North Korean Missiles Can Hit Mainland US

[hobbsyoyo]

So what's the plan? Trump was much less vitriolic this time around simply saying we will handle the situation vs the last time when he said stuff about coming down with a fury or whatever.

I guess you have to decide

1. If those icbms are actually a threat or if our anti missile systems can shoot them down
2. If NK would actually use them on us unprovoked, or is it simply a bargaining chip. Like why do they want nukes so bad, so they can invade SK and scare china and the western powers off from intervening? Or do they just want to get us to lower the economic sanctions?
2. If we should invade NK as a response. I don't think air strikes would be sufficient, it would be a land invasion and long occupation. Pretty drastic and you'd need global support.

What @Disgustipated said. There is no plan for this. The genie is out of the lamp and there are no good options to put it back. That said, North Korea really isn't threatening us in a meaningful way. They are not going to nuke us and more than the Russians or Chinese would. A good course of action would be to do nothing. An even better course of action would be to accept them as a nuclear power and attempt a normalization of relations. The sanctions are not doing anything to stop the leadership or change their course; at this point they only hurt the population of North Korea which don't have a say in the running of their own government.

This isn't 1960, they aren't going to start spreading communism across SE Asia, even if we accept that would be a bad thing on the face of it. Just look at how much positive change normalization of relations with China has brought to the entire planet and over a billion Chinese people.

The myth of limited armed intervention in North Korea is just that - a myth. There is no military solution that doesn't involve millions, if not billions, of dead people. And for what? To stop the North Koreans from threatening us? Are we so weak and insecure that the hermit kingdom really threatens us enough to care? Especially in light of the fact that they can't actually nuke us without annihilating themselves.


Now shooting missiles over Japan is dangerous. It more than a provacation, it poses an actual threat due to mishap or misinterpretation of intent. That should stop. Unfortunately, we don't have any tools to make it stop except trying to get along with North Korea.

That's the only tool we have that we have never tried. Would it really be that bad if we stopped the sanctions? Would the world order just collapse? I think not and I do think it would make the lives of a lot of North Koreans better and when that happens we can begin to hope for regime change.

 

[FriendlyFire]

The myth of limited armed intervention in North Korea is just that - a myth. There is no military solution that doesn't involve millions, if not billions, of dead people. And for what? To stop the North Koreans from threatening us? Are we so weak and insecure that the hermit kingdom really threatens us enough to care? Especially in light of the fact that they can't actually nuke us without annihilating themselves.

Dear Leader like Trump needs to be seen as "winning"
Iam guessing its mostly for domestic politics as it seems rather irrational

North Korea is good at playing the cold war propaganda game, Just have South Korea, Japan and Taiwan build some nuclear weapons to restore the balance of power to the region. North Korea is increasingly falling behind its neighbors. it knows it is in a weak position thus it plays a game of projecting strength. Which worked before in the cold war and its seems to be sticking with what works.

 

[red_elk]

The genie is out of the lamp and there are no good options to put it back.

I think it is theoretically possible to make them abandon their nuclear program in exchange for security guarantees, reducing US military presence in the region and economic aid. The problem is that it would require mutual concessions from US and NK side and US isn't ready for that.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Even if such a deal could be struck on those terms - which I doubt - North Korea could not be trusted to uphold it.

 

[red_elk]

It's true, any deal between US and NK cannot be based on trust. Like with Iranian nuclear program, there are mechanisms of control (inspections of nuclear facilities, tracing fission materials, etc). I don't know how applicable they are in case of North Korean program, but it's IMO the only way to make them disarm and (hopefully) stop further nuclear proliferation.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

They already tried the inspection route. It ended when the North Koreans decided to end it. Once they do that you have no other recourse to get them back into compliance. They do not respond to sanctions and war is unacceptable.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Even if such a deal could be struck on those terms - which I doubt - North Korea could not be trusted to uphold it.

By all indications the US cannot be trusted to uphold such a deal. Libya got talked out of their defensive nuclear program with a security guarantee deal. The US promptly ignored their end. Iran got talked out of their defensive nuclear program with a security guarantee deal. The US promptly elected a government that is openly hostile to Iran and could attack them at any time. At this point, what could possibly motivate any country to surrender their ability to retaliate against the US?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I completely agree.

 

[red_elk]

They already tried the inspection route. It ended when the North Koreans decided to end it.

If they decided to end it, it means that the agreement wasn't beneficial for them. What I'm telling is you can't intimidate them, but there's still an option to buy them if you want. If the agreement basing on trust or goodwill with US or NK is impossible, the only way to make lasting agreement is to make it mutually profitable.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If they decided to end it, it means that the agreement wasn't beneficial for them. What I'm telling is you can't intimidate them, but there's still an option to buy them if you want. If the agreement basing on trust or goodwill with US or NK is impossible, the only way to make lasting agreement is to make it mutually profitable.

The US really can't make deals like that. We have demonstrated too often that with a whimsical election we can shift against such a deal and leave the partner in the deal twisting in the wind. For NK to enter into such a deal with us would be beyond foolhardy, no matter how profitable it might be.

 

[Hrothbern]

If they decided to end it, it means that the agreement wasn't beneficial for them. What I'm telling is you can't intimidate them, but there's still an option to buy them if you want. If the agreement basing on trust or goodwill with US or NK is impossible, the only way to make lasting agreement is to make it mutually profitable.

Mutually profitable, the normal win-win is what all normal trade is about.

If two parties are able to handle that in a stable way for a prolonged period, something like trust can start to emerge.... based on subjective justified evidence

It is only when parties are already connected by very many other win-win strings, that you can draw up longstanding agreements that on their own do not need the traditional long time.
Most of the Western countries are connected that way by UN, WTO, IMF, whatever supranational conventions.
Trust and goodwill are followers of a proven normal relation record in the case of US-NK
So, putting military stuff aside, in terms of trade we are at zero right now, not that far from the US-Cuba relation

 

[red_elk]

The US really can't make deals like that. We have demonstrated too often that with a whimsical election we can shift against such a deal and leave the partner in the deal twisting in the wind. For NK to enter into such a deal with us would be beyond foolhardy, no matter how profitable it might be.

I agree that the US cannot be trusted on things like that. What I'm suggesting is that mutually profitable agreements can be made even between partners who don't trust each other, like USA and USSR during Cold War. For example, if NK puts on hold further development of their nuclear program and agrees to regular inspections, US can in exchange restrict their military presence in the area and offer economical aid. If any side violates the agreement, the other can withdraw from it too. Of course the fact that NK already has nuclear weapons complicates the situation a lot.