North Korea

there is no status quo

I was speaking of US policy towards NK, which has settled into a fairly narrow and predictable range of options: military containment, economic and diplomatic sanctions, offers of looser restrictions in exchange for specific NK shifts of policy. The mix of which option is being emphasized at any time is constantly being adjusted in minor ways, but the overall the pattern is very static. Precipitating a war would be a very large departure from the US policy's status quo.

I was speaking of US policy towards NK, which has settled into a fairly narrow and predictable range of options: military containment, economic and diplomatic sanctions, offers of looser restrictions in exchange for specific NK shifts of policy. The mix of which option is being emphasized at any time is constantly being adjusted in minor ways, but the overall the pattern is very static. Precipitating a war would be a very large departure from the US policy's status quo.

i would say that even though making threats of nuclear war with his arms folded over a chicken caesar salad at a new jersey golf course is not really status quo and seems vile and opportunistic coming from a scandal-plagued real estate developer, the united states has had a gun held to the dprk's temple for almost seven decades. bush ii and obama both probably did more to damage the opportunity to denuclearize the peninsula than trump will manage in his hopefully single term. trump came into this very, very late and he's playing the hand he's been dealt mostly for his own political gain but i don't see it as precipitating a war.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97GnZUzeK4c

this is a good look at what the options are / what the stakes are, with three divergent opinions on sanctions, breaking with the status quo and accepting north korea as a nuclear power, how to deal with china, regional allies and other states with a trade and military relationship with the dprk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5qmKGfmrxc

a good long dull al jazeera panel featuring lankov again.

Here's some wonkporn (10 pictures) from Kim Jong Un's visit to the Chemical Material Institute of Academy of Defense Science.

— Joshua H. Pollack (@Joshua_Pollack) August 23, 2017

are there any TANKies on ILX?
― ian, Tuesday, August 8, 2017 5:20 PM (two weeks ago)

hey guess what

North Korean missile flies over Japan, escalating tensions and prompting an angry response from Tokyo

Pay attention to meeeeee!

Poor North Korea. The daily shitshow that is the Trump administration is drawing out all the oxygen from their own petulant tantrums.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/03/north-korean-nuclear-test-confirmed-in-major-escalation-by-kim-jong-un

Huh. The question is, what happens when NK is given what it wants (assuming such a thing exists) and they keep testing nuclear stuff?

I think they just want a nuclear deterrent to kibosh any question of "regime change."

It makes sense.

That's the paradox, isn't it? If they were just quietly treating their own people like shit, like so many countries, there would likely be no talk of regime change. Testing bombs and threatening war is what draws the spotlight, and with it the threat of regime change. Like, Iran has long been a more explicit player on the world stage, but NK even at its most active is still pretty isolated, right? So it becomes self perpetuating. They build bombs to forestall regime change which earns calls for regime change because of their bombs. And short of getting rid of or putting a pause on the bombs, a la Iran, regime change will always be a threat. At this point NK is probably too far along to accept giving up their bombs, so the question goes back to "what do they want?" Unless they go the route of Pakistan and India (and Israel and pretty much everyone) of being a nuclear power that does not threaten others with nuclear war.

Um, your last sentence is bizarre nonsense.

Testing bombs and threatening war is what draws the spotlight, and with it the threat of regime change.

i would say, it's not as if north korea is operating in a vacuum, just randomly lobbing weapons to fuck with their neighbors.

two of those neighbors are u.s. client states, garrisoning an increasing number of american troops and armed with american weapons. the united states starting waving the nuclear trident first. military exercises have continued, right through the tensest periods. north korea's other two land borders are shared with nuclear-armed superpowers, as well, who i'm sure wouldn't shed a tear if kim jong un was pushed out, as long as they made sure the right crew replaced him.

Yea, but "everybody's doing it" dead-ends don't really help with a relatively irrational player like NK. If NK wants nukes for security, that's fine. Like I said, no one is seriously concerned about Israel, Pakistan, India, France, etc., lobbing nukes at anyone. Or the US for that matter. But NK, is there any indication that once they get nukes and are therefore ensured their security that they will stop saber rattling and making threats? Maybe, but probably not. And as much as I agree their paranoia may be justified, or the US started it, or whatever else people want to invoke, that doesn't really solve any problems. I mean, the converse is that the US backs down, takes troops out of South Korea/neighboring client states and lifts sanctions on NK. Think that would settle things down?

i would argue that north korea is rational and this is a measured response. even if north korea manages to produce a nuclear arsenal, they are still at a strategic disadvantage,

Because at this very moment, there are probably at least two Ohio-class US nuclear ballistic missile submarines on patrol in the Western Pacific. Their mission? To provide surety for the nation’s strategic nuclear deterrence posture. Supporting U.S. land based and air launched nuclear missile forces, the SSBNs move slowly in a variety of pre-defined patrol sectors far out at sea.

Under the military’s nuclear attack base plan, OPLAN 8010, the SSBNs stand ready to launch their Trident D-5 ballistic missiles at either preselected or actively chosen targets.

Regardless, the SSBNs represent the pinnacle of warfighting lethality. With each SSBN armed with 24 missiles and at least 8 independent nuclear warheads per missile, one US Ohio-class submarine carries at least 192 nuclear warheads varying between yields of 100 and 475 kilotons. Moreover, as the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists blog noted in March, these missiles possess exceptionally accurate targeting systems.

but maybe the greatest problem is

Trump posted on Twitter shortly before his phone call with Abe that “talking is not the answer” in dealing with the nuclear-armed regime in Pyongyang.

“The U.S. has been talking to North Korea, and paying them extortion money, for 25 years. Talking is not the answer!” he tweeted.

the u.s. suddenly withdrawing from east asia is impossible but toning down the fire and fury rhetoric and entering into talks with north korea would be a positive first step. the dprk's nuclear program isn't only a result of american provocation but also the u.s. withdrawing from agreements and refusing to talk.

i'm more concerned about a u.s. nuclear strike than a north korean nuclear strike. the u.s. and israel have probably come the closest to pulling the trigger on their nukes post-cold war, i would say. i like pakistan and india better, too, if i was putting money on it.

The way I look at this, this has nothing to do with Trump. I mean, he can make things worse, but NK now is not behaving in a terribly novel way. It's all very familiar. The only difference is the quality of the rhetoric when it's backed by nukes. There have been so many attempts at talks with NK. Have any been "successful?" What do the talks usually hinge on? Sanctions? Fuel and food supplies? Have any concessions been made in the past? What did they get? Did they quiet down once they got them? Have there been any concessions they've won that have since been revoked? What do they want? And if they get what they want, again, is there any indication that will be enough? What happens if they get what they want and then demand more? These are all pretty unknowable things right now, right?

There are tons of contradictions here that may or may not have anything to do with NK as rational actors. Of course NK is at a strategic disadvantage. But does that matter? That only matters when it comes to the country actually starting a war, which it likely won't do, if it's rational. But if it's rational and won't start a war, then how seriously should anyone take their threats? And so on. Which again boils down to: what does NK want? Simply to be left alone? Beyond that, what can they be given if they do in fact pose a real and active threat?

I ask this stuff because I know some of you are more tuned in and may have answers.

xp you would say based on what?

The United States is considering, in addition to other options, stopping all trade with any country doing business with North Korea.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 3, 2017

Seems like an absurdly empty threat.

Seems is an understatement.

No trade with China, yeah, about that.

it would mean bannon fished his wish

mordy i don't think either has come CLOSE but they've deployed nuclear weapons in conflicts.

i'm getting here wildly into speculation that goes far beyond what i can comfortably speculate about.

i'll do it one more time.

i do think part of recent tests is that the trump regime is seen as incompetent, inexperienced, not in sync with its allies, inconsistent in its statements.

talks with north korea have been limited, like since 2003. the agreed framework in 1994, which got north korea to stop enrichment, allow inspectors in, stay with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty was in exchange for talks, money, oil and a couple reactors. bush and his team were quick to ratchet up tensions, leading north korea to withdraw. the six party talks after that... the problem was mostly north korea demanding cash and food aid. the u.s. has been mostly unwilling to talk to the dprk directly. so, concessions to north korea on sanctions, providing food aid and oil, and being willing to talk did chill them out.

what would they demand in negotiations now? i don't know, actually. in the six party talks, it was more about money and aid than military exercises or anything like that. i think things are different in 2017 as the north korean economy is much stronger and is quickly liberalizing. sanctions can't hurt the economy and military like they did before. it would probably be a great idea to better integrate north korea into the global economy and talking things out with them. i think one-on-one talks without chinese influence, a flood of foreign direct investment and american officials visiting north korea would be a good move at this point, deescalating the tension and maintaining its interests in the region and smoothing the process of six party talks that would lead to actual chilled outness on the peninsula. north korea ramping up tests help their positions in the negotiations, more they have the less they're going to lose, so the sooner the better.

^ the two biggest stumbling blocks are that the trump regime is seen as incompetent, inexperienced, not in sync with its allies, inconsistent in its statements. And that a large majority of the US population has been raised in the belief that NK and its leaders are pariahs, madmen, warmongers, liars and cheats, so that any change of policy in the direction of moderation and cooperation would be a tough sell.

the US has nuked its own country hundreds of times since nuking Japan, in nuclear tests like these, since at least the 50s. nuclear test sites out west made mushroom clouds that could be seen from Las Vegas hotels in the 60s. they told everyone it was safe and continue to do so. there has been a planned atomic bomb detonation proposed as recently as 2006 (cancelled due in large part by activists).

i grew up in Cold War era when the memory of school safety videos telling you what to do if a nuke drops were propaganda that raised an entire generation. the threat of nuclear annihilation is a real part of the American psyche. part of the Cold War paranoia has always been that the US would drop it again.

During the 1950s, the mushroom clouds from the 100 atmospheric tests could be seen for almost 100 mi (160 km). The city of Las Vegas experienced noticeable seismic effects, and the distant mushroom clouds, which could be seen from the downtown hotels, became tourist attractions. St. George, Utah, received the brunt of the fallout of above-ground nuclear testing in the Yucca Flats/Nevada Test Site. Winds routinely carried the fallout of these tests directly through St. George and southern Utah. Marked increases in cancers, such as leukemia, lymphoma, thyroid cancer, breast cancer, melanoma, bone cancer, brain tumors, and gastrointestinal tract cancers, were reported from the mid-1950s through 1980. The vast majority—828 of the 928 total nuclear tests—were underground.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Test_Site

it has become normalized in the US through politics and pop culture and this is why we feel we are the experts on this. i also feel it is a convenient and empty threat, and has been for generations now. look at Vietnam look at Russia in Afghanistan, look at WMD's in Iraq, these were mostly territory skirmished portrayed to be global existential threats. it's also promotion for the US military budget. think of the expensive planes we can buy off this paranoia.

Again, perfectly valid points. We are where we are for many reasons and thanks to many mistakes, many our own fault. But it still doesn't really offer any solutions. Ideally, a return to talks seems like the smartest move, however unlikely right now, but it still begs the question of 'what does North Korea want, and can talks give that to them?"

For that matter, what can NK offer the world/USA? Would NK give up their nuclear program at this point, given that it guarantees them security? Unlikely. Which backs everyone into a corner.

NK is a nuclear-armed nation. It has been for quite some time now. In spite of international isolation and economic sanctions it is nearly finished developing nuclear ICBMs. The biggest reason the world continues to pretend that this is reversible is the fear that accepting NK's nuclear status will break down the nuclear non-proliferation agreement.

At some point it's going to make overwhelming sense to bring NK in from the cold, so as to acquire better leverage over NK to not sell their weapons and technology to half a dozen countries that would love to buy their way into the nuclear club. As it is, NK has little to lose and much to gain by vending their capability to others. Like it or not, we're going to have to bow to reality and let NK win something tangible. The game has to be put on a footing other than war-or-no-war, because they won that game already.

good thing twitter has a policy against promoting violence this will surely be taken down any minute pic.twitter.com/6qMyshzvBz

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) September 5, 2017

For that matter, what can NK offer the world/USA? Would NK give up their nuclear program at this point, given that it guarantees them security? Unlikely. Which backs everyone into a corner.

there are other examples but maybe china is the best one--the prc and the us were mostly hostile to each other, getting into each others business in southeast asia, china had nuclear weapons and was on the brink of civil war and complete chaos for a couple decades. the us begins to withdraw from southeast asia and china is at odds with the soviet union, both sides take a risk, the global balance of power is shifting. the consensus in the united states shifted from red china terror to china as a power that had to be dealt with (at a time when america was in retreat in asia and wanted to talk). the us had similar options as they do now, i think. they could have done nothing! and hopefully let things sort themselves out and maybe the soviet union and china would work things out or the conflict would tie them up for decades (on the border and in southeast asia, which could have or did develop into a china soviet proxy war). but yeah i mean sino-us rapprochement wasn't like a charity project or the us or china capitulating to longtime foes and it was led by evil and pragmatic men, and it was basically a good thing.

so, missile tests and nuclear tests will definitely continue. north korea in 2017 is easier to deal with than china was in the 70s. the time for talk directly at high levels between the us and dprk is probably now.

The U.S. side stated: Peace in Asia and peace in the world requires efforts both to reduce immediate tensions and to eliminate the basic causes of conflict. The United States will work for a just and secure peace: just, because it fulfills the aspirations of peoples and nations for freedom and progress; secure, because it removes the danger of foreign aggression. The United States supports individual freedom and social progress for all the peoples of the world, free of outside pressure or intervention. The United States believes that the effort to reduce tensions is served by improving communication between countries that have different ideologies so as to lessen the risks of confrontation through accident, miscalculation or misunderstanding.

Ah, we're saved.

Dennis Rodman emerges with an offer to "straighten things out" between his 2 friends Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump https://t.co/2jLfZrktoE

— New York Magazine (@NYMag) September 6, 2017

lol @ "even if *Trump*"

So, instead of Ping-Pong diplomacy, we can have weirdo diplomacy? Sounds good to me!

More like Ding-Dong diplomacy if Trumps involved.

If we can get Kim, Rod and Trump in the room together, we may finally have an iconic image that supplants dogs playing parker.

Rod? Please call him by his correct nickname: The Worm.

I cal Kim "Rod," Rodman I call "Trump" and Trump I call "Kim," keep up.

iirc we had a whole thread about this, "i'm a cool rodman detente in the DPRK" or words to that general effect

Why send just Rodman when you can send a team? A ... double team.
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--s2c5ZxUC--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/jqfxvvm824ybspt1uuti.jpg

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/09/05/reading-trump-tweets-in-pyongyang/ adam cathcart on what kim jong un probably sees and what appears in the dprk press regarding trump's statements on north korea. this is fascinating.

https://www.ft.com/content/ff7754b0-9221-11e7-a9e6-11d2f0ebb7f0 China’s “expert community” is the best window into the country’s largely opaque foreign policy machine. Gradually this year, voices sympathetic to North Korea have disappeared from newspaper op-eds and academic journals.

http://www.38north.org/2017/09/punggye090517/ satellite images!

my contact says his associate comes out of these internal meetings feeling there is significant chance of conflict. he put it at 75%.

— Laura Rozen (@lrozen) September 12, 2017

yeah but that's just unnamed conservative think tanks. i assume they've been cooking up plans for attacking and occupying north korea since before most of us were born.

see also OPLAN 5027: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oplan-5027.htm

Leo Byrne reported in North Korea News that US and South Korean defense chiefs agreed on pre-emptive strike plans on North Korea’s nuclear capable sites and weapons during a security meeting in Seoul 09 November 2015. Representatives from Seoul and Washington said a “4D” (detect, disrupt, destroy and defend) operational plan would be put in place to counter the DPRK’s growing nuclear capabilities. “Such planning is pretty standard. Military forces of most countries create hypothetical plans for various scenarios so that they have them ready if and when needed and are not caught unprepared,” NK News military analyst John Grisafi said. South Korean Defense Minister Han Min-koo and U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter added there will be special emphasis on using reconnaissance and high altitude drones under the new plans. “Securing and or disabling nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction would be critical to prevent North Korea from using these and/or preventing them from falling into control of another part (a foreign power or rogue forces),” Grisafi added.

Operational Plan (OPLAN) 5015, the joint strategic plan for war-fighting that was signed in November, 2015 by the military establishments of both countries, envisions limited warfare with an emphasis on preemptive strikes on strategic targets in North Korea and “decapitation raids” to exterminate North Korean leaders. It is considered to be a more offensive-oriented plan, making escalation more readily possible than its predecessor, OPLAN 5027, which emphasizes forward-defense postures.

In tandem with these plans exists Concept Plan (CONPLAN) 5029, which focuses on “sudden change” crisis scenarios in the DPRK that range from the possibility of revolt within its borders, mass internal displacement of people and out-migration from the DPRK, the need for tracking and securing the North’s nuclear weapons and materials, and social or environmental chaos that require immediate humanitarian and technical assistance. The U.S. 2nd Infantry Division (2ID) and a brigade-level unit of the ROK Army (ROKA) have been reorganized to work as a combined division to destroy the DPRK’s weapons of mass destruction in the case of regime collapse or other major crisis emanating from North Korea.

i asked myself what the point of posting that was. i don't think it's a huge deal that right wing think tanks are drawing up plans to occupy north korea. the u.s. military has had great plans, the best plans in hand for a long time. i've never been in a conservative think tank but if i was i'd tell everyone: hey, guys, let's just keep a huge military presence in east asia and not gamble it on occupying north korea unless things go really crazy, like artillery bombardment of seoul crazy.

Famouos Eisenhower quote goes here.

Any OPLAN or CONPLAN jointly executed would require ROK concurrence, so none of that seems likely to happen, as dylannn points out.