North Korea

[theexorcist]

So, how bad is this going to get?

[rosslynhoya]

It's irrelevent until they hit something.

[Bando]

I think ignoring them is probably the best strategy. Attention is what they want, in order to get more economic incentives in exchange for security guarantees they'll just break again in the near future. We have no military option (unless we want to lose Seoul) and sanctions have gone about as far as they can (DPRK is already an international pariah). Unless they're willing to rejoin 6 party talks, I see no reason to have any substantial engagement.

Announcing the Sotomayor pick yesterday was probably the best response to North Korea Obama could have come up with. It immediately took the attention off Kim Jong-Il, which is exactly what he didn't want.

[EasyEd]

I have no clue as to the best response to North Korea but it seems clear that Obama's response will be the same as his response to the Iran nuclear program and its missile launches - nothing of substance.

[The Stig]

May 27, 2009 9:25:37 GMT -5 Bando said:

I think ignoring them is probably the best strategy. Attention is what they want, in order to get more economic incentives in exchange for security guarantees they'll just break again in the near future. We have no military option (unless we want to lose Seoul) and sanctions have gone about as far as they can (DPRK is already an international pariah). Unless they're willing to rejoin 6 party talks, I see no reason to have any substantial engagement.

Announcing the Sotomayor pick yesterday was probably the best response to North Korea Obama could have come up with. It immediately took the attention off Kim Jong-Il, which is exactly what he didn't want.

Agreed. It's a frustrating situation, but we really don't have any good options. Right now doing nothing is the least bad option we ahve.

[Bando]

May 27, 2009 12:34:53 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

I have no clue as to the best response to North Korea but it seems clear that Obama's response will be the same as his response to the Iran nuclear program and its missile launches - nothing of substance.

So, the same as your response, then?

[EasyEd]

May 27, 2009 12:57:27 GMT -5 Bando said:

May 27, 2009 12:34:53 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

I have no clue as to the best response to North Korea but it seems clear that Obama's response will be the same as his response to the Iran nuclear program and its missile launches - nothing of substance.

So, the same as your response, then?

At least I admit it and don't need a teleprompter to say it.

[Elvado]

We can be well assured that no matter what the President's response, it will be universally lauded in the mainstream media as a thoughtful, measured response and a welcome change from the past eight years (at least in the short run)

[SFHoya99]

So, in summary, the commentary here is focusing on the press' anticipated reaction and the fact that the President uses the teleprompter.

Can we have actual discussion of the issue, here? Please?

Is it really our best response to do nothing? Or are those who put that forward merely saying nothing overtly? Because do nothing seems to be rarely a good policy over time.

[guru]

May 27, 2009 14:28:42 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

So, in summary, the commentary here is focusing on the press' anticipated reaction and the fact that the President uses the teleprompter.

Can we have actual discussion of the issue, here? Please?

Is it really our best response to do nothing? Or are those who put that forward merely saying nothing overtly? Because do nothing seems to be rarely a good policy over time.

Yes, please focus everyone. We need to solve this issue by the end of the day. The world is watching the Hoyatalk board. Don't let us down.

[SFHoya99]

May 27, 2009 14:30:39 GMT -5 guru said:

May 27, 2009 14:28:42 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

So, in summary, the commentary here is focusing on the press' anticipated reaction and the fact that the President uses the teleprompter.

Can we have actual discussion of the issue, here? Please?

Is it really our best response to do nothing? Or are those who put that forward merely saying nothing overtly? Because do nothing seems to be rarely a good policy over time.

Yes, please focus everyone. We need to solve this issue by the end of the day. The world is watching the Hoyatalk board. Don't let us down.

Hardly. All I was trying to say is that:

a. This topic interests me
b. The Georgetown board actually tends to have people who are both truly informed about foreign policy and reasoned
c. The vast majority of responses here are the usual crap drivel spouted on talk radio

So yeah, I'd like someone willing to actually talk about the issue -- not talk about using a teleprompter -- to say something.

I actually learn quite a bit from some of the discussions on here once people can get past using every single little thing to take a swipe/support their chosen party.

[guru]

May 27, 2009 14:36:53 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

May 27, 2009 14:30:39 GMT -5 guru said:

Yes, please focus everyone. We need to solve this issue by the end of the day. The world is watching the Hoyatalk board. Don't let us down.

Hardly. All I was trying to say is that:

a. This topic interests me
b. The Georgetown board actually tends to have people who are both truly informed about foreign policy and reasoned
c. The vast majority of responses here are the usual crap drivel spouted on talk radio

So yeah, I'd like someone willing to actually talk about the issue -- not talk about using a teleprompter -- to say something.

I actually learn quite a bit from some of the discussions on here once people can get past using every single little thing to take a swipe/support their chosen party.

Was just kidding. Should have added a wink or something I guess...

[SFHoya99]

Gotcha. No problem. I hate emoticons but they are somewhat needed...

[whatmaroon]

What's realistic, really speaking? I dunno, to my not-particularly-closely-observing eye, the last 15 years has pretty much been "North Korea does threatening stuff, followed by round of 6 party talks promising North Korea stuff if they stop doing threatening stuff" on repeat. Seoul is too close and vulnerable, so a military strike is way, way down the list of recommended options, and the U.S. has few other plausible sticks-it's not like trade sanctions are a big deal. My view has been that the Kim regime will survive as long as China is willing to let it, and China will let the Kim regime survive as long as it annoys the US but doesn't get frisky enough to seriously threaten US-China relations. Ergo, stalemate. Plus, the South Koreans don't have a huge incentive-they saw what it cost the West Germans to unify, and FRG and GDR were a lot closer in terms of development and connections than ROK and DPRK are. And besides, how much does it really hurt South Korea if Tokyo gets nuked?

[rosslynhoya]

May 27, 2009 14:28:42 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

So, in summary, the commentary here is focusing on the press' anticipated reaction and the fact that the President uses the teleprompter.

Can we have actual discussion of the issue, here? Please?

Is it really our best response to do nothing? Or are those who put that forward merely saying nothing overtly? Because do nothing seems to be rarely a good policy over time.

Do you pay off the Norks again in the promise that this time they really will behave?

Do you launch "surgical strikes" against their nukes?

Do you send a strongly worded letter from the international community that this time we really mean it?

Do you threaten China with some kind of severe punishment unless THEY make Kim behave?

How do you normally propose that a rational actor should respond to blackmail? North Korea is as no-win as a no-win situation can be.

Ignoring Kim and his bluffing is the lowest cost option in the short run. The worst that can possibly happen is that the world loses Seoul or a Japanese city to be named later, in which case our collective mind will be fully focussed on the issue and the U.S. will retaliate appropriately and the problem will go away for ever. Hint: North Korea knows this too.

The only other remotely viable option is to secretly offer Kim the golden parachute every petty dictator/aspiring rapper dreams of -- a phat crib in LA, a three-picture deal with the major studio of his choice, courtside Lakers tickets, and an endless supply of blow -- in exchange for totally dismantling his country's WMD arsenal before stepping down from the throne.

Yes, there might still be an unprecedented refugee catastrophe to worry about but we've got that crisis in the making with or without the military threat.

[theexorcist]

May 27, 2009 15:37:43 GMT -5 rosslynhoya said:

May 27, 2009 14:28:42 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

So, in summary, the commentary here is focusing on the press' anticipated reaction and the fact that the President uses the teleprompter.

Can we have actual discussion of the issue, here? Please?

Is it really our best response to do nothing? Or are those who put that forward merely saying nothing overtly? Because do nothing seems to be rarely a good policy over time.

Do you pay off the Norks again in the promise that this time they really will behave?

Do you launch "surgical strikes" against their nukes?

Do you send a strongly worded letter from the international community that this time we really mean it?

Do you threaten China with some kind of severe punishment unless THEY make Kim behave?

How do you normally propose that a rational actor should respond to blackmail? North Korea is as no-win as a no-win situation can be.

Ignoring Kim and his bluffing is the lowest cost option in the short run. The worst that can possibly happen is that the world loses Seoul or a Japanese city to be named later, in which case our collective mind will be fully focussed on the issue and the U.S. will retaliate appropriately and the problem will go away for ever. Hint: North Korea knows this too.

The only other remotely viable option is to secretly offer Kim the golden parachute every petty dictator/aspiring rapper dreams of -- a phat crib in LA, a three-picture deal with the major studio of his choice, courtside Lakers tickets, and an endless supply of blow -- in exchange for totally dismantling his country's WMD arsenal before stepping down from the throne.

Yes, there might still be an unprecedented refugee catastrophe to worry about but we've got that crisis in the making with or without the military threat.

The image of Kim courtside at Lakers games, yelling at Carmelo, just made my day.

[Deleted]

Well, we tried to send Hans Blix to take care of things, but he didn't make it past Kim's shark tank.

Let's fire up I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.C.E., call the Film Actors Guild, and get Team America back together.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

May 27, 2009 15:37:43 GMT -5 rosslynhoya said:

May 27, 2009 14:28:42 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

So, in summary, the commentary here is focusing on the press' anticipated reaction and the fact that the President uses the teleprompter.

Can we have actual discussion of the issue, here? Please?

Is it really our best response to do nothing? Or are those who put that forward merely saying nothing overtly? Because do nothing seems to be rarely a good policy over time.

Do you pay off the Norks again in the promise that this time they really will behave?

Do you launch "surgical strikes" against their nukes?

Do you send a strongly worded letter from the international community that this time we really mean it?

Do you threaten China with some kind of severe punishment unless THEY make Kim behave?

How do you normally propose that a rational actor should respond to blackmail? North Korea is as no-win as a no-win situation can be.

Ignoring Kim and his bluffing is the lowest cost option in the short run. The worst that can possibly happen is that the world loses Seoul or a Japanese city to be named later, in which case our collective mind will be fully focussed on the issue and the U.S. will retaliate appropriately and the problem will go away for ever. Hint: North Korea knows this too.

The only other remotely viable option is to secretly offer Kim the golden parachute every petty dictator/aspiring rapper dreams of -- a phat crib in LA, a three-picture deal with the major studio of his choice, courtside Lakers tickets, and an endless supply of blow -- in exchange for totally dismantling his country's WMD arsenal before stepping down from the throne.

Yes, there might still be an unprecedented refugee catastrophe to worry about but we've got that crisis in the making with or without the military threat.

Best response yet. Especially if a certain Hans Blix decides to change careers and become an NBA referee.

If Pyongyang attacks Tokyo (or Seoul, but to a much lesser degree), is that a possible catalyst for a nightmare scenario to starting WWIII? What if Japan and the US want to counterattack, China backs DPRK and uses this as an excuse to take Taiwan, Russia has been bitter at the Japanese since 1902 and probably joins China to spite the US, NATO/EU/ANZ backs SoKor, SoAm. splits given the economic and quasi-military alliances there, and who knows what India and Pakistan would do. Throw in Ukraine, the Scandi countries, and the wildcards of Africa, and we're talking a serious game of real-world, multi-player Risk.

I vote to buy Kim off golden parachute style. Laker games would be even MORE fun!

[Coast2CoastHoya]

May 27, 2009 16:07:58 GMT -5 @cam said:

Well, we tried to send Hans Blix to take care of things, but he didn't make it past Kim's shark tank.

Let's fire up I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.C.E., call the Film Actors Guild, and get Team America back together.

I stand corrected. THIS is the best response yet.

[Bando]

May 27, 2009 15:24:17 GMT -5 whatmaroon said:

What's realistic, really speaking? I dunno, to my not-particularly-closely-observing eye, the last 15 years has pretty much been "North Korea does threatening stuff, followed by round of 6 party talks promising North Korea stuff if they stop doing threatening stuff" on repeat. Seoul is too close and vulnerable, so a military strike is way, way down the list of recommended options, and the U.S. has few other plausible sticks-it's not like trade sanctions are a big deal. My view has been that the Kim regime will survive as long as China is willing to let it, and China will let the Kim regime survive as long as it annoys the US but doesn't get frisky enough to seriously threaten US-China relations. Ergo, stalemate. Plus, the South Koreans don't have a huge incentive-they saw what it cost the West Germans to unify, and FRG and GDR were a lot closer in terms of development and connections than ROK and DPRK are. And besides, how much does it really hurt South Korea if Tokyo gets nuked?

This is pretty much my thinking. Also, I think by ignoring them*, we allow them to continue to pull stunts that will only Edited off China. China is the key here. They (understandably) do not want millions of refugees pouring into Manchuria if the DPRK collapses, so they prop up Kim's regime just enough to stop this from happening. For this equation to change, the costs to China of coddling Pyongang have to become greater than the costs of the refugees.

Furthermore, Kim is getting on in years and trying to install his son as his successor. No one, not even the Chinese, has any idea how the internal politics of the regime are arrayed, so there's no telling if there's opposition to this succession plan or not. That could significantly change things.



*this of course means "diplomatically". We should continue to spy on them as much as possible.