KR North Korea Megathread - Dear Leader and his shenanigans

MOD NOTE:

There's so much news about North Korea right now and what Un is doing, I got a suggestion for a NK megathread, so here it is. Post the world's greatest nation's antics here. I'm merging a few of the more recent threads to continue discussion.

ORIGINAL POST:
--------------------------


https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/south-korea-planning-war-decapitation-132232777.html

South Korean President Moon Jae-in has pushed for a new plan for a rapid war with North Korea and an overhaul of the country's defense industry to overwhelm and crush the North's government, the South Korean newspaper The Chosun Ilbo reported Tuesday.

Moon took office in May promising to attempt to engage diplomatically with North Korea and seek peace, but in the months since, the North has provoked the international community with missile tests at a blistering pace.

For some time, South Korea has been training a "decapitation force," reportedly with the help of the US Navy's SEAL Team 6, but now an increasingly bold North Korea may demand quicker action.

South Korea's new plan identifies more than 1,000 targets for precision missile fires and sites for marines to drop in and quickly kill North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, the paper reported.

The plan represents a more independent version of South Korea's current plan, which relies on support from US aircraft carriers. As it stands, no major military commander recommends military action against North Korea, which has a staggering array of conventional — and potentially nuclear — weapons pointed at Seoul, where 26 million call home.

But South Korea's new plan to quickly and decisively dominate the North relies on reforming the defense-acquisition process and cutting out wasteful spending to wield the full might of its economic dominance against Pyongyang, according to the report. For that reason, don't expect the plan to take effect anytime soon.

 

[It's HK-47]

Somehow, "Trump is LITERALLY Neville Chamberlain!" doesn't quite have the same ring to it. What was anyone's alternative plan, anyways? Eight more years of ""strategic patience"" (IE: Let the next guy deal with it) so absolutely nothing changes and the problem continues to get steadily worse? Murder him like Ghaddafi and cause a power vacuum? Those plans haven't historically accomplished a whole Hell of a lot, either, unless you're just trying to make the situation worse than it already was.

 

[wellthathappened]

The Norks are not disarming. The nice show can't change that the entire culture hinges on obsolete paranoia. Trump tried, but I don't think this will result in a remarkable change.

 

[millais]

At no point is Kim Jon Un a rational state actor.

And I am wracking my brain trying to think of the last time appeasement had a good ending. I'm as far back as Ethelred the Unready, and it didn't work for him, either.

One of the greatest successful applications of appeasement occurred in a context not that dissimilar to the Korean situation. Two nuclear powers clashing over an East Asian border: the Yalu River line between Russia and China. In the aftermath of decades of deadly border skirmishes that almost triggered a full scale war on one occasion, China and Russia sat down at the negotiating table. Even though Russia was bargaining from a position of far greater strength, having won most of the earlier border clashes and enjoying far greater military and nuclear superiority over China, Russia voluntarily removed its troops from the disputed border islands and offered to redraw the border in favor of China, handing over land that had been Russian since the days of Catherine the Great. This appeased the Chinese government's revanchist sentiment about territory that had been wrested from the Qing dynasty by Czarist Russia via an unequal treaty and further gave the Chinese peace of mind by reducing an intrusive Russian military presence on the northern Chinese frontier. Since the redrawing of the border, the Chinese have never raised any territorial issues with Russia and in this instance appeasement significantly reduced strategic tensions between the two countries to almost zero.

 

[Arse Biscuit]

Somehow, "Trump is LITERALLY Neville Chamberlain!" doesn't quite have the same ring to it. What was anyone's alternative plan, anyways? Eight more years of ""strategic patience"" (IE: Let the next guy deal with it) so absolutely nothing changes and the problem continues to get steadily worse? Murder him like Ghaddafi and cause a power vacuum? Those plans haven't historically accomplished a whole Hell of a lot, either, unless you're just trying to make the situation worse than it already was.

So handing Kim the keys to the store is the answer?

 

[wellthathappened]

So handing Kim the keys to the store is the answer?

He wasn't handed the keys to the store. He was given a glimpse of what life could be like in a global economy.

He will squander the opportunity, don't worry.

 

[heathercho]

So handing Kim the keys to the store is the answer?

An asian warlord is not the same as a middle eastern warlord. It's also not appeasement - it's more first step in conflict resolution.

Personally, I think trying the asian business tactic first before escalting like a dumbass is a great approach. There's more room to move with the next approach if this fails than there is if you straight up act like a tard and don't back down. Slightly bending the knee doesn't mean you have no plan of action. It also speaks to the asian mindset far better than unremitting hostility.

 

[Keystone]

First it was, "Omg! Drumpf is going to get in to a nuclear war with NK! What is he doing?! We need to seek peace!"

Then it was, "The Cheeto is seriously meeting with KJU? He's a fucking dictator. He needs to be mean and show him what's what!"

They really will bitch and moan no matter what. Even Shapiro is having a bitch fit on his Twatter about it.

Remember how the same people saying those lines are the same people who slobbered all over Obama when he visited Raul Castro? How they actively ignored and defended Obama for visiting a dictator?

Spoiler: And let's not forget this picture they didn't find fault with either

Shit like this is why Donald won.

These reporters are such fucking hypocrites, and they still wonder why their credibility is mocked as much as it is these days.

 

[AnOminous]

I’d be okay with removing our troops from the 38th Parallel.

AFTER the nukes are gone and AFTER they’ve been gone a while with no attempt to start it back up again.

The Kims have agreed to stop pulling this shit repeatedly in the past only to renege on it the moment the pressure was off.

 

[Jigglyjogglers]

The Kims have agreed to stop pulling this shit repeatedly in the past only to renege on it the moment the pressure was off.

Yeah, and the troops can always be put back and the sanctions enforced again.

Admittedly it's a bit of a cycle, but the fact that it's happened like this before in the past is not a good reason to stop trying.

Mostly the problem is that in the past, once things have been backed off from the bad part of the cycle, no one really does anything. They just sort of take their asspats for having negotiated something and then fart around doing nothing while the situation backslides.

Now this time Trump's brought things a little further up than they've been before. The major question is whether or not he'll continue to keep pressure on by doing near-constant verification of disarmament and, hopefully, continuing to interact with Kim to keep him coming back again and again to the bargaining table not to hold things in stasis but to move things forward. With him it's something of a crap shoot but he's dedicated a lot of time to this already so it's not inconceivable he'll continue to dedicate time to it. "Peace in Korea" doesn't sound quite as impressive as "Peace in the Middle East", but it's more achievable and thus smarter for him to set his sights on attempting to leave it as his legacy rather than the constant fucking about in the -stans that previous presidents have done.

 

[Jewelsmakerguy]

Yeah, and the troops can always be put back and the sanctions enforced again.

Admittedly it's a bit of a cycle, but the fact that it's happened like this before in the past is not a good reason to stop trying.

Mostly the problem is that in the past, once things have been backed off from the bad part of the cycle, no one really does anything. They just sort of take their asspats for having negotiated something and then fart around doing nothing while the situation backslides.

Now this time Trump's brought things a little further up than they've been before. The major question is whether or not he'll continue to keep pressure on by doing near-constant verification of disarmament and, hopefully, continuing to interact with Kim to keep him coming back again and again to the bargaining table not to hold things in stasis but to move things forward. With him it's something of a crap shoot but he's dedicated a lot of time to this already so it's not inconceivable he'll continue to dedicate time to it. "Peace in Korea" doesn't sound quite as impressive as "Peace in the Middle East", but it's more achievable and thus smarter for him to set his sights on attempting to leave it as his legacy rather than the constant fucking about in the -stans that previous presidents have done.

And more so considering how long the Korea situation has lasted to this point and how everyone's grown more and more tired over how Iran and Syria are unable to change their ways regardless of the heavy sanctions and treaties imposed upon them. Not helped that they keep spawning terrorist groups meaning there's probably never going to be an end to the crisis until someone nukes Iran and their allies off the map or just gives up and let Israel and Saudi Arabia handle it with no outside help.

 

[ChuckSlaughter]

At no point is Kim Jon Un a rational state actor.

And I am wracking my brain trying to think of the last time appeasement had a good ending. I'm as far back as Ethelred the Unready, and it didn't work for him, either.

"Appeasement" is normal diplomacy in the rest of the modern world and it's brought us out of the stone age. Please go sign up to fight if your balls are so big.

 

[AnOminous]

"Appeasement" is normal diplomacy in the rest of the modern world and it's brought us out of the stone age. Please go sign up to fight if your balls are so big.

There's diplomacy and there's appeasement. Appeasement is when you just roll over while someone is rolling all over Europe. Diplomacy is something shy of that. Most of what North Korea has done is either internal to their country, and we aren't going in there to stop it, or dumb blustering without much behind it. Only fairly recently has there been much actual threat brought by the Norks.

Bringing a non-negotiable demand of denuclearization in one hand and a list of nice things that could happen for you if you do that isn't appeasement.

If Trump actually unilaterally moves the troops off the border without verifying the nuclear program is entirely dismantled, I'll reassess that, because that actually would be appeasement.

 

[Male Idiot]

He wasn't handed the keys to the store.

As long as it is the key to the cheese store it will work!

 

[ChuckSlaughter]

There's diplomacy and there's appeasement. Appeasement is when you just roll over while someone is rolling all over Europe. Diplomacy is something shy of that. Most of what North Korea has done is either internal to their country, and we aren't going in there to stop it, or dumb blustering without much behind it. Only fairly recently has there been much actual threat brought by the Norks.

Bringing a non-negotiable demand of denuclearization in one hand and a list of nice things that could happen for you if you do that isn't appeasement.

If Trump actually unilaterally moves the troops off the border without verifying the nuclear program is entirely dismantled, I'll reassess that, because that actually would be appeasement.

This is true. I don't really picture Trump giving without taking but then again he's a wildcard so he could do just about anything.

 

[Sable]

At no point is Kim Jon Un a rational state actor.

And I am wracking my brain trying to think of the last time appeasement had a good ending. I'm as far back as Ethelred the Unready, and it didn't work for him, either.

Appeasement was done by Chamberlain for two reasons.

1) The public at large did not want a major war at this point; the Great War had completely ruined Britains finances and eviscerated a generation.
2) Britain was not ready for another massive war on the scale of the Great War, the 20's and early 30's were financially disastrous and had done a number on military development. Britain needed time to build up in order to prepare, and appeasement bought time.

 

[AnOminous]

Appeasement was done by Chamberlain for two reasons.

1) The public at large did not want a major war at this point; the Great War had completely ruined Britains finances and eviscerated a generation.
2) Britain was not ready for another massive war on the scale of the Great War, the 20's and early 30's were financially disastrous and had done a number on military development. Britain needed time to build up in order to prepare, and appeasement bought time.

Unfortunately, it was disastrous in the long run. What it really allowed time for was for Nazi Germany to roll all over Europe, gobble up entire countries and rape their resources to build more military, and get to be much more of a danger than they would have been had they been quashed earlier when Nazi Germany was still fairly weak. The Germans ramped up production of military goods, trained their troops and turned them into one of the most formidable armed forces ever put together in history, full of hardened veterans.

 

[Sable]

We know it was disastrous now because we have hindsight, they made that decision with the information they had at the time.

The appeasing powers chose that because as far as they were aware, Nazi Germany was already a threat that they would need time to prepare for. They didn't know for example that the German forces before appeasment had actually been ordered to surrender if they were opposed at all.

The thing is though, technically speaking none of the major powers were ready for war, or at least not as ready as they wanted to be (especially Italy, they wanted more time to prepare by like, two years) but the German economy had basically sunk everything into its military and was going to collapse if it didn't start basically looting.

This is pretty fftopic: though, and I don't think it's really an issue when it comes to North Korea.

 

[Jigglyjogglers]

This is pretty fftopic: though, and I don't think it's really an issue when it comes to North Korea.

Correct. Without a nuclear arsenal North Korea is an extremely limited threat to anyone but South Korea. Even if we gave them ten years of complete noninterference and let them do whatever the fuck they want other than making nuclear missiles... hell, assume we gave them South Korea, if that was something we could do... they are never going to be able to field a force that would be able to do what the Nazis did. They cannot conquer anything off of their own landmass. They just don't have the troops or infrastructure for it. Even if they clapped a helmet on the head, rifle in the hand, and explosive collar around the neck of every single one of their citizens and tried to ship them somewhere to stage an invasion, they can't do jack shit but cause some chaos. Where would they try it? Japan? We'd have American troops deployed there in huge numbers so fast you'd think they announced free pussy at the soaplands. China? Even if the Norks weren't China's bitch, and even with the fact that most of China's military equipment is shitty knockoffs of our stuff that Bill Clinton sold them the plans to, the sheer number of Chinese military, and Chinese people, would mean the Koreans would be able to do fuckall without support or backup from someone else, and no one would give it specifically because they can't win.

It was dangerous to appease the Nazis because they had an entire continent to spread out over and make use of, as well as the capability and forces to take over the infrastructure of conquered areas and make use of it. Even if what we were doing with North Korea was "appeasement", without reliably working intercontinental missiles and the capability to go nuclear they're like a step and a half up from harmless.

 

[PS1gamenwatch]

http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight...japan-and-south-korea-nuclear-threat-far-over

For Japan and South Korea, nuclear threat far from over

Despite what the US president claims, the Kim regime remains as dangerous as ever. While the summit deal is reason for optimism, the reality is Pyongyang has broken promises to disarm before

The difference between reality and rhetoric has been obvious ever since Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump held their historic meeting in Singapore. The American president tweeted upon returning to the United States that the world could now rest easy as “there is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea”.

But East Asians, especially South Koreans and Japanese, know otherwise; the document the two leaders signed was vague and has done nothing to lessen the threat from Pyongyang’s bombs and missiles.

Only when the sides have worked out details, including a timetable for Pyongyang to dismantle its arsenal, submit to inspections and verification, and begin the process of decommissioning, can the region indeed rest easier.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has taken the path of realism in briefing President Xi Jinping and his Chinese, Japanese and South Korean counterparts.

He contradicted North Korean state media suggestions that international sanctions would soon be rolled back, contending they would remain until there was complete denuclearisation.

Trump’s announcement that war games between American and South Korean troops would be suspended on grounds of being provocative to Pyongyang was also tempered, with the president and his top diplomat separately clarifying that the matter was dependent on negotiations taking place “in good faith”. Such remarks acknowledge North Korea remains a threat.

That is why Japan and South Korea are as in need of security guarantees from any agreement as North Korea. Pyongyang has promised “complete denuclearisation” several times before, and when talks were not to its liking, turned its back and resumed weapons development and testing. It is premature to say the threat posed has gone or that the summit has made a substantial change.

Pompeo anticipates Pyongyang will undertake “major disarmament” by 2021. He said discussions to begin the process would begin in a week.

But the North’s scrapping of its nuclear facilities and missiles could take a decade or more and there are bound to be challenges. There is reason for optimism, but rhetoric should not cloud the truth.

 

[Coconut Gun]

http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight...japan-and-south-korea-nuclear-threat-far-over

For Japan and South Korea, nuclear threat far from over

Despite what the US president claims, the Kim regime remains as dangerous as ever. While the summit deal is reason for optimism, the reality is Pyongyang has broken promises to disarm before

The difference between reality and rhetoric has been obvious ever since Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump held their historic meeting in Singapore. The American president tweeted upon returning to the United States that the world could now rest easy as “there is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea”.

But East Asians, especially South Koreans and Japanese, know otherwise; the document the two leaders signed was vague and has done nothing to lessen the threat from Pyongyang’s bombs and missiles.

Only when the sides have worked out details, including a timetable for Pyongyang to dismantle its arsenal, submit to inspections and verification, and begin the process of decommissioning, can the region indeed rest easier.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has taken the path of realism in briefing President Xi Jinping and his Chinese, Japanese and South Korean counterparts.

He contradicted North Korean state media suggestions that international sanctions would soon be rolled back, contending they would remain until there was complete denuclearisation.

Trump’s announcement that war games between American and South Korean troops would be suspended on grounds of being provocative to Pyongyang was also tempered, with the president and his top diplomat separately clarifying that the matter was dependent on negotiations taking place “in good faith”. Such remarks acknowledge North Korea remains a threat.

That is why Japan and South Korea are as in need of security guarantees from any agreement as North Korea. Pyongyang has promised “complete denuclearisation” several times before, and when talks were not to its liking, turned its back and resumed weapons development and testing. It is premature to say the threat posed has gone or that the summit has made a substantial change.

Pompeo anticipates Pyongyang will undertake “major disarmament” by 2021. He said discussions to begin the process would begin in a week.

But the North’s scrapping of its nuclear facilities and missiles could take a decade or more and there are bound to be challenges. There is reason for optimism, but rhetoric should not cloud the truth.

>Chinese media
Our attack dog still has teeth for the next few years, so please be afraid still.