans on the Korean peninsula if they can possibly avoid it, which does beg the question of how they will react if NK does do something daft.

Presumably they would immediately move armoured divisions over the border to create the widest buffer zone possible for themselves.

 

[Roadkill]

Yup. Although SK could probably manage being overrun by NK infantry formations and/or pounded by artillery, getting their cities turned to glass from NK's nukes would be bad, even if SK/the US didn't respond in kind, and used conventional weapons in any fightback.
Also, Japan is better-armed and better-prepared for offensive operations than it was even 10-15 years ago, so Japan's historical policy of ignoring NK or deploying diplomacy as a primary tool may be firmly in the past.

Tokyo is saying it's watching 'calmly,' although I'd be prepared to bet it's quietly putting forces on alert, just in case. I'm sceptical about whether it would actually take offensive action, though: they'll leave it to the Americans IMHO - well, unless anything nasty comes in their direction.

My feeling - and it's no more than that - is that even if NK does use a nuclear weapon, the Americans won't. It's too risky. The Chinese and Russians would be dead set against it, and it's down that path that the potential for a much bigger nuclear confrontation lies. Besides, SK/US conventional firepower is so overwhelming it would be unnecessary. I can envisage a scenario where NK does something very serious, and the Chinese say quietly to the Americans, 'do what you have to, but no nukes and a return to status quo ante in terms of US forces on the peninsula when it's all over.'

Either way, the people who are going to get the worst of it are Korean civilians on both sides, and potentially with ramifications for years ahead if the NK regime falls and Korea ends up reunified. German reunification was one thing: the economic gap between the two Koreas is a whole different ball game.

 

[Gerry1time]

the USA unilaterally tore up the terms of the armistice a very long time ago . Your insisting the DPRK abide by conditions neither South Korea or the USA has to . Which is basically the US position . And basically imperialism . DPRK human rights abuses pale in comparison to the murders of the United States accross the globe, whether by its own forces or the proxies it employs and enables to carry them out .

Ok, if we're going to debate the terms of any treaty itself, have you got a link to the terms North Korea would accept it under?

As for the idea that a country's human rights abuses can be ignored because other countries may or may not be worse, that's just nuts. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

Incidentally, does your use of the phrase 'DPRK' mean you actually think it's a democratic republic run by and for the people?

 

[Roadkill]

Presumably they would immediately move armoured divisions over the border to create the widest buffer zone possible for themselves.

I don't know what the Chinese have deployed along the border and whether it's any greater than normal atm, but that may well be a possibility.

 

[Casually Red]

[quote="Roadkill, post: 12115626, member:

And from pretty much everywhere else except North Korea's own press agency.

bollocks . The pro US media sources you read simply dont bother to cover them .

In terms of recent history, most of those threats have been in response to North Korean activities. If you want to push it much further back, who started the Korean war back in 1950...?

so now you admit they are making threats afterall, but the norths been provoking them .

Comparisons with Iraq probably aren't helpful. There are pretty clear strategic reasons why the US wants to dominate the Middle East that just don't exist on the Korean peninsula, and besides, it was obvious from the off that Bush wanted to take out Saddam Hussein. I'm broadly in agreement with Spymaster here: I don't think the US is seeking anything in particular apart from for NK to stop threatening its ally in South Korea and by extension to stop posing a threat to 'stability' in Asia.

The US are pretty much happy with the middle east bar a few loose ends. Obama announced a political, economic, diplomatic and military "pivot towards Asia" in order to contain China .

http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/content/obama-administrations-pivot-asia


Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kurt Campbell spoke with FPI Director Robert Kagan on the Obama administration’s strategic “pivot” from the Middle East to East Asia.


How you actually missed that makes me wonder why your even arguiing about this

Quite a few I would imagine. But nobody's threatening to use them (B2 flight aside, which might be taken as an implicit threat), whereas NK is threatening to turn Seoul into 'a sea of fire.'

Taking nuclear missiles half way around the world and pointing them at a country is an implicit threat to use them against that country . Just like someone not threatening to kill you but waiting outside your house with a gun in their pocket . Its not for fun .
And the DPRK made the sea of fire comment ..in private between 2 diplomats who were bickering among themselves...back in the 1980s .[/quote]

 

[Gerry1time]

I don't know what the Chinese have deployed along the border and whether it's any greater than normal atm, but that may well be a possibility.

I heard a report this morning that they've moved a lot of troops down there very recently indeed.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Hardly. They're increasing the militarisation of Guam that we know of, and almost certainly ramping up their capabilities elsewhere in the region.

Guam is primarily a USMC base, so you can bet the US army and air force is also increasing presence and readiness. As for the navy, Pacific fleet has some elements "On loan" in the Indian Ocean, but it's still the "heaviest" fleet, so they can put quite a lot of ordnance in the air if they have to.

 

[Casually Red]

Ok, if we're going to debate the terms of any treaty itself, have you got a link to the terms North Korea would accept it under?

As for the idea that a country's human rights abuses can be ignored because other countries may or may not be worse, that's just nuts. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

Incidentally, does your use of the phrase 'DPRK' mean you actually think it's a democratic republic run by and for the people?

Its not up to us to debate the terms of any treaty . The DPRK want peace treaty talks without preconditions beforehand, conditions for a treaty should be made during negotiations..not before them . As regards nuts its you arguing the USA has a right to insist on preconditions despite its own abuses being infinitely more widespread .

And I call the DPRK the DPRK because thats its proper name, and because its easier to type .

 

[ViolentPanda]

Theyre bricking it

We take those threats seriously,” Hagel told students at the National Defense University in Washington, D.C. "We are doing everything we can, working with the Chinese, others, to defuse that situation."

​

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/defense-chief-chuck-hagel-north-korea-real-danger-article-1.1306691#ixzz2PVOJlCbD​

Because the US is never two-faced in talking about diplomatic solutions while revving up for combat.

 

[ViolentPanda]

C/Red (or "No C/Red" as I like to think of him, ho ho) might have a point here . . . has anyone got any independent confirmation or disconfirmation of this?

Hah, we both know they'll robably just cite sapper activity in the hundreds of km of tunnels the NK military have dug around and under the DMZ over the past 60 years.

 

[Roadkill]

[quote="Roadkill, post: 12115626, member:

bollocks . The pro US media sources you read simply dont bother to cover them .

How do you know what I've been reading?

so now you admit they are making threats afterall, but the norths been provoking them .

I've never said anything else.

The US are pretty much happy with the middle east bar a few loose ends. Obama announced a political, economic, diplomatic and military "pivot towards Asia" in order to contain China .

http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/content/obama-administrations-pivot-asia


Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kurt Campbell spoke with FPI Director Robert Kagan on the Obama administration’s strategic “pivot” from the Middle East to East Asia.


How you actually missed that makes me wonder why your even arguiing about this

I hadn't missed that, hence my remarks above about the wider context and how the Americans have to consider the Chinese position far more than they would have done a couple of decades ago.

Taking nuclear missiles half way around the world and pointing them at a country is an implicit threat to use them against that country . Just like someone not threatening to kill you but waiting outside your house with a gun in their pocket . Its not for fun .

See above.

And the DPRK made the sea of fire comment ..in private between 2 diplomats who were bickering among themselves...back in the 1980s .

It's been repeated recently, AFAIK. *edit* Here. Not Seoul this time, but the island of Baengnyeong. That was last month, but there've been similar threats about Seoul in recent years.

But let's not get into these rather tetchy point-for-point sniping matches. My main point when I first responded to this thread is that the recent escalation of tension in the peninsula is primarily a product of internal North Korean politics and may well reflect Kim Jong Un's relatively weak position. Do you agree with that, or not?

 

[later]

I don't know what the Chinese have deployed along the border and whether it's any greater than normal atm, but that may well be a possibility.

Then there's the border with Russia which although small and a bit sleepy is still an important rail link for both...

Not too worried really, the generals obviously know their shit:

 

[Casually Red]

They don't want a war. They'd lose it and they know that. I'm with Roadie insofar as this is mainly about internal politics; seeking to raise the temperature enough to gain some concessions to back down, so KJU can claim a "victory" over the evil USA.

And you mention Park's hard line but she's only been there since December. North Korea have been acting the cunt since they started a war in 1950. They sunk that corvette and attacked the island in 2010.



You'll probably say 'contain China' but I just don't think the US want this shit right now. I still see this as a crisis of the making of the DPRK for internal political reasons, and one that could quite easily go tits-up for them.

Park was a major figure in Korean politics during her fathers military dictatorship . She was effectively south koreas "first lady" for many years following her mothers death .

You seem to be also unaware of the US pivot towards Asia . Its the central plank of their foreign policy from here on in . And since that began Japan and South Korea immediately started throwing rhetorical and military shapes against Chinaa and DPRK knowing big brothers there backing them up .

The way you guys are talking youd swear the DPRK had just flown nuclear bombers to the US coast . America the world policeman my arse .

Even the BBC just this second ..Damian Grammaticus..is after saying what the DPRK want is the US to sign a peace treaty and bring formal hostilities to an end .

 

[Spymaster]

What about the ambiguity about what sank this thing though - abandoned South Korean mine? US sub? There's plenty of doubt there.

It's a very interesting incident and could be the topic of a thread in itself. Jazzz would love it as there are suggestions of black-ops and dirty deeds!

What it boils down to is that the main investigation reached the conclusion that it was North Korean torpedoes, but that investigation was South Korean led. The North Koreans, Russians and Chinese say it was not the North, it was a US mine/something else. Then there's the conspiraloon nutbar stuff which generally suggest that the US sank it on purpose for a variety of reasons. Each side has offered and rebutted "evidence". A Canadian investigation drew no conclusions.

On the whole the North seems quite happy to claim its own actions, not hide them and they've been pretty clear they didn't do it.

They've never claimed a first strike though, always that they acted in retaliation/self defence. If they did hit this ship they'd be admitting that they engaged the vessel in internationally recognised waters of another country.

North Korea's own maritime border claim would place the ship in or close to their supposed waters, so a theory is that someone in Pyongyang decided to enforce a border that exists only in the minds of the DPRK. When cooler heads prevailed and they realised they'd fucked-up, they played the "wasn't me, guvner" card and were assisted from the shit by China and Russia.

 

[Gerry1time]

As regards nuts its you arguing the USA has a right to insist on preconditions despite its own abuses being infinitely more widespread.

I think both countries have a right to demand preconditions, obviously. North Korea is the one demanding no conditions. Which, in terms of asking for a peace treaty, is nuts.You might also say, they're deliberately offering something they know no-one would ever agree to, just so they can make it look like the other parties being unreasonable.

Do you have any thoughts at all on the way the North Korean government treats its people out of interest?

 

[Casually Red]

It's a very interesting incident and could be the topic of a thread in itself. Jazzz would love it as there are suggestions of black-ops and dirty deeds!

What it boils down to is that the main investigation reached the conclusion that it was North Korean torpedos, but that investigation was South Korean led. The North Koreans, Russians and Chinese say it was not the North/it was a US mine. Each side has offered and rebutted "evidence". A Canadian investigation drew no conclusions.



They've never claimed a first strike though, always that they acted in retaliation/self defence. If they did hit this ship they'd be admitting that they engaged the vessel in internationally recognised waters of another country.

North Korea's own maritime border claim would place the ship in or close to their waters, so a theory is that someone in Pyongyang decided to enforce a border that exists only in the minds of the DPRK, and when cooler heads prevailed and they realised they'd fucked-up, they played the "wasn't me, guvner" card and were assisted from the shit by China and Russia.

see that Gulf of Tonkin..do you reckon Ho Chi Minh did it

what about the Reichstag fire

 

[Idris2002]

From Hell's heart I stab at thee.

 

[Casually Red]

I think both countries have a right to demand preconditions, obviously. North Korea is the one demanding no conditions. Which, in terms of asking for a peace treaty, is nuts.You might also say, they're deliberately offering something they know no-one would ever agree to, just so they can make it look like the other parties being unreasonable.

Do you have any thoughts at all on the way the North Korean government treats its people out of interest?

tell us what it is you think is unreasonable about no preconditions prior to negotiations..bearing in mind its North Korea with a nuclear arsenal pointed at it and subject to crippling sanctions .

as regards the human rights situation in DPRK all I have to do is think about Fallujah Abu Ghraib , Vietnam, Cambodia ,Guatemala, El Slalvador, Haiti, Chile, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and a host of other places and very shortly I come to the conclusion the USA is an infinitely greater abuser of human rights and in absolutely no position to make demands of others on a moral basis .
Barring the fact the US are white I can only come to the conclusion that you reckon the more nukes you have and the bigger your military the more right you have to be hypocritical when it comes to human rights . Its certainly not on any superior moral or ethical basis .
And anyway human rights are not the basis for US refusal to enage in meaningful peace talks . DPRKs refusal to abandon its weapons programmes prior to negotiations is .

 

[ViolentPanda]

Then there's the border with Russia which although small and a bit sleepy is still an important rail link for both...

Not too worried really, the generals obviously know their shit:

Fucking staff officers with their spurious fucking decorations. You just know the one with the book in his hands got a couple of those gongs for having sex with goats.

 

[Spymaster]

Fucking staff officers with their spurious fucking decorations. You just know the one with the book in his hands got a couple of those gongs for having sex with goats.

"And this one is for starting a fire by rubbing two sticks together"

 

[Casually Red]

I think both countries have a right to demand preconditions, obviously. North Korea is the one demanding no conditions. Which, in terms of asking for a peace treaty, is nuts.

no no no

theyre demanding no preconditions prior to negotiations for a Peace Treaty .

You plainly dont get this business at all

 

[ViolentPanda]

"And this one is for starting a fire by rubbing two sticks together"

That's about the strength of some of those awards. "The Grand Order of the Lotus Blossom" for best-pressed uniform 3 weeks in a row at Commie-Cadets, and such like.

 

[Casually Red]

Then there's the border with Russia which although small and a bit sleepy is still an important rail link for both...

Not too worried really, the generals obviously know their shit:

facking yanks..gertcha

 

[Gerry1time]

tell us what it is you think is unreasonable about no preconditions prior to negotiations

Have you got a link to them saying no conditions prior to? The only one posted so far seems to say the treaty itself should have no conditions attached. There's a big difference.

as regards the human rights situation in DPRK all I have to do is think about Fallujah Abu Ghraib , Vietnam, Cambodia ,Guatemala, El Slalvador, Haiti, Chile, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and a host of other places and very shortly I come to the conclusion the USA is an infinitely greater abuser of human rights and in absolutely no position to make demands of others on a moral basis .
Barring the fact the US are white I can only come to the conclusion that you reckon the more nukes you have and the bigger your military the more right you have to be hypocritical when it comes to human rights . Its certainly not on any superior moral or ethical basis .

So you've nothing to say about the human rights situation in North Korea then? As I said already, two wrongs do not make a right. The USA is in the wrong in many ways, but North Korea needs to make big changes too. I have no idea what skin colour has to do with any of this. We're all one race at the end of the day.

You plainly dont get this business at all