Solutions to the North Korean nuclear crisis

[ecarfan]

If by "launching a nuclear missle" Elon means NK using a missle to target and explode a nuclear warhead in SK, Japan, or a US territory, then of course there would be a massive armed response and NK would cease to exist. But I doubt very much that NK would do that. They will continue to do things that are not direct attacks but that demonstrate their growing capabilities.

NK wants the US to negotiate a peace treaty with them directly. We have no choice but to do that, as the alternatives all involve hundreds of thousands or even millions of people dying. Such a treaty should not include letting NK take over SK. But we could recognize NK and possibly negotiate an end to hostilities. It has to be attempted.

Anyone who makes the decision to attack NK now, before NK has attacked (launching missles over Japan is not an "attack") will go down in history as a mass murderer. Some people apparently think that attacking now is preferable to allowing NK to have long range missles armed with nuclear weapons. I don't agree.

View attachment 245814

 

[oktane]

If by "launching a nuclear missle" Elon means NK using a missle to target and explode a nuclear warhead in SK, Japan, or a US territory, then of course there would be a massive armed response and NK would cease to exist. But I doubt very much that NK would do that. They will continue to do things that are not direct attacks but that demonstrate their growing capabilities.

NK wants the US to negotiate a peace treaty with them directly. We have no choice but to do that, as the alternatives all involve hundreds of thousands or even millions of people dying. Such a treaty should not include letting NK take over SK. But we could recognize NK and possibly negotiate an end to hostilities. It has to be attempted.

Anyone who makes the decision to attack NK now, before NK has attacked (launching missles over Japan is not an "attack") will go down in history as a mass murderer. Some people apparently think that attacking now is preferable to allowing NK to have long range missles armed with nuclear weapons. I don't agree.

I agree with you. The question is, how many American lives at risk are worth how many NK/SK lives lost?

It depends if you are a humanist (care about all humanity) vs. more of a nationalist American (can't risk 1 dead American even if many non-Americans die). I'm somewhere in between, I try to not kill spiders when feasible and hate violence, but love guns. NK has valid reasons to have nuclear weapons, but that doesn't mean our American interests should be ignored.

 

[GoTslaGo]

If by "launching a nuclear missle" Elon means NK using a missle to target and explode a nuclear warhead in SK, Japan, or a US territory, then of course there would be a massive armed response and NK would cease to exist. But I doubt very much that NK would do that. They will continue to do things that are not direct attacks but that demonstrate their growing capabilities.

NK wants the US to negotiate a peace treaty with them directly. We have no choice but to do that, as the alternatives all involve hundreds of thousands or even millions of people dying. Such a treaty should not include letting NK take over SK. But we could recognize NK and possibly negotiate an end to hostilities. It has to be attempted.

Anyone who makes the decision to attack NK now, before NK has attacked (launching missles over Japan is not an "attack") will go down in history as a mass murderer. Some people apparently think that attacking now is preferable to allowing NK to have long range missles armed with nuclear weapons. I don't agree.

The real question is what does Kim#3 want?

I suspect that there are a lot of internal political machinations that we have no clue about. As @mrElbe pointed out, there may be old guard support for Kim#3. Survivors of the Korean War, they would have only one desire--unification under NKorea and punishment of their enemies--mainly Japan and US.

Obviously I cannot see in their brains, but you see a lot of older Chinese who have similar desires and pent up hatred, and one can see their comments on line (or translated comments at least)--very supportive of their traditional allies in NKorea. We all have to understand that a lot of the old guard see China's market moves as a complete violation of the original founding of the People's Republic. Hence why Xi is moving China toward Confucianism, using that principle to give legitimacy to the Communist government.

Are we all willing to sell SKorea and Japan out like that?

As for what the younger generation want, maybe lifting of embargoes and free access to trade. That may be achievable, but if Kim#3 is of the old Guard faction, then that may be irrelevant. The whole concept of self-sufficiency and self-reliance coming to play here (Junce-sp?). No need to trade if you're an autarky and have everything you need (not necessarily want).

Further, would Kim#3 really want to give his people a better standard of living? His army yes, his people I'm not sure. This falls back to the inverted J-curve of history. Once the people start to see a better standard of living, they will expect more. Once those "more" stop coming (and the curve starts to go down), that's when governments get overthrown. Then again there was an episode early in his rule where he tried to impose currency controls to curb the black market, that ended VERY quickly, so the NKorean people do have a "vote" so to speak somewhere.

The key for him is to unify the army under him (IMHO). As long as he can get hard currency and food and oil for his army he's ok. IMHO, that's the whole point of the demonstrations of their missile capability, to impress his army with his resolve and defiance of all enemies. Trump yelling at him helps his cause, btw.

It seems to me, he really is the King Joffrey of NKorea. IIRC his interests in boarding school in Switzerland were Pornography and Dennis Rodman. And the methods he has used to kill his internal enemies have been just as ruthless--and intended to terrify his hidden enemies.

So what to negotiate? I don't know.

Either way, I really think all this missile firing is a show for his army and "people". I am hoping that is what it is really about, and this will blow over once he cements his own power in government.

 

[Intl Professor]

You assert Israel has nuke subs off of our waters.

I never asserted that. I implied, for you, that it was a possibility. There is a difference between asserting a reality and laying the groundwork for assuming it. Basic communication studies and I think even Claude Shannon believed there is sometimes entropy gain between a signal and its reception. But I'm not an expert on that. Perhaps my understanding of English is deficient because I never had a college English course. I did have a lot of training in logic as a sophomore in our plane geometry class because all we did was Euclidean proofs, day, after day, after day. Not at all boring; it was fun!

Please, fellow prof., such misconstructions often say more about the fabricators. I read more than the Jerusalem Post, which is like Fox News to many Americans. Often Mossad leaks really great stuff to Haaretz. And I will admit I have taught Rashid Khalidi's, Resurrecting Empire: Western Footprints and America's perilous Path in the Middle East. Warning, he admits to being Palestinian and holds the Edward Saed chair at Columbia after many years at the University of Chicago. But then our Constitution forbids "corruption of blood," in contrast to the Nazis and some others.

I once said in class there is more diversity of opinion in Israel about Israel than in the U.S. Whenever I strayed from the U.S. party line in the Middle East a young woman was often the first to challenge what I said. Of course I was happy that she spoke up, along with anyone opposing my views, since that made discussion more open and helped get others engaged. I'm sure that is how you teach as well. Surely there is some ambiguity about the law which enlivens your classes as well. Much later I learned her family followed the Post assiduously.

I am always in favor of the underdog having felt that position so much as a child in schools because my father was, in effect, a migratory worker. Of course I slightly favor the Palestinians as such but condemn their tactics along with that of the Israeli government. I am sincerely worried about Netanyahu since it seems by inspection (if you will forgive a mathematical allusion) to be clear Israel is safer so long as Iran is constrained regarding the production and concentration of nuclear materials. So there, I am opinionated. We all are. Some, all too few, with appropriate background for their conclusions.

When I was in high school I encountered at a distance a woman my age from Thailand. She said at that event at the Manhattan UN headquarters: "we are taught to think about everything we say, and not to say everything we think." I wish I could follow that advice consistently.

 

[Intl Professor]

Any solution that starts with the word "easy" is guaranteed to be wrong, when it comes to North Korea.

Or easy and any war. Cf: "shock and awe" and Iraq war, which isn't over by any means.

 

[bkp_duke]

If by "launching a nuclear missle" Elon means NK using a missle to target and explode a nuclear warhead in SK, Japan, or a US territory, then of course there would be a massive armed response and NK would cease to exist. But I doubt very much that NK would do that. They will continue to do things that are not direct attacks but that demonstrate their growing capabilities.

NK wants the US to negotiate a peace treaty with them directly. We have no choice but to do that, as the alternatives all involve hundreds of thousands or even millions of people dying. Such a treaty should not include letting NK take over SK. But we could recognize NK and possibly negotiate an end to hostilities. It has to be attempted.

Anyone who makes the decision to attack NK now, before NK has attacked (launching missles over Japan is not an "attack") will go down in history as a mass murderer. Some people apparently think that attacking now is preferable to allowing NK to have long range missles armed with nuclear weapons. I don't agree.

And how do you negotiate with someone that has clearly laid out "if you don't do what I want, I'll nuke you"? That's the logical progression here, we open up talks for a truce, he doesn't get the terms he likes, he keeps doing this. AT NO POINT has this regime shown that they understand what a "compromise" is. I.e. neither side gets fully what they want, but gets something they can live with.


Bill Clinton negotiated with them, and gave them some nuclear reactor technology and billions of dollars on the promise that they not develop nuclear weapons further. We see now that NK never negotiated that in good faith, with the intent to always develop nuclear weapons.

IMO, NK will never be happy until they find a way to force South Korea into their subjugation.

 

[Intl Professor]

IMO, NK will never be happy until they find a way to force South Korea into their subjugation.

The problem with that and any dictatorial approach is the approach is counter productive. Might work in a primary battle, but unsuitable for real governance. The South is now en garde and always has been since the active war period.

 

[rxlawdude]

I never asserted that. I implied, for you, that it was a possibility. There is a difference between asserting a reality and laying the groundwork for assuming it. Basic communication studies and I think even Claude Shannon believed there is sometimes entropy gain between a signal and its reception. But I'm not an expert on that. Perhaps my understanding of English is deficient because I never had a college English course. I did have a lot of training in logic as a sophomore in our plane geometry class because all we did was Euclidean proofs, day, after day, after day. Not at all boring; it was fun!

Please, fellow prof., such misconstructions often say more about the fabricators. I read more than the Jerusalem Post, which is like Fox News to many Americans. Often Mossad leaks really great stuff to Haaretz. And I will admit I have taught Rashid Khalidi's, Resurrecting Empire: Western Footprints and America's perilous Path in the Middle East. Warning, he admits to being Palestinian and holds the Edward Saed chair at Columbia after many years at the University of Chicago. But then our Constitution forbids "corruption of blood," in contrast to the Nazis and some others.

I once said in class there is more diversity of opinion in Israel about Israel than in the U.S. Whenever I strayed from the U.S. party line in the Middle East a young woman was often the first to challenge what I said. Of course I was happy that she spoke up, along with anyone opposing my views, since that made discussion more open and helped get others engaged. I'm sure that is how you teach as well. Surely there is some ambiguity about the law which enlivens your classes as well. Much later I learned her family followed the Post assiduously.

I am always in favor of the underdog having felt that position so much as a child in schools because my father was, in effect, a migratory worker. Of course I slightly favor the Palestinians as such but condemn their tactics along with that of the Israeli government. I am sincerely worried about Netanyahu since it seems by inspection (if you will forgive a mathematical allusion) to be clear Israel is safer so long as Iran is constrained regarding the production and concentration of nuclear materials. So there, I am opinionated. We all are. Some, all too few, with appropriate background for their conclusions.

When I was in high school I encountered at a distance a woman my age from Thailand. She said at that event at the Manhattan UN headquarters: "we are taught to think about everything we say, and not to say everything we think." I wish I could follow that advice consistently.

I teach bioethics and health-care related law. Thanks for your expanded post above. Indeed, I read both Haaretz and JPost (and totally agree with your assessment of the JPost). And you're right that there are as many, if not more, opinions about how Israel and the Palestinians can live in, if not harmony, at least peace. And I totally agree that Netanyahu's approach is precisely the wrong way to ever gain peace.

 

[bkp_duke]

The problem with that and any dictatorial approach is the approach is counter productive. Might work in a primary battle, but unsuitable for real governance. The South is now en garde and always has been since the active war period.

I'm not arguing that. I'm simply saying that their approach is very simple-minded. "Give me everything I want, or I nuke you."

 

[iwannam3]

We were trading oil for a stop of their nuclear weapons plan until 2002 when Bush administration terminated the supply of fuel oil that was essential to the agreement — and then North Korea quickly kicked out the U.N. inspectors, restarted the nuclear plant and began developing its nuclear weapons, using the material in radioactive fuel rods that previously had been under the close watch of the IAEA. Japan and South Korea, the key partners in the accord, were not happy with the decision to terminate the Agreed Framework, but there was little they could do about it. Analysis | History lesson: Why did Bill Clinton’s North Korea deal fail?

 

[Aieukl378]

If you haven't figured it out by now humanity is pretty much ****ed. My only advice is to buy a Model S or X now cause by the time the 3 is in full production the world will have already ended. Also, please use my referral code as I would very much like my children to enjoy the toy Tesla before End Times.

 

[mka]

Its great to have a serious discussion about this very important topic.

Here are my thoughts:

I am by no means an expert in North Korea, never been there and don’t know anybody there.

I grew up in East Germany, went to school and university there under the communist rule. So I have been bombarded with their ideology for quite a while and know a bit about their thinking and their fears.

What Kim fears the most is his own people. He knows that the US or anybody else would never invade them. He runs a brutal and repressive dictatorship. People who try to resist are put in camps or are executed. Nevertheless, there is an underground resistance in NK. I am very sure there is. So Kim needs an explanation for his repressive regime for his own people. He needs to rally his people as good as he can. He needs an explanation why he executes any opposition. What is the best reason any dictator can come up with: a powerful external enemy. Nothing unites a country better than an external enemy. So he claims to his own people that the US and the West wants to invade and destroy NK and only he (Kim) can protect them and that’s why the whole country has to suffer and that’s why all resources go into the military and the nukes. And that’s why he must crush any opposition.

And unfortunately, the West and the US play along. The sanctions and embargoes and the rhetoric are just playing in Kim’s hands. He can show his people how “aggressive” the West is. So he keeps testing missiles and bombs, gets more sanctions and has more reason to oppress his people. Kim is not “begging for war”, he is “begging for more sanctions”. Sanctions and rhetoric just help him to stay in power.



Let me circle back to East Germany. It was an oppressive regime as well, however by far not as oppressive as NK. Over many years an underground resistance developed. West Germany (and the West and the US) never sanctioned East Germany. They did the opposite. West Germany pushed for more trade with East Germany. West Germans who sent gift packages to East Germany could write that off as tax credit. So the Communist rulers basically run out of explanations for why they have to oppress opposition. That strengthened the underground resistance very much.

Also the opposite happened: When NATO installed the Pershing missiles in West Germany in 1984, aiming into East Germany, suddenly the communists had a new excuse and a new enemy. They used that to crack down on internal resistance and not surprisingly a majority of the East Germans supported that, because they felt threatened. The external thread rallied the people around their oppressor.



So: Lift all sanctions to NK, trade with them, encourage South Koreans to send gift packages to their northern brothers. Kim will run out of excuses; the resistance will get stronger and Kim will be overthrown by its own people (probably led by some sane generals). At that moment support the resistance with massive amounts of food and goods in return for international control over the nukes.

 

[GoTslaGo]

Its great to have a serious discussion about this very important topic.

Here are my thoughts:

I am by no means an expert in North Korea, never been there and don’t know anybody there.

I grew up in East Germany, went to school and university there under the communist rule. So I have been bombarded with their ideology for quite a while and know a bit about their thinking and their fears.

What Kim fears the most is his own people. He knows that the US or anybody else would never invade them. He runs a brutal and repressive dictatorship. People who try to resist are put in camps or are executed. Nevertheless, there is an underground resistance in NK. I am very sure there is. So Kim needs an explanation for his repressive regime for his own people. He needs to rally his people as good as he can. He needs an explanation why he executes any opposition. What is the best reason any dictator can come up with: a powerful external enemy. Nothing unites a country better than an external enemy. So he claims to his own people that the US and the West wants to invade and destroy NK and only he (Kim) can protect them and that’s why the whole country has to suffer and that’s why all resources go into the military and the nukes. And that’s why he must crush any opposition.

And unfortunately, the West and the US play along. The sanctions and embargoes and the rhetoric are just playing in Kim’s hands. He can show his people how “aggressive” the West is. So he keeps testing missiles and bombs, gets more sanctions and has more reason to oppress his people. Kim is not “begging for war”, he is “begging for more sanctions”. Sanctions and rhetoric just help him to stay in power.



Let me circle back to East Germany. It was an oppressive regime as well, however by far not as oppressive as NK. Over many years an underground resistance developed. West Germany (and the West and the US) never sanctioned East Germany. They did the opposite. West Germany pushed for more trade with East Germany. West Germans who sent gift packages to East Germany could write that off as tax credit. So the Communist rulers basically run out of explanations for why they have to oppress opposition. That strengthened the underground resistance very much.

Also the opposite happened: When NATO installed the Pershing missiles in West Germany in 1984, aiming into East Germany, suddenly the communists had a new excuse and a new enemy. They used that to crack down on internal resistance and not surprisingly a majority of the East Germans supported that, because they felt threatened. The external thread rallied the people around their oppressor.



So: Lift all sanctions to NK, trade with them, encourage South Koreans to send gift packages to their northern brothers. Kim will run out of excuses; the resistance will get stronger and Kim will be overthrown by its own people (probably led by some sane generals). At that moment support the resistance with massive amounts of food and goods in return for international control over the nukes.

Thank you for your insight!

 

[Intl Professor]

How sane you are and the psychology is clear. I'm sorry it was gained with the pain of living in East Germany but your experiences have led to clear wisdom and strong evidence in support of its application to today's news.

Year's ago I was interviewed by one of our local TV stations when Carter had withdrawn from the Moscow Olympics in retaliation for the invasion of Afghanistan. I remarked "one could learn a lot about international relations through understanding child psychology." Equally, at about the same time I ran into one of our Democratic members of Congress at the 1980 Party Convention. I asked him, "Are we weaker or stronger because of the Vietnam War." Weaker, he replied. "Is the USSR weaker or stronger because of its Afghan invasion?," weaker he replied. "Why are we opposing their action?," I asked. "We had to do something."

I think it was Marx who said tradition lies like a massive alp on the brain of the living. Charley Munger put it well, too.

 

[deonb]

We were trading oil for a stop of their nuclear weapons plan until 2002 when Bush administration terminated the supply of fuel oil that was essential to the agreement — and then North Korea quickly kicked out the U.N. inspectors, restarted the nuclear plant and began developing its nuclear weapons, using the material in radioactive fuel rods that previously had been under the close watch of the IAEA. Japan and South Korea, the key partners in the accord, were not happy with the decision to terminate the Agreed Framework, but there was little they could do about it. Analysis | History lesson: Why did Bill Clinton’s North Korea deal fail?

Yeah, it was yet one more of those things things that if Gore won, we would have not been in this situation.

537 people in Florida may have potentially sealed the the fate for tens of millions of people worldwide. (Or 1 person on the Supreme court, depending on your POV.)

 

[Curt Renz]

All it is going to take is for one of the North Korean Generals to build up the courage to "do the right thing", and then the "issue" goes completely away. The military leaders there know that should the dear leader actually follow through on his threats, its the end for the North Korean military, and the leader himself. They might even be faced with nuclear annihilation, though I don't recommend that the US or anyone ever does that. Turning the allied conventional forced loose on North Korea could lead to many casualties, though it its not clear to me when faced with that decision, that the Korean generals would go all in.

Unified democratic Korea rebuilds just like Germany did after East Germany disappeared.

My $0.02

RT

A coup would not surprise me. There were several planned against Hitler, but they all failed. The allied leaders knew of them, but thwarted the wide development of successful conspiracies by continuing to insist on unconditional surrender from whoever was left in charge of Germany. That should not be a factor with North Korea. Covert nudges from concerned governments may already be ongoing. Indeed, a unified Korea led by the south would be a great boon to those in the north.

 

[Curt Renz]

NK's goal has not changed. There was no official end to the Korean War. It ended in a stalemate.
Kim wants a re-unified Korea under communist rule just like after WWII when his family was put into power by Stalin.

Anything short of that is not in NK's best interests. China was their ally in the Korean War as was communist USSR.

NK knows in order to re-unify they must deal with the USA and to a lesser degree the UN.
MacArthur was an egomaniac, but he did foresee today's events. He knew it would never end as long as a communist NK exists.

China is not our ally. I'm not sure why folk keep thinking that. The West wants profits that come from dealing with China, and China has lobbied for decades to the US Congress and President and American corporations for more trade.

What might appear as China being our 'friend' is just them using our greed against us as a tool. This is why no effective actions against NK have occurred in recent decades while the threat continued to grow. No matter who is in the White House, you are down to 3 possible actions:

Capitulate - This was effective in Vietnam. Vietnam reunified by force of arms. Everything seems to working OK for now since North Vietnam was never out for expansion in the region, just reunification.

Start to unwind relations with communist China. Communist China DOES have expansionist goals, and is rapidly building advanced armed forces to help towards expansion.

Finish the Korean War. This would have been wiser to do BEFORE they finished their first nuclear weapon.

If Clinton was in office, it probably would have been capitulation via appeasement like when Bill Clinton was in office. It probably will work. However the side effect will be an economic advantage to the Chinese and assist their imperialist goals.

Note that in 1994 Jimmy Carter "solved" the NK problem we were told by meeting with Kim and negotiating a permanent peace. Har.

It's unfortunate that in the summer of 1945, then-President Truman did not accept the advice of ex-President Hoover. That was to not drop the atomic bomb, but to instead let Japan keep its emperor and maintain control of Korea. Hoover told Truman that would immediately end the war. General MacArthur later told Hoover he would have been right. It's hindsight, but would have meant no Korean War and no problems today with North Korea. Also no precedent would have been set for the use of nuclear weapons.

 

[Curt Renz]

Thanks for your insights into this. The question of how the idea might be sold is something I hadn't thought much about. I know only a few people in the federal government, none of whom are political appointees that might have a line to President Trump, Ambassador Haley, or Secretary Tilerson.

@Curt Renz , any idea on how to pass this along to somebody in the Executive branch to consider it?

I don't care about credit or recognition. I'm also not the first person to think up the concept of a Chinese Nuclear umbrella coverage for North Korea (although I did think this up independently). I googled around to see if anyone else had advocated the same strategy. The idea had appeared in 2013 in the Chinese publication "Huanqiu Shibao", described as a foreign policy tabloid of the People's Daily. Translated here: http://sinonk.com/2013/01/16/cooling-the-nuclear-hotspot-advocating-a-prc-nuclear-umbrella-for-north-korea/

The Chinese article does not explicitly mention N Korea:

"Some bordering countries are developing nuclear weapons in the hopes of guaranteeing their country’s security in the face of foreign military threats. If China can provide a reliable nuclear umbrella, this will improve the legitimacy of the international non-proliferation regime, be beneficial towards inducing the relevant countries to abandon their nuclear plans and thus cool the nuclear hotspot on China’s periphery."

Burt it is an obvious if indirect reference to the North.

I don't personally know anyone in the Trump administration. I suggest writing those who represent you in Congress.

 

[rxlawdude]

It's unfortunate that in the summer of 1945, then-President Truman did not accept the advice of ex-President Hoover. That was to not drop the atomic bomb, but to instead let Japan keep its emperor and maintain control of Korea. Hoover told Truman that would immediately end the war. General MacArthur later told Hoover he would have been right. It's hindsight, but would have meant no Korean War and no problems today with North Korea.

I think the Korean "comfort women" would, not respectfully, disagree.

 

[iwannam3]

Here is a quick and easy solution: Have customs open and inspect every container coming from China until they do something about NK. No congressional action required. "We are looking for Fentanyl!"