Good analysis of NK dynamic?

[KL2004]

Can anyone point me to a good thorough analysis of the situation in North Korea and the realistic possibilities for resolution?  Even something on the projected destruction toll, and what the political landscape would look like afterward, would be helpful. 

[Wicky]

North Korea: What can the outside world do?

From July, and things have moved on a tad, but factual overview.

Quote

projected destruction toll, and what the political landscape would look like afterward

Glassy...

[sburke]

I could probably send you a dozen links, but the reality is nobody really knows.  China's influence is a lot less than the US govt seems to think. Relations between China and n Korea have deteriorated a lot since little boy with the goofy haircut came to sit on the throne.  He put his own uncle in front of a firing squad consisting of an AA gun, killed off most of that uncle's family for being too close to China and assassinated his own step brother who had been living for a while in Beijing.  Not exactly something to foster cordial relations. 

So we pressure China to pressure a regime that doesn't care and the source of the technology that is the threat seems to be a combo of Pakistan and Russia.

there is no military option that does not risk the destruction of Seoul.

 

Best option might simply be to offer a billion dollar bounty and a house on the getaway island of your choice to whomever takes him out. Be cheap anyway compared to other options.

[Michael Emrys]

1 hour ago, sburke said:

Best option might simply be to offer a billion dollar bounty and a house on the getaway island of your choice to whomever takes him out. Be cheap anyway compared to other options.

That might be being done on the quiet. It would have to be done though by someone who would be sure to make the first shot count, there probably wouldn't be a second one.

Michael

[KL2004]

Wouldn't just another puppet leader take his place? 

[A Canadian Cat]

Puppet of whom? Part of the problem is that no other nation really has a deciding influence on Kim.

[sburke]

1 hour ago, IanL said:

Puppet of whom? Part of the problem is that no other nation really has a deciding influence on Kim.

exactly.  If only Kim were a puppet -  we'd know who to pressure....

[KL2004]

I really don't know enough to have an informed opinion on it, but I thought Kim was a figurehead for the senior army staff.  I could be way off!

 

Edited September 17, 2017 by KL2004

[KL2004]

If Kim is the problem and only problem, it's a simple hostage situation.

Seoul is the problem, and only problem.  Potential destruction to the city.  Meanwhile the US has just had it's own destroyed by hurricanes and has figured out, hopefully, how to handle that.

If escalation isn't a deterrent I'm not sure what would stop the US from giving it to NK and ending that problem now.  If I lived in Seoul I'd rather shelter or evacuate and end this insecurity than live with it getting worse. 

I really don't know anything though. 

 

[sburke]

3 hours ago, KL2004 said:

If Kim is the problem and only problem, it's a simple hostage situation.

Seoul is the problem, and only problem.  Potential destruction to the city.  Meanwhile the US has just had it's own destroyed by hurricanes and has figured out, hopefully, how to handle that.

If escalation isn't a deterrent I'm not sure what would stop the US from giving it to NK and ending that problem now.  If I lived in Seoul I'd rather shelter or evacuate and end this insecurity than live with it getting worse. 

I really don't know anything though. 

 

The number of dead and the scale of destruction isn't even close to comparable.

A NY Times analysis from July of various possibilities.  It is difficult to assess when for example you also have to factor in the number of duds in N Korean arty - a significant percentage- and what they would actually target.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/05/world/asia/north-korea-south-us-nuclear-war.html?_r=0

another article on one more issue - the fule for N Korean rockets thought to be coming from China

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/a-potent-fuel-flows-to-north-korea-it-may-be-too-late-to-halt-it/ar-AAs693X?ocid=spartanntp

Edited September 18, 2017 by sburke

[Buzz]

23 minute BBC Inquiry podcast that summed up the current situation rather clearly.

What Would War With North Korea Look Like?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05951pc

Sobering details from experts of what “miscalculations” could trigger a nuclear war. Horrifying prospects for any conflict.

Buzz

[KL2004]

Would traditional MAD not work between North and South Korea?  (And Japan) 

 

Read the two articles and listened to the radio program above, thanks. 

Edited September 18, 2017 by KL2004

[Wicky]

30 minutes ago, KL2004 said:

Would traditional MAD not work between North and South Korea?  (And Japan) 

That's what seems what's being played at the moment - China has a soon expiring treaty to defend NK come what may and NK seems keen to go it alone with its own nukes if and when that assurance of protection runs out...

US has reaffirmed protection of its regional allies from any overt shenanigans from NK - but has given some mixed messages with Trump saying “North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States,” - which NK statements have continued doing along with missiles flying left, right & centre... 

At best NK will implode (under sanctions) without any diect military intervention (due to mess that would make) but that doesn't seem an option that China/Russia can go along with as thy have an intrest in sustaining NK for their own reasons.

[Badger73]

45 minutes ago, KL2004 said:

Would traditional MAD not work between North and South Korea?  (And Japan)

<snipped>

It almost has up until now.  M.A.D. requires all participants to abide a mostly shared rational; that winning is a zero sum game and that Nuclear War is a game no one can really win .  It appears that little Kim no longer thinks this is the case.

[Michael Emrys]

1 hour ago, Badger73 said:

It almost has up until now.  M.A.D. requires all participants to abide a mostly shared rational; that winning is a zero sum game and that Nuclear War is a game no one can really win .  It appears that little Kim no longer thinks this is the case.

Just to indulge in some speculation, I wonder if his strategy is to reunite North and South through military action and the nukes are intended to warn off other powers (read: the US) from getting involved. Nuclear blackmail. Kim may be rational enough to know that a nuclear exchange would not go well for NK, but he can threaten to hurt us enough that the US would think twice before jumping in.

Michael

[A Canadian Cat]

I don't know about that. I think he is more interested in maintaining his current regime than taking over the south. For what you are saying to work first he would have to have all US forces withdraw from SK. Invading SK and threatening the US to stay out of it only works if you have not killed service personnel already.

[Michael Emrys]

8 hours ago, IanL said:

Invading SK and threatening the US to stay out of it only works if you have not killed service personnel already.

Good point. For sure his first priority is to maintain his control over the country, and I'd guess that much of his posturing is to please important constituencies in his own government. The same as with the American president.

Michael

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I'm not sure the problem is really NK any more, that seems settled, but the precedent that it sets.....I've commented elsewhere on what I'd imagine Iran are thinking right now (that they're not presently acting on such thoughts strongly suggests they've received certain 'assurances' from Russia &/or China IMHO).

Edited September 20, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[A Canadian Cat]

10 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I'm not sure the problem is really NK any more, that seems settled,

Meaning they are a nuclear power therefore it is settled? I agree it looks like it is too late but I'm not sure I would call things settled.

10 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

but the precedent that it sets.....I've commented elsewhere on what I'd imagine Iran are thinking right now

This is the thing. We have the example people keep trotting out that Lybia is an example of why it is bad to give up nukes (which is totally wrong BTW) and Iran where there is a deal in place that looks like it could work. What message does that send to NK? Not a clear one based on the miss information around Lybia and the rhetoric around the deal with Iran.

10 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

(that they're not presently acting on such thoughts strongly suggests they've received certain 'assurances' from Russia &/or China IMHO).

Ah, yeah the deal that was struck between the US, EU, Russia and Iran. . Indications are that even though there are factions in the Iranian government that are not happy with the deal and the US says they are not happy anymore, Iran is living up to the deal regarding no longer perusing nuclear weapons. Clearly that deal does not cover everything we might like to see Iran stop doing because they are a very bad actor in many ways not just nuclear. The thing is I think it would be good for NK to see the nuclear deal with Iran work. If the deal with Iran is scuppered even though they are complying with it then why would NK ever come to the table to strike a similar deal? Clearly even with a perfect and working deal Iran there is no guarantee that NK would come to the table but I also think it is clear that if the deal with Iran falls apart because the new US administration never liked it then there is no way NK will come to the table.

[Sublime]

Well i certainly think that; if a deal struck by one US administration and then sunk by a subsequent one because the new admin. Doesnt like it, it will reflect very badly on the US and how seriously people take the 'word' of America.

The whole subject is disturbing. I dont see any way that it wont end up in a bloody war its just now do we have a bloody war today, in 2 wx, etc. Do we choose when it starts or let the DPRK decide?  Clearly all the previous efforts to influence almost anything the DPRK does without actual combat are basicaly useless and now it just seems a matter of the DPRK getting nastier weapons and fortifying their position more. I also think that where refrained in both major conflicts with the US from using NBC weapons the Kim regime will use every nasty weapon they have.  After all this is the land of the  "cleanest race", and where according to North Korean defectors in kindergarten children at the end of the day are exhorted to 'smash the american bastards' and bayonet a paper cutout of some US looking soldier. Whoever is most vicious or bayonets the best or perhaps just goes for the crotch gets the N Korean  equivalent of a American kindergarten gold star for the day.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

They didn't get to that place all on their own fella, something made them think of the US that way. 

[A Canadian Cat]

Ah sure, but not what you might be alluding too

Let's face it authoritarian regimes typically rule by fear and to do that they need a boogie man. If <insert the name of annoying regime here> would stop being a bad actor on the world stage the US (and many other countries) would have no need to station troops in their neighbours, or have self defence treaties with their neighbours or deploy missile defence shields on their neighbours territory or work to create sanctions to contain them etc. All the stuff that NK says is why they fear the US is totally of their own doing. And they are happy for things to be that way. Kim needs it to be that way. All the rhetoric that these guys behave this way is because of the US's actions is tosh.

IMO

[Sgt.Squarehead]

26 minutes ago, IanL said:

All the rhetoric that these guys behave this way is because of the US's actions is tosh.

'Because' would indeed be stating it too strongly, I agree.....However the legacy of the war does give the Kims something very tangible to point to in support of their rhetoric. 

Hopefully given the passage of time and improvements in communication these messages will lose their potency, barring any unfortunate outbreaks of nuclear war in the intervening years. 

Edited September 20, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[KL2004]

On 9/18/2017 at 6:21 PM, Badger73 said:

It almost has up until now.  M.A.D. requires all participants to abide a mostly shared rational; that winning is a zero sum game and that Nuclear War is a game no one can really win .  It appears that little Kim no longer thinks this is the case.

I'm not convinced at all yet.  I think he wants to preserve his kingdom and this is the way they're making sure they're scary enough not to mess with.  If they attack first they lose.  The whole point of the strategy is to show that if attacked or interfered with they will be a big problem for everyone.  Secondarily, to show the population that they are strongly lead.

 

[KL2004]

Why not just embrace that nuclear weapons are a thing that all industrial countries now can arm themselves with, and start dealing with that as a reality and settling things based on that new context rather than making the transition between conventional and nuclear weapons a massive problem in human history?

The best argument I can think of to the question is that leadership can go to bunkers and do bad things to everyone without immediately being harmed.  But these are people who generally want to live -- they harm people yes, but not to the extent that they climb out of a bunker to nuclear ruin. 

It may be that this time in human history involves nations being ruled by people who, if they establish strong police states, can deter other rulers from harming them.  And we just have to suffer and let suffer through that.

The whole problem seems to be based on the fact that some states don't like what other states do with their people.  If we can all just obliterate one another into a context that means war always has to be at a high price though, that's a reality.

Plenty of states were awful to their people throughout history because no matter how much the good people lamented them, they could not harm them without enormous injury and sacrifice. 

It seems this is just an adjustment back from the dominance of a very humane world power to the fact that inhumane regimes are now able to make it impossible for us to hurt them, and because they hollar about it, we feel offended.

We had the chance a long time ago, and didn't do it.  It's unfortunate that it takes this slap in the face to recognize it. 

Solution?  Totally overwhelm the areas that could potentially become nuclear, now.  Those that have become nuclear and have hostages, let them be.  Wage a war of thought.  Education.  Culture.

imho.  <3