
Time to prepare for the worst in North Korea - mooreds
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2017/09/11/time-to-prepare-for-the-worst-in-north-korea/
======
jameslk
Why would North Korea attack when it has no incentive to? They gain nothing
and would be demolished swiftly and of course they know that. Why would the
US/West attack when they know there will be hundreds of thousands of
casualties almost immediately and nothing much to gain there after as well? If
there is no incentive to attack on either side, why is it time to start
preparing for the worst?

~~~
arwhatever
Why does North Korea need ICBMs when they presumably already possess a
regional nuclear deterrent?

~~~
pm90
ICBM's are a way of threatening civilian population centers, which usually
gets the attention of a country much more than military troops, even if they
might be sizeable. I mean, there are ~37,500 US soldiers on the Korean
peninsula right now, not to mention equally large detachment in Japan, which
are already well within range of DPRK's nuclear armaments. But its only when
you read the news that a missile could hit NYC that Americans pay more
attention/panic etc.

------
toufka
(given that the site is down...)

Here's a great (if slightly sobering) podcast from last week by foreign policy
professionals about the global relationship with North Korea [1]. They give a
pretty nuanced, if dire, look at the NK situation that is significantly more
informed than the standard NPR/CNN article. Though Trump's tweets today were
not part of their calculations...

[1] [https://soundcloud.com/deepstateradio/the-only-discussion-
of...](https://soundcloud.com/deepstateradio/the-only-discussion-of-the-north-
korea-situation-youll-ever-need) (discussion specific to NK heats up ~23min
into the podcast)

~~~
jpindar
And to that, I would add
[http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/podcast/](http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/podcast/)

------
asymmetric
If it's down for you as well, try
[http://archive.is/Oh6Vq](http://archive.is/Oh6Vq)

------
paulsutter
It's a stalemate. China has stated that they will defend North Korea if the US
attacks first, and that China will not defend North Korea if they attack the
US first. My friends in Tokyo sleep better at night knowing this.

[http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-
china-...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-china-
media/chinese-paper-says-china-should-stay-neutral-if-north-korea-attacks-
first-idUSKBN1AR005)

“If the U.S. and South Korea carry out strikes and try to overthrow the North
Korean regime and change the political pattern of the Korean Peninsula, China
will prevent them from doing so.”

“China should also make clear that if North Korea launches missiles that
threaten U.S. soil first and the U.S. retaliates, China will stay neutral,” it
added.

~~~
Iv
> “If the U.S. and South Korea carry out strikes and try to overthrow the
> North Korean regime and change the political pattern of the Korean
> Peninsula, China will prevent them from doing so.”

Maybe I am reading too much into it, but if this is their real words, it
sounds like an invitation (probably lost on the Trump administration) to find
ways to overthrow the NK regime without changing the pattern of the Korean
peninsula, i.e. by keeping NK in the Chinese sphere of influence.

------
pokoleo
This is continual posturing from the Chinese government. They’re incentivized
to retain the DPRK or risk a humanitarian crisis on their border. As long as
North Korea doesn’t destabilize the region itself, China will continue to prop
them up.

If you’re interested in this topic, read “The Real North Korea: Life and
Politics in the Failed Stalinist Utopia” by Andrei Lankov.

~~~
adventured
It has never been about a concern over a humanitarian crisis on their border.
In regards to North Korea, that's trivial for China. They have 300+ million
people living on just a few dollars per day. They could absorb 5-10 million
more and not notice in the least.

It's about preventing the unification of Korea and allowing the US military to
get closer to China's territory. That's a double loss as far as China is
concerned strategically.

The situation has an easy solution. China collapses North Korea as it exists
today and pays off all the military leadership (which actually runs the
country); said military cabal gets to live in China, and doesn't get
prosecuted for war crimes (all obvious requirements from their perspective).
The US, South Korea and China put together an initial trillion dollar, 20
year, package for economic recovery. The US & South Korea agree to cede
between 1/3 and 1/2 of North Korea to China, to be used as a form of territory
buffer between the US / S.Korea and China. The US agrees not to position its
troops any closer to Chinese territory (ie not to occupy any of the territory
South Korea acquires), various rules could be put into place that everyone
agrees upon to ease China's concerns.

This is a trivial problem to solve as far as the big problems of the past
century go.

What's not trivial, is that North Korea's nuclear & missile technology is
going to keep pushing forward, which will eventually spur the US / Russia /
China to begin aggressively pushing their nuclear technology forward again.
Further, North Korea will attempt to hand their nuclear technology to other
nations, as there are no real consequences for them doing so (oh no, more
sanctions), only the benefit of spreading nukes around further which lessens
the spotlight on them.

~~~
Fej
It is possible to determine, after a nuclear explosion, to determine from
whence the weapon was produced. You'd better believe that such a discovery
would be an extreme _casus belli_ for an invasion.

North Korea isn't interested in proliferation. They want (and have) nukes to
keep the United States at bay. Historically, the US has no problem attacking
states without nuclear weapons but never does so to states with them. It's a
good strategy.

~~~
adventured
> North Korea isn't interested in proliferation.

Of course they're extremely interested in proliferation. Just as Pakistan,
China, India, France, Israel, Britain and Russia were all interested in
proliferation (insofar as it suited their interests) and for exactly the same
reason. The only reason the USSR and China got nukes in the first place, is
they had a desperate self-interest in proliferation. North Korea's acquisition
of nuclear weapons was also proliferation, which they were _extremely_
interested in.

North Korea would love nothing more than to give the US & Co. other nuclear
problems to deal with. The more so called rogue nations (or really anybody
would do) with nuclear weapons there are, the easier it is for North Korea to
justify keeping theirs, the less unique the North Korea situation becomes, the
less pressure there will be on North Korea to give their weapons up. If five
new nations pop up with nuclear weapons, the premise of North Korea being a
rogue nuclear entity loses most of its punch, and the sanctions would wilt
accordingly.

------
Invictus0
China stands to be completely screwed over by another NK-USA war, and I find
it hard to believe that they haven't even considered the possibility of this
happening. Rushing to the chess table to negotiate a draw after the game's
already reached the endgame appears remarkably foolhardy for such a forward-
planning nation.

~~~
mschuster91
> and I find it hard to believe that they haven't even considered the
> possibility of this happening.

The Chinese fell for the same trap many non-ultra-right-wing Trump supporters
did: they believed that Trump would be made presidential by the office.

Even many on the left side would not have thought Trumps tweets in regard to
NK possible in any way.

~~~
matt_wulfeck
> _The Chinese fell for the same trap many non-ultra-right-wing Trump
> supporters did: they believed that Trump would be made presidential by the
> office._

Do you know of these people you are speaking for? Trump seems to be acting
exactly the way he was expected to by everybody.

~~~
bryanlarsen
Trump's behavior is surprising no one, true. But that's as much because the
only prediction was that he'd be unpredictable, as because he's behaving like
he telegraphed before the election

Read articles from before the inauguration, you'll see all sorts of wild
predictions on how he would act.

Example: [http://www.bradford-delong.com/2017/01/trump-and-the-us-
econ...](http://www.bradford-delong.com/2017/01/trump-and-the-us-economy-q-
what-do-you-think-will-be-the-single-most-important-outcome-of-the-trump-
presidency-for-th.html)

------
salgernon
A serious question: has there been any evidence of weapons related nuclear
"incidents" in North Korea? I know they get external help with their programs,
but it seems ... odd ... that there hasn't been a detectable "oops" moment
involving their ongoing weapons development.

~~~
CydeWeys
What do you mean by an "oops" moment? Some small criticality event, like the
US's demon core, would not be detectable from far away. They aren't pursuing
nuclear power either, which would be the most likely path towards meltdowns.

~~~
ethbro
Exactly.

"Oops" when you're testing nuclear weapons would simply be a different yield
than expected. I imagine the USAF radioisotope analysts (if that's still done
these days, expect it might be impossible with underground testing) could
possibly detect less-than-complete fusion.

But you've got to screw up pretty badly to have a static nuclear weapon test
misfire.

------
blackRust
The Economist cited this very article in their latest issue:
[https://www.economist.com/news/united-
states/21729742-next-i...](https://www.economist.com/news/united-
states/21729742-next-it-will-push-them-apart-north-korea-has-brought-america-
and-china-closer)

Fun to connect the dots and see it posted here on HN :)

------
mooreds
From other sources, I have read that the author was not allowed to publish
articles on such topics on 2013, leading some to believe that this indicates a
change in the attitudes of the Chinese leadership.

------
fiokoden
The real risk is that NK will nuke the Pacific Ocean, under the illusion that
people/countries won't care much.

Remains to be seen but I think that will be seen as an attack on the world,
not on no-one.

------
peteretep
Given:

> Author: Jia Qingguo, Peking University

To what degree is this an official message? To whom? Saying what?

~~~
dredmorbius
Interesting question. Biography:

 _Jia Qingguo is Professor and Associate Dean of the School of International
Studies of Peking University. He received his Ph.D. from Cornell University in
1988. He has taught in University of Vermont, Cornell University, University
of California at San Diego, University of Sydney in Australia as well as
Peking University. He was a research fellow at the Brookings Institution
between 1985 and 1986, a visiting professor at the University of Vienna in
1997 and a fellow at the Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies at the
Brookings Institution in 2001 and 2002. He is Vice President of the Chinese
American Studies Association. He is also a member of Standing Committee and
the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Committee of the Chinese
People’s Political Consultative Conference and a member of the Standing
Committee of the Central Committee of the China Democratic League. He is
serving on the editorial board of several international academic journals. He
has published extensively on U.S.-China relations, relations between the
Chinese mainland and Taiwan, Chinese foreign policy and Chinese politics._

[https://www.wilsoncenter.org/person/jia-
qingguo](https://www.wilsoncenter.org/person/jia-qingguo)

The CPPCC seems to fill a border role between quasi-goverenmental and the Real
Deal:

 _The role that CPPCC plays in the Chinese government is stated in the
preamble of the PRC Constitution. In practice, its role and powers are
somewhat analogous to an advisory legislative upper house and there have been
occasional proposals to formalise this role in the PRC Constitution._

 _The Communist Party of China and the aligned "democratic parties"
participate in the CPPCC. Besides political parties, CPPCC also invites of
representatives from various sectors of society._

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_People's_Political_C...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_People's_Political_Consultative_Conference)

------
alansammarone
Could this turn into into a cold-war-like exchange of pleasantries?

~~~
marindez
Isn't that what it already is?

~~~
alansammarone
Well, the cold war was much more severe. I meant to ask "Could this last 50
years, involve many proxy battles and grow to a cold-war-scale political
tension?".

~~~
roywiggins
There's been a frozen conflict on the peninsula since the Korean War ended.
The NK artillery aimed at Seoul have been deterring another one since then.
The deterrence is now at least partly mutually nuclear, which is a difference,
but we have been unwilling to fight another war on the peninsula for decades
because of the unavoidable civilian casualties.

As to proxy battles, NK is not a super power like the Soviets were. They can't
fight proxy wars. But they can shell ROK islands, sunk ROK ships, make
threats, stage provocations across the DMZ, all of which they've done before.

~~~
KGIII
Indeed, it is a frozen conflict. There is only an armistice, a cease-fire
agreement, and no actual treaty. Combat has ended, but the Korean War hasn't
actually reached a resolution.

I'm not so sure we can call much of anything much of a battle since the
armistice, though there have been numerous accusations of violating the
agreement and there have been some deaths since the armistice agreement.

------
atomical
There are concentration camps in NK. What could be worse?

~~~
dredmorbius
Glowing concentration camps, in NK, and elsewhere.

~~~
atomical
?

~~~
dredmorbius
!

------
carlossilva33
This is going to fizzle just like all the previous scary saber-rattling (Iran,
Ukraine, etc etc), though I must admit the production on this one is 'top
notch', what with missiles allegedly flying over Japan (anyone have a
satellite image of those things actually going over Japan?).

You realize North Korea can't take a dump without China saying so, right? I'm
not sure what is China's angle on this but for starters I'm guessing to make
the US look like the aggressive buffoon (again) and 'at the last moment'
Russia and/or China will solve things diplomatically. It's possible China got
tired of having a PR nightmare on their backyard and want that cleaned up.

Edit: Worldwide condemnation and sanctions could be the first steps to a
Chinese-controlled change in management over at Pyongyang, hopefully one with
a more open model.

~~~
roywiggins
Kim Jong Nam, Un's half brother, was assassinated with VX nerve agent. He was
exiled to Macau where he was protected by the Chinese government, and
speculated to be kept around by the Chinese as a potential puppet leader if
they decided to remove Kim Jong Un. Because he was Kim Jong Il's eldest son,
he might be an acceptable leader- the juche ideology claims blood descent from
gods or something, and he is in the royal lineage.

How likely is it that China approved the assassination, really?

~~~
carlossilva33
A very good point. Following that train of thought I would usually look at
'who benefits' and be content with thinking some Western country would have
been responsable but the assassination method was just very atypical.

