North Korea: 2012-2016

[Van]

...the US exercises that the North finds so offensive...

Bold assumption that DPRK finds the exercises offensive. The case could be made that the DPRK welcomes these excuses for military action.

The theme lately seems to be "avoid reunification at all costs". Note the failure of the Kaesung Industrial Complex, and how the most recent events derailed a scheduled reunification talk. The appearance is that the North is pursuing status quo, albeit an earlier status quo with more generous food shipments from the South. But it makes a twisted kind of sense.

What advantage is there for regime members in reunification? Who will guarantee their status, quality of life, personal security, and financial incentives? More important, who will guarantee KJI's steady stream of comfort girls?

But who in this game would benefit from reunification?
The U.S. would most likely lose basing (greatly diminished basing as the very least) in the region, and our foothold in the region.

China would lose the buffer between democracy and the middle kingdom, and would run what is likely to be an unacceptable risk of disturbing the harmony of the ethnic Koreans in China.

Japan would see both military and economic threats in the long term from a unified Korea.

South Korea would bear the brunt of rehabilitating an environmentally, socially, and economically devastated region.

Russia is the only player who might be open to reunification, simply to reduce the U.S. presense in the Pacific Rim, but runs risk to their interests in the region from branches and sequels of reunification (various possibilities for war, shifting economic blocks, etc).

So the big question is "What does DPRK really get out of this?"
-Shifting fishing in the region, now that the fishing villages on those islands have been relocated, although this might benefit China more.
-Attention. ("I'm such a big player now! Look how upset I got the U.S.")
-Leverage in the next round of food begging/barginning ("Feed us or we'll do this again!")

-Maybe, and this is the long-shot, Tom Clancy scenario; U.S. attention drawn away from a DPRK ally like Iran or Syria...

[Dayuhan]

Bold assumption that DPRK finds the exercises offensive. The case could be made that the DPRK welcomes these excuses for military action.

Ok granted, should have said "publicly". I've no doubt that the north needs and relies upon responses to provocation. Like so many other governments, they need somebody to hate.

In some ways the most provocative and disconcerting response we could give to provocation would be to completely ignore it, but that's difficult to do... and would leave the temptation to escalate the provocation until response was gained.

I suspect that many regional players would be happy enough to see the status quo of a divided and eternally conflicted Korea continue, but of course the rather eccentric nature of the north makes that status quo a bit shaky.

[JMA]

Ok granted, should have said "publicly". I've no doubt that the north needs and relies upon responses to provocation. Like so many other governments, they need somebody to hate.

In some ways the most provocative and disconcerting response we could give to provocation would be to completely ignore it, but that's difficult to do... and would leave the temptation to escalate the provocation until response was gained.

I suspect that many regional players would be happy enough to see the status quo of a divided and eternally conflicted Korea continue, but of course the rather eccentric nature of the north makes that status quo a bit shaky.

Exactly the reason why this lunatic should never have been allowed to develop nuclear weapons. This applies to Iran as well.

[Dayuhan]

Exactly the reason why this lunatic should never have been allowed to develop nuclear weapons. This applies to Iran as well.

Here we go again with the "allowed to". Who is supposed to declare what other countries are or are not "allowed" to do? Who exactly was supposed to stop them, and how?

[JMA]

Here we go again with the "allowed to". Who is supposed to declare what other countries are or are not "allowed" to do? Who exactly was supposed to stop them, and how?

It happens all the time. Iraq and Afghanistan are just two recent examples.

PS: Spend a little time reading the WikiLeaks nuclear related cables and see what the world was facing in this regard.

[Dayuhan]

It happens all the time. Iraq and Afghanistan are just two recent examples.

Two excellent examples of why invading countries and trying to replace governments we dislike is generally not a good idea. Invading North Korea or Iran would be a fairly complicated and extraordinarily expensive affair with substantial risks... and whom do you propose to do the invading (and the paying)? Not exactly something you're going to build an international coalition around... do you expect the US to do it unilaterally? If not the US, then who?

From an American perspective... I'm afraid you'll have to find someone else. We can't afford the wars we've got, let alone another one. If you're willing to cover the costs, we'll reconsider as soon as your check clears. A trillion or so to start would do.

[JMA]

Two excellent examples of why invading countries and trying to replace governments we dislike is generally not a good idea. Invading North Korea or Iran would be a fairly complicated and extraordinarily expensive affair with substantial risks... and whom do you propose to do the invading (and the paying)? Not exactly something you're going to build an international coalition around... do you expect the US to do it unilaterally? If not the US, then who?

From an American perspective... I'm afraid you'll have to find someone else. We can't afford the wars we've got, let alone another one. If you're willing to cover the costs, we'll reconsider as soon as your check clears. A trillion or so to start would do.

You seem to want to speak on behalf of the US yet are at odds with recent US precedent. So why not from now on just speak for yourself?