Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

This really should be moved to a General Discussion forum, but let me try to address the military and legal questions, and avoid politics, which is banned. Legally speaking, the Korean War never ended. An armistice was signed, which was meant to be a permanent cease-fire, but not a resolution of the conflict. That armistice has been broken by both word and deed on several occasions. Therefore, all three parties (North Korea, South Korea, and the U.S.) are legally entitled to resume hostilities at will.

However, although North Korea's army outnumbers the South Korean army and the remarkably small 27,000 American troop contingent, its equipment is mostly obsolete. In the event of all-out war, the Northern troops would advance at first, then be routed, and North Korea would end up conquered. But in the meantime, Seoul would be reduced to ruins by long-range artillery, and then likely overrun, to be recaptured a few days later. This would cause the deaths of around one million people and tank the Asian economies, and then the world economy.

In other words, even though it is technically permissible, everyone wants to avoid all-out war. What the North Koreans appear to be doing is practicing asymmetrical warfare, making moves that cannot be responded to without the escalation that would lead to disaster.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

Personnaly, "face" is something that can be slapped. I think we should. They are pathetic little pieces of owl feces and need to be brought up short. Don't think China will mind much, because North Korea is a loose cannon that needs to be brought under control. If a Western Power guts the little swine, China will huff and puff, but be realistically thankful. So long as whacking-the-mole doesn't advance the boundaries: them as you as know, know just what I'm saying.

JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Consider it this way John. China lost nearly a million men in the Korean war. While North Korea is ruled by asswipes, it is ruled by THEIR asswipes. I wouldn't count on their non- interferance , if only because they have invested so much in lives and treasure. Imagine if the Phillipines went the way of Kim, would the USA be so quick to abandon them? Or would we keep trying to chivy them back into place , while telling other countries "Back-off"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

To be honest I think NK does not display anything greatly diverging from what they have been trying (successfully I might add)
for decades already.

They up the tension until it gets close to unbearable, mix threats with display of wounded pride and comndemnations of western acts of
aggression, and then return to the bargaining table, agreeing to slowly step down again in exchange for foreign aid. Kim Jong Un might even
be a bit more excentric than his father, but he learned the ropes under his leadership, and bargaining for foreign aid with nuclear weapons
was what his father did all the time. It works on two ways: keeping the Population from starving completely, and at the same time justifying
the nuclear arsenal.

Regarding China, I do not think one could simply say they want NK getting taught a lesson, or want to get rid of them as an ally.
The DPRK is a buffer zone against US troops, and it is a great buffer zone. Noone gets through there. The Chinese might be annoyed with NKs way
of dealing with foreign politics, but I do not think China believes this outweights the benefits. Losing NK, and China got US troops and a western
oriented ROK in their backyard. I think they still prefer crazy Kim.

quote:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/davidblair/100210753/what-does-north-korea-hope-to-gain-from-all-this-tub-thumping-belligerence/

An instructive guide to diplomacy Pyongyang-style is provided by the tale of the nuclear facility at Yongbyon. As part of his strategy of escalation, Kim Jong-un declared on Tuesday that he would reopen this plant. The regime had agreed to shut it down in 2007. Kim probably hopes to win a concession in order to refrain from actually restarting Yongbyon – and keep the agreement that his regime has already made.
That is the general pattern of North Korean behaviour. The country makes an agreement in return for food aid or economic help. Then it breaks the deal. Then it wins another concession in returning for promising to keep the agreement that it has already made (and broken). Robert Gates, the former US defence secretary, ruefully described this as “selling the same horse twice”.
As for Yongbyon, it would take at least six months to get this plant up and running. And North Korea probably has little use for it anyway. The regime’s first two nuclear bombs were made with plutonium extracted from Yongbyon. But North Korea has since developed the alternative route to a Bomb via uranium enrichment. There are signs that the most recent nuclear test in February could have used a device made from uranium.
So Yongbyon is almost certainly surplus to requirements: the regime could build nuclear weapons without this plant. In any case, it already has enough plutonium in stock to build up to a dozen devices. So if this crisis is defused by a North Korean agreement to refrain from restarting Yongbyon, this would be a pretty meaningless concession.
You can sum this up as follows. North Korea is effectively saying “remember that nuclear plant which we agreed to shut down six years ago and we don’t need anyway? Well, we’re going to start it up again. Now give us a concession and we might keep the earlier deal. And if we do leave Yongbyon lying idle, we lose nothing anyway.” How do you deal with a regime like that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunnulf

This telegraph article has a fairly decent stab explaining NKs 'diplomacy'. Basically attempting to bargain for reducing sanctions. Whether this time he has gone too far and risks losing too much face with his people if he is forced to blink remains to be seen... :

quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Consider it this way John. China lost nearly a million men in the Korean war. While North Korea is ruled by asswipes, it is ruled by THEIR asswipes. I wouldn't count on their non- interferance , if only because they have invested so much in lives and treasure. Imagine if the Phillipines went the way of Kim, would the USA be so quick to abandon them? Or would we keep trying to chivy them back into place , while telling other countries "Back-off"?

I suppose, Steve. I do believe in the investment of life and treasure. That's what makes NK such an utter horror show. Wouldn't mind talking with you about the philosophy of violence, but in the meantime, I'm looking at NK being a field of radioactive glass; but that's just me.

Ciao. John