Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Solutions to the North Korean nuclear crisis

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I think the Korean "comfort women" would, not respectfully, disagree.

Of course you are right, but that situation was unknown to the allies at the time. Korea had been Japanese territory since 1910. President Theodore Roosevelt had green-lighted that merger in 1905.

In 1945 ex-President Hoover suggested that the return of Korea to Japan should occur after temporary American occupation of both countries for pacification of Japan and reformation of its constitution, including the guarantee of civil rights and/or Japanese citizenship for Koreans. The suggestion was meant to be a face saving gesture that would speed Japanese acceptance of a surrender without need for armed invasion, Russian involvement or an atomic bomb.
 
Last edited:
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.
You stop the import of gasoline, and disconnect the powerlines across the China/NK border.
Then wait.
 
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.

(News to me about Hoover, thanks!)

Can't speak to the Korean issue then.

Joseph C. Grew was ambassador to Japan for the U.S. at the time of Pearl Harbor. Later as a State Department advisor and I believe, but cannot confirm, an assistant to Truman. At State he was on a committee examining use of the bomb and counseled against its use against Japan and made arguments similar to those of Hoover. In his memoirs he says he made these arguments directly to Truman.

There was a great deal of agitation within our scientific community developing the bomb. A number were adamantly opposed against civilian targets. A demonstration against a small island was rejected as not a powerful enough message. One proposal was using the first bomb on Kyoto which no less than Henry Stimson, Secretary of War, blocked because he had travelled in Japan and recognized its spiritual and cultural significance. A quick look at Wikipedia gleaned some insight that using the bomb against military targets was an idea of Jimmy Byrnes. Truman is reported to have said to the New York times on learning of Hitler's invasion of Russia that after the war we should help whoever lost and worry about whoever won. Given a discrete citation for that by a colleague I was never able to confirm it. (Hate microfilms!!) Byrnes was definitely a hawk on the USSR and from Truman's memoirs relating to the Potsdam meeting of the Big Three it is clear he was clearly upset about what the Russkies were doing in their zone of occupation. When the US delegation learned of the successful first test in Nevada, there was discussion of whether to inform Stalin, which they did. He said, "use it." And then later told Zhukov (parallel to Eisenhower), "let's tell Kurchatov to speed up his work." If I remember correctly Stimson in his memoirs also argued against carrying "this weapon ostentatiously like a pistol on our hip" in dealing with the Russians.

A number of physicists, namely PMS Blackett have argued as he did in Fear, War, and the Bomb, that using it was the first step in the post '45 Cold War. Others note that it began with our antipathy to the Bolshevik Revolution and our invasion of Russia on two fronts during its civil war. (The Siberian expedition was ambiguous as Betty M. Unterberger has pointed out.) The venerable Hanson W. Baldwin, long-time military correspondent for the New York Times also considered dropping the bomb a blunder in his Great Mistakes of the War, especially since MacArthur followed Margaret Meade's advice to rule through the institution of the Emperor. Who says anthropology isn't useful?

More pedantry next time, unless Audie gives me the hook.
 
Last edited:
(News to me about Hoover, thanks!)

Can't speak to the Korean issue then.

Joseph C. Grew was ambassador to Japan for the U.S. at the time of Pearl Harbor. Later as a State Department advisor and I believe, but cannot confirm, an assistant to Truman. At State he was on a committee examining use of the bomb and counseled against its use against Japan and made arguments similar to those of Hoover. In his memoirs he says he made these arguments directly to Truman.

There was a great deal of agitation within our scientific community developing the bomb. A number were adamantly opposed against civilian targets. A demonstration against a small island was rejected as not a powerful enough message. One proposal was using the first bomb on Kyoto which no less than Henry Stimson, Secretary of War, blocked because he had travelled in Japan and recognized its spiritual and cultural significance. A quick look at Wikipedia gleaned some insight that using the bomb against military targets was an idea of Jimmy Byrnes. Truman is reported to have said to the New York times on learning of Hitler's invasion of Russia that after the war we should help whoever lost and worry about whoever won. Given a discrete citation for that by a colleague I was never able to confirm it. (Hate microfilms!!) Byrnes was definitely a hawk on the USSR and from Truman's memoirs relating to the Potsdam meeting of the Big Three it is clear he was clearly upset about what the Russkies were doing in their zone of occupation. When the US delegation learned of the successful first test in Nevada, there was discussion of whether to inform Stalin, which they did. He said, "use it." And then later told Zhukov (parallel to Eisenhower), "let's tell Kurchatov to speed up his work." If I remember correctly Stimson in his memoirs also argued against carrying "this weapon ostentatiously like a pistol on our hip" in dealing with the Russians.

A number of physicists, namely PMS Blackett have argued as he did in Fear, War, and the Bomb, that using it was the first step in the post '45 Cold War. Others note that it began with our antipathy to the Bolshevik Revolution and our invasion of Russia on two fronts during its civil war. (The Siberian expedition was ambiguous as Betty M. Unterberger has pointed out.) The venerable Hanson W. Baldwin, long-time military correspondent for the New York Times also considered dropping the bomb a blunder in his Great Mistakes of the War, especially since MacArthur followed Margaret Meade's advice to rule through the institution of the Emperor. Who says anthropology isn't useful?

More pedantry next time, unless Audie gives me the hook.

Not what President Truman wanted you to know: MILITARY VIEWS About Dropping the Atomic Bomb

President Hoover's book critiquing the handling of World War II and early Cold War: https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Betr...=1-1&keywords=freedom+betrayed+herbert+hoover
 
Last edited:
My sister-in-law is teaching me librarians can find anything. I should ad, so do journalists, as I should have known since so many famous people were or aspired to that profession, from Lenin to Jack Kennedy. Now the extraordinary Curt what's his name?
 
Not what President Truman wanted you to know: MILITARY VIEWS About Dropping the Atomic Bomb

President Hoover's book critiquing the handling of World War II and early Cold War: https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Betr...=1-1&keywords=freedom+betrayed+herbert+hoover
Thanks. An obit of Truman by NYT has quote I was looking for but no confirmation from their archives for reference to the original statement when he was a Senator.

You're welcome. In 1941 ex-President Herbert Hoover offered advice somewhat similar to that of Senator Harry Truman. Hoover essentially said that the evil German and Soviet dictators should be allowed to pound each other without our intervention, and the winner would be too weak for the West to worry about.

You'd appreciate the nearly 1000-page Hoover book that I recommended. It is incredibly well sourced, since Hoover intimately knew and was respected by all the American political and military leaders of the era (well, FDR didn't like him.) In 1938 Hoover visited many of the European leaders including Hitler. He died in 1964 at age 90 before the book could be edited. His heirs did not want it published because of its unkind comments about living persons. Eventually it was edited and published in 2011. It's not the type of war history usually written by the victors, or the pop-historians who can say little disparaging about leaders on our side of won wars.
 
Last edited:
FWIW, all the reports are indicating a massive Chinese military buildup on the North Korean border: land troops, land exercises, air force exercises, naval exercises, construction of bunkers, radiation monitors... and the Chinese "semi-official" press is coming down very negative on North Korea.

Also, North Korea just caused an earthquake in China. Embarassing the Chinese Premier.

North Korea poses a very real nuclear threat to China. But China's government must now decide whether the bigger danger is letting North Korea continue to exist. If Kim #3 continues to act sufficiently erratic, they may make that decision.

The best thing the US can do is to get out of the way. The US is Kim's excuse for his military buildup which is directed at China. And if the US does anything idiotic like attacking first, then China can't support the US.

The principle is that you have to wait for the other guy to attack first. Lincoln waited for the Confederacy to attack Fort Sumter. FDR waited for Pearl Harbor. Everyone waited for Hitler to invade Poland. You have to do this to retain legitimacy. I don't think Trump understands this and I am not sure much of the US military does.

North Korea causing earthquakes in China, however, can be fairly construed as an attack on China. I believe this was a very serious mistake on Kim's part. If he does it again, he will probably see his country destroyed by China *regardless* of whether he manages to nuke a Chinese city.
 
China does not want a border with a unified US-friendly single Korea.
But I think they'd prefer that to:
- war next door, with a chance of nukes
- trade disruption
- US missile sites in South Korea

All China has to do is freeze gasoline imports to NK. That alone is pressure enough.

Remember that Kim is threatening China with nuclear attack. Then work out what China should do. Please note my comment regarding China's massive military buildup on the NK border (including the sea border), which does not appear to me to be directed against South Korea or the US.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: bkp_duke
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.)
Or the Brooks Brothers Rioters who criminally shut down the vote counting in Miami. Plenty of blame to go around. :-(
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: bkp_duke
A coup would not surprise me. There were several planned against Hitler, but they all failed.
Unfortunately my guess is that there have probably been several failed coups against Kim already. He's become paranoid and has been murdering his close associates; that's the behavior of someone who suspects coup attempts. Possibly because there was one.
 
Please note my comment regarding China's massive military buildup on the NK border (including the sea border), which does not appear to me to be directed against South Korea or the US.

This has actually more to do with China not wanting refugees from North Korea, in case there is an escalation with the U.S. and/or South Korea. Doesn't mean that China is preparing or anticipating a direct war with North Korea. I think even if North Korea simultaneously attack Japan, South Korea, Guam and the U.S. mainland, China will just sit on the sideline and make sure nobody spills over their border.
 
Of course you are right, but that situation was unknown to the allies at the time. Korea had been Japanese territory since 1910. President Theodore Roosevelt had green-lighted that merger in 1905.

In 1945 ex-President Hoover suggested that the return of Korea to Japan should occur after temporary American occupation of both countries for pacification of Japan and reformation of its constitution, including the guarantee of civil rights and/or Japanese citizenship for Koreans. The suggestion was meant to be a face saving gesture that would speed Japanese acceptance of a surrender without need for armed invasion, Russian involvement or an atomic bomb.

It wouldn't have worked. Have you read the history of the behavior of the Japanese high command at the end of WWII (only discovered after the war was over)? They were completely deranged. They wouldn't negotiate! There were repeated attempts to open negotiations and it wasn't happening. This was due to deliberate action to prevent negotiations by the most fanatical in the high command. Even if the emperor had accepted a face-saving gesture, the fanatics in the high command wouldn't have.

Even after both nuclear bombings and after the emperor ordered the surrender, there was an attempted military coup against the emperor to keep the war going (!!!), and the supporters of the emperor had to chase down and kill the coup plotters in the middle of the night.

If the US had managed to take out the Japanese high command, the war would probably have ended quickly, but that's hard, and the US tried and failed (didn't hit their bunker).

Due to the extremely extensive and successful censorship within Japan at the time, those in the US did not at the time have any idea about the internal conflicts going on within the Japanese high command. It would have been helpful to have known that there were really two factions, one completely fanatical to the death, and the other trying to get out of the war but being threatened by the fanatics at every turn. The US apparently didn't find this out until after the war was over.

(Was Japan effectively defeated before the nuclear bombings? Yes. Were the bombings a mistake? Yes. Would anything have convinced the fanatic faction to surrender? No. They were willing to *run a coup against the emperor* to keep the war going.)
 
Last edited:
This has actually more to do with China not wanting refugees from North Korea, in case there is an escalation with the U.S. and/or South Korea. Doesn't mean that China is preparing or anticipating a direct war with North Korea. I think even if North Korea simultaneously attack Japan, South Korea, Guam and the U.S. mainland, China will just sit on the sideline and make sure nobody spills over their border.
I don't think so. Live fire exercises? Naval exercises involving both coastal bombardment and landings? Air force exercises?

You don't shoot refugees, it looks bad on TV. You do live fire exercises when you're expecting a direct war.
 
Unfortunately my guess is that there have probably been several failed coups against Kim already. He's become paranoid and has been murdering his close associates; that's the behavior of someone who suspects coup attempts. Possibly because there was one.

Kim Jong Un lives in fear of assassination by western 'decapitation' team, says report

Report: N. Korea executes officials with anti-aircraft guns for 'enraging' Kim Jong Un

Earlier power struggle--executes his uncle and entire extended family, and then some. Probably still has loyal survivors scattered about in N.Korea:

N Korea executes relatives of Kim Jong-Un's dead uncle: reports
 
Remember that Kim is threatening China with nuclear attack. Then work out what China should do. Please note my comment regarding China's massive military buildup on the NK border (including the sea border), which does not appear to me to be directed against South Korea or the US.
Kim is in no way threatening China.
North Korea is entirely dependent on the goodwill of China. China could utterly destroy North Korea by doing no more than simply closing its border with North Korea.

China is preparing militarily for being suddenly next door to a war between US/SK and NK.

Don't forget, if the regime falls North Korea could just as easily be a new Tibet under Chinese rule. This would certainly be preferable to China than an enlarged, unified, pro-American Korea on its border.