
American Illusions and Korean Realities: Preventing Conflict on Korean Peninsula - IntronExon
http://www.38north.org/2018/01/sblank011818/
======
icebraining
Ever since the Trump/NK crisis began, I've been thinking if it's not just an
application of the Madman theory by Trump. Of course, I wasn't the only
one[1], but that article (written in October) says that "it’s hard to see the
North Koreans backing down in hopes that Mr. Trump will return to reason and
be a stable, rational negotiating partner", yet isn't exactly what they did
since then?

The top article says that the "Trump administration’s policy (...) has
significantly increased the risk of a disastrous war", but has it? Who would
actually start a war over that policy? The author himself says that the DPKR
is trying to defuse tensions, so who else?

Except for a few sleepless nights for the citizens in range of a NK ICBM, the
results of the current "crisis" seem mostly positive.

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/26/opinion/the-madness-
behin...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/26/opinion/the-madness-behind-
trumps-madman-strategy.html)

~~~
Udik
> yet isn't exactly what they did since then?

It doesn't look like. They did what they wanted to do (test their nukes and
ballistic missiles) and now they're offering the carrot of better relations
with their south counterpart. Trump has been substantially ignored.

~~~
icebraining
Why are they offering that carrot now, if not as a reaction to Trump?

~~~
IntronExon
What carrot? They’re just replaying the “Sunshime Policy” symbolic crap from
the 80’s. This is pure DPRK playbook material to drive a political wedge
between the ROK and US.

------
snomad
This article is too busy looking at the trees to see the forest.

Three of China's top 5 trading partners are the US, Japan, and South Korea -
it's economy has thrived for the last decade+ because of those nations most
impacted by North Korean threats. China may not have that much leverage, but
they know where their bread is buttered. More importantly, China wants to be a
global power. The US government policies while directly failures vis-a-vis
North Korea, also highlight China's impotence to other players on the world
stage. To take that final global power stride, they will need to deal with
North Korea at some point.

Bigger picture, I feel like whenever these kind of analytical pieces surfaced
in the past, they rightly always included a point about proliferation,
something that seems missing these days. If the world moves on and grudgingly
accepts North Korean nukes, what stops Japan from getting one? How about
Taiwan or South Korea? Same concern goes with Iran's program - what stops
Saudi Arabia, Turkey or Egypt from getting one?

It is a slippery slope argument, but the consequences of the number of nuclear
powers doubling are pretty dang grave, maybe it is one slope we can keep an
eye on.

~~~
JBlue42
I agree with your premise here and might be taking it off topic but Western
media tends to portray China striving to be a global power but, I would
propose, aren't they already there?

They're a key manufacturer and exporter in the world economy, are making
inroads in terms of military prowess, and has some of the biggest influence in
their region and probably soon, via the soft power infrastructure projects, in
Africa as well. The US and Russia are still playing games in the Middle East
but there's not a day that goes by that you don't see some news out of China.

------
jernfrost
Mirrors my sentiment except written more elegantly. Although I spelled it out
more clearly that a nuclearly armed north korea is something we simple have to
learn to live with.

[https://medium.com/p/ebf86a16ebee?source=linkShare-c2fa2c34f...](https://medium.com/p/ebf86a16ebee?source=linkShare-c2fa2c34f40c-1517160923)

------
maxxxxx
At least half of American foreign policy is always geared towards scoring
politics points internally. A lot of the actions have nothing to do with the
actual situation in a foreign country but with the situation at home. Korea is
a good example and the whole middle East situation another one.

------
SubiculumCode
A countervailing assessment. [http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/08/its-time-to-
bomb-north-k...](http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/08/its-time-to-bomb-north-
korea/)

~~~
icebraining
Sounds like a guy whose assessments we can trust:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Luttwak#Predictions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Luttwak#Predictions)

I like how he dismisses the potential horrific consequences to the SK
population with the argument "well, they should have moved when we told them".
Fuck this guy, frankly.

~~~
SubiculumCode
I think that you are right in that Seoul would be an absolute tragedy. That
said, if (and I really mean if) the situation could be abstracted to a choice
between an American city or Seoul getting bombed, then for an those charged
with protecting American national interests, the choice would be a no brainer.

Now back to that if.

The current regime in NK is rational and interested in self-preservation above
most else. That is generally agreed upon. So it is not likely they would
attack first. So Seoul vs American City is not probably a real choice.

That said, they have no wish to integrate into the international order,
frequently make threats of mass destruction, and seem likely o try to use nuke
capability/threats to make demands on their neighbors. They are flying
missiles over Japan. Then there is the fact that the regime is genuinely evil
to their people, which makes political upheaval more likely given any
weakness, sudden events, etc. And frankly, I do not like the threat of nuclear
exchanges that can reach my family and friends from an actor as irresponsible,
immoral, and backasswards as NK. It is already a tragedy that the largest
countries have nukes, but proliferation is very dangerous.

------
ams6110
What is this 38north.org? It reads like a DPRK propaganda machine.

"there is no sign that North Korea is contemplating an imminent launch which
would make it a preemptive strike"

Other than Kim's direct threats to do so?

Edit: on further reading, I strike my first sentence. The author's credentials
and site sponsors seem legit. Disagree with the thrust of the article though.

~~~
danbruc
_Other than Kim 's direct threats to do so?_

Did he actually [relatively recently] state something along that line that was
not conditioned on the violation of North Korea's sovereignty or something
similar, i.e. an offensive attack?

~~~
paulddraper
Last fall:

> A telling blow should be dealt to them who have not yet come to senses after
> the launch of our ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile) over the
> Japanese archipelago

> Let’s reduce the U.S. mainland into ashes and darkness. Let’s vent our spite
> with mobilization of all retaliation means which have been prepared till now

> [The U.S. should be] beaten to death like a rabid dog

> The four islands of the archipelago should be sunken into the sea by the
> nuclear bomb of Juche. Japan is no longer needed to exist near us

It was not conditional. These were in response to support of UN security
counsel sanctions following the ICBM launched over Japan.

~~~
coldtea
So just like threats that have been made by US on various occasions for
various independent countries, e.g.:

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/sep/22/pakistan.usa](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/sep/22/pakistan.usa)

> _It was not conditional. These were in response to support of UN security
> counsel sanctions following the ICMB launched over Japan._

If they were in response, they sure sound like conditional then.

~~~
finanmech
So it appears you live in western europe, and you aren't concerned about north
korea because there's no immediate threat, even though millions might die in
US. Well, maybe you will have some empathy if after america falls, North Korea
decides to target europe with russia.

~~~
dang
Since you appear to have created this account for political and national
battle, which is against the rules of this site, I've banned it. If you don't
want to be banned, you're welcome to read
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
and email hn@ycombinator.com.

------
finanmech
FACT: China, Russia is supporting North Korea despite sanctions

[http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/24/news/economy/treasury-
north-...](http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/24/news/economy/treasury-north-korea-
sanctions/index.html)

ANALYSIS: North Korea would fall without oil support

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-13/sanctions...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-13/sanctions-
a-blow-to-north-korea-but-oil-cut-needed-for-knock-out)

But what do you expect from dicatorships in China and Russia. It's a good
thing we already are sanctioning Russia, and we're starting to impose tariffs
on China (solar panels, washing machines, soon steel and aluminum) and fines
on China (forced tech transfers from US companies to Chinese government).
China is starting to falter economically, with labor cost rising, middle
income trap, massive debt, capital outflow, factories moving out of China to
SEA or back to the states. We need to put more pressure on China, or else
North Korea will be the puppet that sends a nuclear missile straight into
Silicon Valley

~~~
Udik
> We need to put more pressure on China, or else North Korea will be the
> puppet that sends a nuclear missile straight into Silicon Valley

What? What is the logic behind this conclusion?

~~~
finanmech
Pressure on China -> China stops supporting North Korea -> North Korea
collapses

~~~
tandr
And how do you see events of NK collapse will unfold?

