Oh Crap, there goes the Neighborhood...

[Makh]

Right, because, you know, Kim Jong Il has been so forthcoming during previous diplomatic talks.

Look how they canned their nuclear and weapons programs in exchange for being taking off the terrorism watch list.

This is not my version of the story friend. We discussed it here. Pyongyang acknowledged American proposal of being removed from state supporting terrorism if they revealed their nuclear installations, yes. However Washington asked for something that was not included in the previous agreement about the verification procedure. Among other things, they demanded that inspektors had full clearance of all nuclear facilities for undetermined period of time, which of course was taken as espionage by Pyongyang.

That agreement was flawed from beginning if you ask me. I do not know what Washington had in mind when they asked that, but it was VERY predictable that North Koreans were going to refuse to give access for full inspection of top secret sites. What country would?

Exactly. And you fail to consider how problematic dissent can be, Makh. Especially when it's amongst your own ranks, and not the peasants. If we build a wall around them, and have the ability to enforce it with military might, all the propaganda in the world won't matter. What are they going to do? Make a suicide charge? How about Russia gives North Korea everything North Korea wants, instead? I don't see Russia jumping to the call.

Friend, this is not Cuba, you will never hear anything about dissent there. Amnesty International has no clue what is going on there, no one can tell. But I know that people who are against the regime will do everything they can to flee to Russia, China or South Korea, without looking behind them.

[Mav]

Fine. What's it matter? We still drive the country into total poverty and disable it without having to fight a war. Or, at least without having to fire the first shot. You also fail to consider that this factor may drive Kim to stop being a douche about everything. It may not. He may be that stupid.

But what exactly are the downsides, compared to the current problem or alternate solutions?

[adciv]

I'd say time to build more nukes but some of the alternatives give that as well. The question is will NK ever become crazy enough to kick the war into gear again.

[Eihger]

I'd say time to build more nukes but some of the alternatives give that as well. The question is will NK ever become crazy enough to kick the war into gear again.

Never ask if someone is crazy enough to do something stupid.

Most dictators in the past have been somewhat religious, so they were more or less willing to die to keep their way of life or power, in he beliefs that something awaits them when they die. In Kims situation, he's an atheist, he is hell bent on preserving his power and way of life, and scared shitless of someone trying to take that away. While I am in no more favor of open war than any of you guys, Threatening Kim Jongs way of life and power are sure fire ways to make him do something irrational and stupid to preserve his power. This is what worries me. Kim is not a sane man, do not expect him to do sane things.

Calling their bluff, while maintaining a semblance of their status quo WILL make them back down. Kim will never attack unless pressured into it.

[Mav]

Your reasoning and assumptions fail to make any point I haven't already addressed. If we force an opponent to attack a defended position, what is the issue? And while the post is now too far back to show up on my topic review as I write this, aren't you the same person who advocated going on the offensive? You're contradicting yourself. Not only that, but if he does do something irrational, it would surely remove himself from power, which as you have already agreed is exactly what he wants to keep.

I'm starting to think you haven't changed Eigher.

[adciv]

Most dictators in the past have been somewhat religious, so they were more or less willing to die to keep their way of life or power, in he beliefs that something awaits them when they die.

I can think of a lot of atheist dictators in the past 100 years. Most from Asia.

[Makh]

Eigher, most dictators (and the most brutal one) were not religious, at least not in 20th century. I would say they were laic at best. Some example of well known laic dictators: Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Saddam Hussein, Mao Tse Tung, Pinochet, Pol Pot, Castro, Milosevic, Ceausescu, and of course Kim Jong-il.

Fine. What's it matter? We still drive the country into total poverty

I am affraid it is already done, Mav. And they will not thank anyone for it. That country will take decades to become prosper again.

[JermCool]

It just occurred to me that maybe North Korea isn't the real threat here. Sure, they have the ability to make the bomb, but we all wonder if Kim is seriously insane enough to use it.

He may not be, but there are those who have had dealings with North Korea in the past who absolutely are. And Robert Gates had the same thought, apparently.

We already know North Korea and Syria have worked together in the past. Israel has stated that North Korean technology is in use in Iran's missile program.

And any attempts to blockade ships would be tantamount to a declaration of war.

There goes your plan for an embargo, Mav.

[Eihger]

Not only that, but if he does do something irrational, it would surely remove himself from power, which as you have already agreed is exactly what he wants to keep.

Because North Koreans are known for their political descent of heir leaders as well as those in power.... Mav You seem to forget that North Koreans back Kim 100% even if he were to attack the south, the people would be on his side. Kim is batshit insane, since his stroke. Your plan to cut off his segway privileges is pointless, not to mention a declaration of war in their minds. How do you reason with that? You can't starve them, they are already starving.

Attacking or threatening to attack is the only way to get them to back off this powertrip.

For a /b/tard mav you seem pretty set on nonviolent means, I am disappointed in you.

[Mav]

SON I AM DISAPOINT.


Jerm, if North Korea attacks us over the blockade, well, that's included in the plan. Cut off their supplies, and if they want to increase their need for supplies by actively attacking South Korea or the US, then let them and let them exhaust themselves faster. I'm proposing an a blockade, but you may do better thinking of it as a siege. Surround the castle, cut off the supplies, and let them starve for force their way into an unfavorable battle.

To everyone else, the whole "They're already starving" isn't the same as "They are literally out of food." Now, it will be affected by whether China closes their border or not, but if all goods have to enter through the Chinese border, then there is still a significant hampering of the flow of goods. And, as I already touched on, while I am concerned about our ability to invade North Korea without heavy losses, I am confident in our ability to repel North Korean forces, given that we can fight defensively, using fortified positions. If North Korea uses nukes, it loses. If North Korea invades... well, how is it's army going to march under our napalm? Given that these assumptions are correct, how have we not forced their hand into checkmate, one way or another?

And I don't particularly care when the country becomes prosperous again, I care when they lose their weapons program, Makh. I'll worry about their welfare after the threat is taken care of, and not before.

And, lastly, you're an idiot Eigher, go study Sherman.

[collegestudent22]

Out of curiosity and my faulty memory, what's the problem with economically starving North Korea to death, again?

Um, NK doesn't care? I mean, really, that is a stupid idea. For one, China won't stop North Korea as long it is annoys the West without China being faulted for it. Putting an embargo on China would starve US first. Secondly, North Korea has millions of people die of starvation every year. The UN embargos haven't worked on ANY nation before. Why would they work now, even if we put a blockade around NK (which we can't do because our Navy is half the size it was in the '80s.) It isn't feasible. The only real solution is military force - something we could do if we hadn't spent the last 30 years making our military as small as possible so we can feed people who REFUSE TO WORK. (News flash: We could have just made them join the military. Then they work for their money and we get something out of it.) The idea that we can starve military budgets and "create jobs" at the same time is ludicrous.

[Mav]

You're a stupid cunt. Shut up.

[Makh]

To everyone else, the whole "They're already starving" isn't the same as "They are literally out of food." Now, it will be affected by whether China closes their border or not, but if all goods have to enter through the Chinese border, then there is still a significant hampering of the flow of goods.

They are not literally out of food but it could not get really worse, Mav. There is an humanitarian crisis for a year or so there because they had one very bad harvest. And China had to reduce its help greatly, because like everyone else, they are not spared by the high market price of rice and wheat. Let's not forget South korea as a provider of help too. They do indeed provide help in various form. It is not in South Korea's interest to starve their "relatives" if you want. Many South Koreans still have family on the other side and I have serious doubts they would consider total food blokus.

Now, some people here should stop saying he is insane, that is a little bit demagocic. Kim is a stubborn leader with little pity for his people, we all know that, and he act like an intransigeant bastard, nothing is new. But he did not lose his grasp of reality.

The only real solution is military force - something we could do if we hadn't spent the last 30 years making our military as small as possible so we can feed people who REFUSE TO WORK.

Are you among us? Or are you in a state of total mental confusion? This is an oversimplification that will give you a very wrong perspective of the situation. Get a grip on yourself and revise your numbers, inform yourself.

[JermCool]

Jerm, if North Korea attacks us over the blockade, well, that's included in the plan. Cut off their supplies, and if they want to increase their need for supplies by actively attacking South Korea or the US, then let them and let them exhaust themselves faster. I'm proposing an a blockade, but you may do better thinking of it as a siege. Surround the castle, cut off the supplies, and let them starve for force their way into an unfavorable battle.

Here's how I see it, though.

At this time, we are very hellbent on staying out of another war. Reasons could range from our bad global image to trying to keep North Korean feet off the DMZ. Who the hell cares. We're not going to do a damned thing to antagonize this man. I think we're stuck cowtowing to Kim while we hope the UN writes up something so strongly worded, he'll stop.

Personally, I think a complete blockade would be brilliant (save for the fact China won't want the refugees), but the fact of the matter is we're weak at the moment and we need to pray Kim washes his ass so we can kiss it.

[Eihger]

Jerm, if North Korea attacks us over the blockade, well, that's included in the plan. Cut off their supplies, and if they want to increase their need for supplies by actively attacking South Korea or the US, then let them and let them exhaust themselves faster. I'm proposing an a blockade, but you may do better thinking of it as a siege. Surround the castle, cut off the supplies, and let them starve for force their way into an unfavorable battle.

Here's how I see it, though.

At this time, we are very hellbent on staying out of another war. Reasons could range from our bad global image to trying to keep North Korean feet off the DMZ. Who the hell cares. We're not going to do a damned thing to antagonize this man. I think we're stuck cowtowing to Kim while we hope the UN writes up something so strongly worded, he'll stop.

Personally, I think a complete blockade would be brilliant (save for the fact China won't want the refugees), but the fact of the matter is we're weak at the moment and we need to pray Kim washes his ass so we can kiss it.

American is not weak. I really don't know how to address this well other than the US Military employs more people than Walmart worldwide. The problem is, we don't like to deploy shit because its expensive as fuck, then there's the world PR too.

America has clusterfucked itself in this regard, as we keep cutting military budgets, thus lacking the means to effectively mobilize because cutting military funding is hip and progressive.

Yeah yeah Mav say what strangely allowed flaming comment you want to say. I weigh it all and still think doing something, hell not even an invasion, just sending a shit load of troops there, is better than nothing or double secret blockade.