Possible upcoming skirmish (or worse) in or around Korean Peninsula?

[GTX]

otherwise rational people siding with people as low as Little Kim.

It's not about siding with one side or another - both sides are equally warranting of blame in the situation IMHO.

 

[sferrin]

otherwise rational people siding with people as low as Little Kim.

It's not about siding with one side or another - both sides are equally warranting of blame in the situation IMHO.

Except if the US does nothing what happens? If North Korea does nothing what happens? They're not equally warranting of blame IMO.

 

[GTX]

It isn't a case of rewarding bad behaviour.

Of course it is. North Korea is behaving badly. Some are proposing buying them off in some way and calling it "compromise". You can use all the fig leafs of "mature", "nuanced" or whatever else it takes to make it easier for you to swallow, but in the end you ARE giving them what they want in response to their bad behavior. To think otherwise is nothing more than delusion.

Meanwhile in the real world... :

 

[sferrin]

It isn't a case of rewarding bad behaviour.

Of course it is. North Korea is behaving badly. Some are proposing buying them off in some way and calling it "compromise". You can use all the fig leafs of "mature", "nuanced" or whatever else it takes to make it easier for you to swallow, but in the end you ARE giving them what they want in response to their bad behavior. To think otherwise is nothing more than delusion.

Meanwhile in the real world... :

Sorry, but that is the real world. If North Korea hadn't been testing nuclear weapons (which is banned), developing ICBMs, and threatening to nuke everybody, we wouldn't even be having the conversation. If Trump got hit by a bus 20 years ago we'd STILL be right where we're at with North Korea.

 

[GTX]

testing nuclear weapons (which is banned)

On what basis is NK banned from developing/testing nuclear weapons exactly? Technically it isn't the NPT since they formally withdrew from that over a decade ago. Please note that I am supporting their acquisition of said weapons but try to stick to facts.

threatening to nuke everybody

Really? Little bit of a hyperbole there me thinks... :

If Trump got hit by a bus 20 years ago we'd STILL be right where we're at with North Korea.

I (and many others I believe) would argue otherwise. For one, we would most likely not be dealing with two narcissistic personalities... :

 

[marauder2048]

No, my carrot allows the US to always, if the DPRK reneges on the deal to do something about it. What it does is it binds the DPRK and the US together in an agreement which BOTH sides must fulfill. The US chose not to, in this case, it reneged because Congress wanted to cripple the Clinton administration. Now it is paying the price but doesn't appear to have learnt anything from the experience. :

Only a treaty is binding; the North Koreans refused to sign one and Clinton
never presented one to Congress.

26 years ago, the US unilaterally de-nuclearized South Korea and Japan and
drew down conventional forces stationed in both countries. The US subsequently
dismantled practically all sub-strategic weapons; none of the fighter squadrons
tasked for South Korean deployment are nuclear certified.

The US has nothing to show for these efforts.

 

[kaiserd]

Have you not read these?

http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_res_2356.pdf

--
http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_res_2371.pdf

https://usun.state.gov/remarks/7924
--

http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_res_2375.pdf

https://usun.state.gov/remarks/7969


When the UN Security Council votes unanimously we call that a consensus.

In respect of potential for building a local consensus your comments/ suggestions may have some validity if North Korea looked like it was going to collapse in on itself with out external military intervention.
That is completely different to any prospects of any consensus on seeking to instigate this collapse via a preemptive military attack with all the associated risks.

When you put a child in a boat you place a life preserver on them. You teach your children how to drive and help them secure a license before they are allowed to drive on their own. We work up battle groups as teams before we send them out on patrol.

Adults plan and prepare for possible outcomes because we understand the risks of what will happen if we don't.

Re: Point 1 above;
(1) The consensus as you are referring it (harder sanctions on North Korea if it continued and developed its various programmes) long predates the current Pontus.
He certainly didn't generate it and actively appears to be pandering to (and potentially pivotting to) a different policy (military action now) that no one but a sub-set of ultra right wing US opinion backs.
(2) For those that see this approach as a ploy of to play tough to win concessions from North Korea (or to force China to a tougher position) are wilfully ignoring how transparent this bluff is to the various players.

(3) Best not to misrepresent consensus for tougher sanctions and diplomacy as any prospect of a consensus on premptive military action.


Re: point 2 above;
Of course there is a need for contingency plans and planning for the future.
(4) Apart from that very obvious point I literally have no idea what your talking about.
You have to plan for likely future events and have contingent resources to deal with unlikely future events.
Best not to fixate on planning for a potentially deluded version of the future involving a imagined "consensus" that is never likely to exist.

The US uses POTUS to refer to the President of the United States. I expect this is a typo on your part.

1. Foreign policy has its primary executor the Executive branch in the United States - at this point headed by President Trump. The direction is from his decision. If you're going to attribute the rhetoric of kinetic action of the Defense Department to him you must attribute the action of the State Department to him also.

2. It's supposed to be transparent. When one corrects a child and, perhaps, puts them in timeout, the action is transparent. Learning is to occur. That's the point of the correction.

When your child wrecks your car, risking their life and others, you don't give them the keys to the car again until they have proven that they have understood their actions and proven they are trustworthy.

The actions of the DPRK risks the lives of everyone. You want the message to be very clear. The subtle nudging has occurred over the last 40 years.

3. I didn't suggest the consensus was for military action. You made a conclusion on your own interpretation. Not based on my writing.

4. Deluded version of the future? The DPRK has the opportunity to change direction and modify their behavior. The expectation is that they won't because current DPRK leadership believes that these actions will keep them in power. They have witnessed what happened to Gadaffi and the Ukraine.

As I stated, these messages from POTUS are very clear. Hence my suggestion that open planning for the potential HA/DR mission occur. I'm not suggesting that future events may change this calculus. I'm hopeful that they do. The government of the United States is putting forth these resolutions in expectation that something will work.

There are never easy solutions. But, reading the resolutions, the status quo will not continue.

--

This can turn into a hot war quickly; a missile shot that go's awry and lands on Japan, a shot close to Guam, something none of us can think of, it doesn't take much.

It could also change into a massive HA/DR mission quickly. The government of the DPRK could collapse or a nuclear mishap could occur. Who knows?

Hence the HA/DR mission planning - or post DPRK mission planning. I'd rather the US, PRC, Russia and rest of ASEAN countries discussed this prior to any event.

I'd also like it very clear what will happen should other countries take advantage of this situation to increase tensions in other parts of the world. Perhaps NATO could make it clear how they are preparing for "any eventualities" in Korea.

I'll try not to add to the heat and fury of the comments above.

Do you think South Korea or Japan will welcome or facilitate preparations to deal with an imminent collapse of North Korea that to them or to any rational perspective does not look remotely imminent or look likely short of an imminent major war neither of them wants (and which would promise horrendous damage to both of them, especially South Korea)?
They would see such proposals as an attempt to sucker them in.
Hence what you are proposing is a fantasy designed to make your more major fantasy (premptive attack on North Korea) more plausible and palatable.

The brass tax is that for many reasons a premptive strike is an impossibility unless you sole priority is to starve off the day the continential US is within range of proven and tested North Korea's nuclear tipped ICBMs and you don't care how many (North & South) Koreans and Japanese people have to die to (maybe) achieve that.
Force can't resolve this. If it could have would George Bush Junior (for example) have not done so already after his "axis of evil" speech?
This is not a case of more "resolve" or "toughness" and some magic solution becomes available.
The current POTUS (or PONTUS to me) is pandering to his base (like you and sferrin) with his comments; North Korea and China are highly unlikely to be impacted in any way by transparent histrionic bluster and bluff (North Korea being past masters of such nonsense.
And they will have noted his lack of consistency and easy distraction by other massively important pressing issues for his administration. Like attacking the freedom of speech of some of his citizens. Who just happen to be black. After prioritising defending the freedom of speech of other US citizens. Who just happened to be Neo-Nazis.