Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 04 Sep 2017, 5:42 am

freeman3 wrote:This article clearly explains that North Korea almost certainly does not have the capability to hit theme US with an ICBM. Yet.

https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.reute ... SKCN1BE0PT


But it's just a matter of time ... Trump continues to put pressure on China to put pressure on NK. Having the other side wonder if you are sane can certainly help you in a negotiation.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 04 Sep 2017, 8:51 am

Agreed. It doesn't seem that Kim Jong Un has any incentive to negotiate. He is going to get a lot if he develops an ICBM. Nothing we can offer him can match it and sanctions (unless they rose to a draconian level that is very unlikely) are not going to deter him either.

Thus, the only way to stop him is a military solution. There he probably thinks he has us boxed in. He has put the onus for starting a war on us and costs of such a war war are unacceptable. He figures we know if he attack him, he attacks South Korea because his regime is threatened, and millions die. So in this game of chess the onus is on us. And the chess move we have to make is too costly. Therefore, we won't do it.

But what if instead of an all-out strike we make a more limited strike, say take out a missile base if he tests another missile or shoot down any missile that is launched. His regime is not threatened by a limited strike and then the onus of starting a war would be on him. And faced with us continuing to interfere with his being able to test his missiles and his not wanting to start a war when his regime is not threatened, he might be willing to negotiate.

Possible?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 04 Sep 2017, 9:42 am

freeman3 wrote:Agreed. It doesn't seem that Kim Jong Un has any incentive to negotiate. He is going to get a lot if he develops an ICBM. Nothing we can offer him can match it and sanctions (unless they rose to a draconian level that is very unlikely) are not going to deter him either.

Thus, the only way to stop him is a military solution. There he probably thinks he has us boxed in. He has put the onus for starting a war on us and costs of such a war war are unacceptable. He figures we know if he attack him, he attacks South Korea because his regime is threatened, and millions die. So in this game of chess the onus is on us. And the chess move we have to make is too costly. Therefore, we won't do it.

But what if instead of an all-out strike we make a more limited strike, say take out a missile base if he tests another missile or shoot down any missile that is launched. His regime is not threatened by a limited strike and then the onus of starting a war would be on him. And faced with us continuing to interfere with his being able to test his missiles and his not wanting to start a war when his regime is not threatened, he might be willing to negotiate.

Possible?


I think that's down the road, and believe that I alluded to it several pages ago. First we will see much harsher sanctions that China will sign onto that will starve the regime of energy and cash.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 04 Sep 2017, 9:43 am

freeman3 wrote:Agreed. It doesn't seem that Kim Jong Un has any incentive to negotiate. He is going to get a lot if he develops an ICBM. Nothing we can offer him can match it and sanctions (unless they rose to a draconian level that is very unlikely) are not going to deter him either.

Thus, the only way to stop him is a military solution. There he probably thinks he has us boxed in. He has put the onus for starting a war on us and costs of such a war war are unacceptable. He figures we know if he attack him, he attacks South Korea because his regime is threatened, and millions die. So in this game of chess the onus is on us. And the chess move we have to make is too costly. Therefore, we won't do it.

But what if instead of an all-out strike we make a more limited strike, say take out a missile base if he tests another missile or shoot down any missile that is launched. His regime is not threatened by a limited strike and then the onus of starting a war would be on him. And faced with us continuing to interfere with his being able to test his missiles and his not wanting to start a war when his regime is not threatened, he might be willing to negotiate.

Possible?


I just heard Gordon Chang, FE expert, say the goal of the Kims has always been to unify the peninsula under their rule. So, the goal is to get the US to negotiate away the troops we have there, so they can invade without fear of reprisal.

As to your question, I think accurate and timely intel is key, We have to know where the missiles and nuclear material is at an exact time.

I think China is only useful if we force them into a corner. In other words, if we give them no choice, then they finally get serious. Frankly, I think we should "back channel" a Chinese hit on Kim, whatever it costs. I could imagine a reunification of Korea which would not terrify China and could even make them happy (without it being a dictatorship).
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 04 Sep 2017, 10:55 am

Well, his grandfather invaded South Korea in order to unify the country so that makes sense. I am not sure about the mechanics of negotiating our troops out of South Korea. He is not going to give up trying to develop an ICBM in return for us leaving, right? Maybe the endgame is that if he figures he can deter the US from intervening in a war with South Korea if he has the capability of hitting us with ICBMs if we intervene. But as long as we have US troops there...it seems difficult to believe we would withdraw while South Korea is being hammered. Maybe he is just hoping to limit the extent of our intervention. At the very least he could start getting more aggressive with South Korea without us trying to undermine his regime. That seems more plausible to me. I just don't see a scenario where we withdraw troops or don't intervene if NK invades.

I'm all for China doing something...I just don't think they will. If we could box them into a corner that would be great...but how? The threat of a massive trade war? Giving nukes to Japan or SK? A remilitarized Japan? Which one--if any of them--would work and which one would China believe we would actually do? If the China Option is not feasible, then I think we have to box Kim in where he has to choose war if he wants to develop an ICBM...and not us.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 06 Sep 2017, 6:10 am

freeman3 wrote:Well, his grandfather invaded South Korea in order to unify the country so that makes sense. I am not sure about the mechanics of negotiating our troops out of South Korea. He is not going to give up trying to develop an ICBM in return for us leaving, right? Maybe the endgame is that if he figures he can deter the US from intervening in a war with South Korea if he has the capability of hitting us with ICBMs if we intervene. But as long as we have US troops there...it seems difficult to believe we would withdraw while South Korea is being hammered. Maybe he is just hoping to limit the extent of our intervention. At the very least he could start getting more aggressive with South Korea without us trying to undermine his regime. That seems more plausible to me. I just don't see a scenario where we withdraw troops or don't intervene if NK invades.


Let's say you're Un. You believe the US is soft, unwilling to risk the lives of Americans in exchange for the lives of Koreans. Would you believe that some form of nuclear blackmail might cause the US to back down? Might you believe your will to risk NoKo lives might frighten an American president into neutrality?

Again, presuming you're not playing with a full deck?

I'm all for China doing something...I just don't think they will. If we could box them into a corner that would be great...but how? The threat of a massive trade war? Giving nukes to Japan or SK? A remilitarized Japan? Which one--if any of them--would work and which one would China believe we would actually do? If the China Option is not feasible, then I think we have to box Kim in where he has to choose war if he wants to develop an ICBM...and not us.


I think we've got to hit China from every angle--trade, arming SK and Japan, and whatever else looks like the kitchen sink. We have to keep going after them until they take concrete steps.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 06 Sep 2017, 9:49 am

The first thought I had is if the reason he is developing the ICBM is that if he invades the SK he wants to deter US intervention by threatening us with an ICBM or at least limit the extent of our intervention. That's definitely still a plausible scenario. The other alternative is to try and undermine SK society. Sending spys and recruiting SK agents, supporting political parties friendly to NK, increasing military tensions short of war, trying to separate SK from the US, trying to get SK to seek to appease the NK, get SK to kick US troops out of the country.And hopefully a peaceful reunification on NK's terms or a military invasion after SK and the US have been disentangled. I kind of think that is the more plausible scenario.

Ricky...does it not bother you that Kim's likely goal here is to conquer the SK?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 07 Sep 2017, 6:35 am

freeman3
Ricky...does it not bother you that Kim's likely goal here is to conquer the SK?

You think?
Duh.
His primary goal, however is survival. And regime survival.
He will only attempt an invasion of SK if he thinks he can survive the inevitable repercussion. Neither he nor his father seem to be have been that far removed from reality that they think that they or their regimes could survive all out war.

The purpose of his nuclear capabilities is to ensure that he can inflict enough damage on SK, Japan and perhaps the US that the US will not risk aggressive action against NK. They are not going to give NK the chance of winning a nuclear conflict. And Un knows this... He knows their use would be his destruction.

The notion that UN is likely to be the first to risk any kind of aggression, is greatly over hyped.Along the lines of the threat from Ebola.

The US risking a strike of any kind will inevitably see some kind of response from NK.... Probably an all put response with all of their assets. A doomed response yes. But one that will leave millions dead, and the world economy in ruins.
The equation of risk versus reward is heavily weighted in favour of not striking NK first. Why?
1) NK is highly unlikely to risk aggression.
2) NK is virtually certain to retaliate to any aggression with all possible assets.
In either case the Korean peninsula will be destroyed.
hence the third option:
- Do nothing militarily unless NK does actually make a move. In which case missile defense systems, and the high probability of NK dysfunction.... have a high probability of lessening their effectiveness.... before NK is destroyed in a brief but justifiable action which will be allowed by Chinese government that has warned NK...
There is risk in this policy. But far less than in the inevitable results of options 1 or 2. And the reward is peace; and the potential for a solution to be achieved through other means.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 07 Sep 2017, 11:15 am

By the way, China almost certainly could force North Korea to stop testing if they wanted by shutting down energy and food exports to the NK. New York Times discusses the oil pipeline below.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nyt ... s.amp.html

Below in the middle of the article you will see a discussion about a three-day slowing of gas and food supplies by China in retaliation back in 2013 after earlier tests. Apparently, China carefully calculated the reductions so it would not destabilize the regime.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-31001251
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 23 Sep 2017, 6:14 am

Although I'm not convinced that a non-nuclear -- a nuclear one is currently unconscionable -- first strike is the right move by the US, I do think that Trump is "playing" the madman very well resulting in huge progress on sanctions. From the morning's WSJ editorial:

The new U.S. sanctions that President Trump announced Thursday will finally cut off the regime from the U.S. dollar, the currency it has continued to rely on for trade. Any institution that does business with Pyongyang will lose access to the U.S. financial system. Meanwhile, Chinese regulators told China’s banks on Monday to stop handling North Korea trade, and many of them had already frozen North Korean accounts.


Foreign financial firms that do business with NK will no longer be able to do business with the US. The Chinese are taking this very seriously. Chinese banks have frozen or closed NK accounts. Trade flows are down 75%. Fuel prices are starting to rise in NK. These results were not achieved during the tenures of our previous sane US presidents.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 23 Sep 2017, 7:48 am

I am glad significant progress has been made on sanctions. And I agree that unless there were a belief that military force would be used that these sanctions would be unlikely. So, I guess, credit where credit is due. There is risk when the rhetoric is so far over the top, but it does seem to convince people that Trump is serious about using military force.

Something Ricky has never understood is that unless we were deemed likely to use military force...then sanctions or diplomatic solutions would have had no chance of working. He just looked at the downside of our using military force from our perspective, without looking at North Korea's and--most especially--China's downside.

Of course the prior presidents did not face the threat that North Korea now poses with ICBM development and how aggressive their testing has been, so it's hard to say what our 4 previous presidents would have done under similar conditions.

But if Trump stops North Korea from developing an ICBM that would be a significant accomplishment. Would not make up for all his other nonsense, though.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 23 Sep 2017, 7:58 am

Freeman:

Something Ricky has never understood is that unless we were deemed likely to use military force...then sanctions or diplomatic solutions would have had no chance of working. He just looked at the downside of our using military force from our perspective, without looking at North Korea's and--most especially--China's downside.


I wouldn't be surprised if this specific point was mentioned in "Art of the Deal". If you are overly conservative in negotiations -- as I am in real life -- you spend too much time thinking about your downside and not enough time thinking about your adversaries weaknesses.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 23 Sep 2017, 8:11 am

Freeman:

Of course the prior presidents did not face the threat that North Korea now poses with ICBM development and how aggressive their testing has been, so it's hard to say what our 4 previous presidents would have done under similar conditions.


Although not exactly analogous, Obama faced a similar issue:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/8-iranian ... -congress/

In the 10 months since the Iran nuclear agreement was signed, the Islamic Republic has increased the frequency of its ballistic missile testing, according to researcher Michael Elleman, who testified before a US senatorial committee this week.
Iran is primarily focused on increasing the accuracy, not the range, of its missiles, Elleman said.


Some background info on current developments:

http://www.nti.org/learn/countries/iran ... y-systems/

The Islamic Republic of Iran has numerous programs for the development of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, long-range artillery rockets, and space launch vehicles (SLV). It currently possesses the largest number of ballistic missiles of any country in the Middle East.


The most common types of ballistic missiles in the Iranian arsenal are the Shahab-1 and Shahab-2 short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs), which are derived from the Soviet R-17/R-300 (Scud-B) and R-17M (Scud-C), respectively. A longer-range missile, the Shahab-3, is derived from North Korea’s Nodong missile. Iran has the capacity and infrastructure to assemble all of its Shahab missiles. The Shahab-3 is capable of reaching all of Iraq, Afghanistan, and western Saudi Arabia from permanent missile bases in Iran’s interior. The Shahab-3 missiles are road-mobile and are capable of carrying chemical, biological, or nuclear warheads, and can likely reach Israel if emplaced nearer to the western Iranian frontier. [4]
Tehran has extensively modified the Shahab-3 missile to increase its range and accuracy. Since 2004 Iran has conducted several tests of a Shahab-3 variant, the Ghadr-1, a medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) with a range of up to 2,000km. [5] In 2014, the Iranian Defense Ministry claimed the successful flight test of a multiple independent re-entry vehicles (MIRV)-capable ballistic missile, the Barani, but analysts from Jane's Defense dispute this capability on technical grounds. [6] In 2015, Iran test-launched the Emad, a Shahab-3 variant with a more advanced guidance system. [7]
In February 2017, Iran test-fired the Khorramshahr, a medium-range ballistic missile that analysts believe to be a derivative of the North Korean Musudan missile. [8]


I guess this is all allowed under the Iran Nuclear Agreement?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 23 Sep 2017, 8:41 am

rayjay
I guess this is all allowed under the Iran Nuclear Agreement?




When Iran tested ballistic missiles in the fall of 2015, while Resolution 1929 was still in effect, it was doubtless in violation of a Security Council stricture. But when it tested its missile on Sunday, under the new Resolution 2231, Iran was essentially ignoring the Security Council's advice — not violating a directive
.
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2 ... resolution

When Mr. Obama sought to include a prohibition on ballistic missiles in the Iran deal, or at least extend a previous Security Council resolution banning them, not just Russia and China but even our European allies in the nuclear negotiations refused," former Obama White House official Philip Gordon explained this week in the New York Times. "They argued that the ballistic missile ban was put in place in 2010 only to pressure Iran to reach a nuclear deal, and they refused to extend it once that deal had been concluded."


Lets remember that the Iran deal involves more parties than just the US and Iran. Why? Because without China, Russia and Europe involved in sanctions ...sanctions are meaningless.
The US can't unilaterally force anything on Iran, or North Korea, or anyone...
What the world is witnessing now, are the actions of an isolated US, lead by an ignoramus who doesn't understand the limitations of his countries power.
Unfortunately I think many Americans also have a less than complete understanding of the complexities of the world and the inability of the US to force others to their will.
Isolationism leads to weakness. Not strength.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 23 Sep 2017, 9:59 am

rickyp wrote:What the world is witnessing now, are the actions of an isolated US, lead by an ignoramus who doesn't understand the limitations of his countries power.
Unfortunately I think many Americans also have a less than complete understanding of the complexities of the world and the inability of the US to force others to their will.
Isolationism leads to weakness. Not strength.

Getting China to cut off NK is not "isolationism."

I think some Canadians need a new playbook.