View Poll Results: What is the near-term future of the DPRK

Voters
19. You may not vote on this poll
  • It will fall into chaos as a result of renewed famine and poverty, resulting in military crackdowns.

    3 15.79%
  • There will be a military coup that displaces the current leadership, hopefully soon.

    4 21.05%
  • It will continue to remain a closed society, technologically dormant and otherwise insignificant.

    12 63.16%
  • The leadership will eventually make a misstep, forcing military action from the United States.

    0 0%
Page 16 of 28 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 320 of 551

Thread: North Korea: 2012-2016

  1. #301
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    I forgot it's OK to quote texts in full if you're the author yourself...

    I'm not concerned about North Korea's military (and don't think anyone should be unless professionally obliged to or obliged to pay taxes in South Korea). It's nevertheless an interesting case study.

    North Korea's military was built up with foreign help and WW2 vintage equipment within a few years, and became capable of independent warfare in only half a decade.

    By mid-1950 North Korean forces numbered between 150,000 and 200,000 troops, organized into 10 infantry divisions, one tank division, and one air force division, with 210 fighter planes and 280 tanks [...]
    (Wikipedia)

    That is in itself astonishing. Keep in mind that North Korea was not exactly rich in car mechanics or even aircraft mechanics, despite being the more industrialised half of Korea.

    - - - - -

    [image]

    North Korea overran South Korea's defences in June-July 1950 with superior (light) infantry on the hills/mountains and superior WW2 vintage T-34/85 tanks in the valleys.

    The latter were mostly lost and the former was badly decimated when the last South Korean troops and foreign intervention troops defended the area at Pusan.

    The details of these battles would make most interesting fodder for this blog post, but I'll abstain because that kind of stuff would only lead to stupid "anti-Americanism" charges and almost nobody would believe me anyway. So whoever is interested; look this stuff up elsewhere, preferably in a non-American and non-Korean source.
    The long story short is that North Korea's infantry divisions had already lost most of their combat troops and were defending successfully against numerically and even more so materially superior foreign force with a tactical offence that included heavy use of infiltration tactics. The whole episode was thoroughly amazing and -to some- thoroughly embarrassing.
    (Keep in mind that Western-style divisions of the time and even nowadays had up to 1/4th of their troops allocated as drivers of motor vehicles and unavailable for night-time rifle combat!)

    Eventually the Inchon landing turned the front-line and the exhausted North Korean military was on the run till the red Chinese intervened and pulled off the whole "superior light infantry on hills/mountains + infiltration attacks" routine anew, with similar results.

    The 'hot' war finally ended and the whole deadlock mess became part of the then Cold War.

    - - - - - -

    Afterwards, North Korea still had a strong claim for being a very proficient opposing force in Korean terrain (not much unlike Italian geography), and this seemed to suffice for a while.

    The Cold War finally ended sometime around '86 to '92, and North Korean leadership had to realise that its deterrence was deprived of the PRC's nuclear umbrella, the whole Cold War mutually assured destruction insanity and on top of that North Korea wasn't able to keep up with military technology advances.

    The critical weakness was in my opinion about night vision devices (the near infrared passive low light goggles). The Soviet Union had slept over this development and was lagging in military modernisation with the latest night vision gear during the 80's, the Chinese were lagging even more and the North Koreans lagged so hard it's not even clear that they had arrived technologically in the 60's (which featured night vision devices that had to emit near infrared light themselves [...]).


    The whole night vision thing was terribly dangerous to North Korea, even if it had the newest toys itself in quantity. The light infantry infiltration techniques depended a lot on the concealment of darkness, and became much less credible due to the improved surveillance at night.

    So North Korea changed its deterrence fundamentally. It stopped paying attention to impressing officers in-the-know (who were increasingly rare anyway) and turned towards impressing politicians, pundits and journalists.
    This required different things than light infantry skills; something spectacular* was needed.
    (1) North Korea turned towards long-range artillery in useless bunkers situated close to Seoul in order to threaten with shelling the city.
    (2) North Korea turned towards the ballistic missiles that had scared people with no or superficial knowledge of military affairs so much during the Gulf War in '91.
    (3) Finally, it turned towards the ultimate attention-grabbing device: A fission nuke.

    They succeeded in impressing enough - and more importantly, the right people. Now they're being left alone, even supported with food deliveries. Deterrence mission accomplished.


    Maybe - just maybe - the next time I fail to be impressed by North Korean (or for that matter Iranian) signals of "threat", readers of Defence and Freedom will remember why.

    [...]

    *: There was a 4th spectacular ingredient of the deterrence strategy: They declared a huge portion of their troops to be "special forces". Saddam attempted the same, but his bluff was called. Most North Korean "special forces" were and are apparently simply the continuation of their trained light infantry of summer '50. In other words: They're probably freed form being sent to rice harvest, or to work in mines and factories. They have definitively no waiver for the huge ballets known as military parades.
    (Some formatting and links were lost in this quote.)

  2. #302
    Council Member ganulv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berkshire County, Mass.
    Posts
    896

    Default

    The notion that any country that is not the ROK or Japan (and probably not Japan) has anything to fear from the DPRK seems ridiculous to me. Equally ridiculous to me is the notion that any sane world leader would choose to invade the DPRK. The quality of their equipment and their so-called special forces is irrelevant to that opinion.
    If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)

  3. #303
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Suggested Readings ?

    I seek enlightenment re this:

    from Fuchs
    The details of these battles would make most interesting fodder for this blog post, but I'll abstain because that kind of stuff would only lead to stupid "anti-Americanism" charges and almost nobody would believe me anyway. So whoever is interested; look this stuff up elsewhere, preferably in a non-American and non-Korean source.
    Regards

    Mike

  4. #304
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default

    Fuchs

    This particular post is incoherent, what exactly is your point? The U.S. military is very critical of its performance in the early part of the war and the shortcomings are well documented and there is no intent to hide it. Most soldiers assigned to Korea are encouraged to read "This Kind of War" to ensure that history is not forgotten and hopefully not repeated. You don't have to read non-U.S. or non-Western history books to get that perspective. Hopefully you don't buy the garbage that the communists have published on their glorious victories? This reminds me of people inaccurately referring to Giap as a great strategist, when instead he was a leader that failed to learn and repeatedly used the same tactics resulting the slaughter of tens of thousands of his troops.

    If your point is that the North Korean military isn't a threat today that would be an inaccurate and superficial analysis. Regardless of the fact that we can defeat their military, they most likely have adapted relatively well based on their asymmetric disadvantages. They can launch a short term devastating offensive on South Korea and then transition into a protracted defensive fight that would present the real threat by forcing all regional actors (China, Russia, Japan, North and South Korea) to make some tough decisions that could result in a larger conflict. There is no doubt we can defeat their attack, what comes next will be the challenge and the threat is multidimensional.

  5. #305
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    I took the point of the blog to be that the current focus and posture of the DPRK military is to deter attacks on NK. I think that is reasonable. That does not mean that they cannot or will not deliver a devastating attack with conventional or nuclear fires on South Korea or Japan, but I would be very surprised if they would ever again attempt to conduct maneuver warfare and invade the South. To do so would expose the military to defeat, and with no military the Regime would likely collapse, and Regime survival is, in most circles, the #1 priority of DPRK.

    I think DPRK, South Korea, Japan, Russia and the US all share one common goal: Maintaining the status quo with the DPRK is the preferred option and perceived as the best case for each of those states for their own unique reasons.

    But there is a wild card: The populace of the DPRK.

    Currently kept in the dark as to their relative situation this populace does not act out. I imagine there is pretty good fear of state response (thus the need to not lose the military in some southern adventure) that helps keep the populace in check as well.

    But what happens when this populace inevitably enters the information age? The plans of all these governments to sustain the status quo will become moot. An informed DPRK populace will become a restless one. The DPRK will have to respond to that internal challenge. It will likely make Syria look like a cakewalk in terms of state violence directed at a populace. It will also ratchet up the likelihood of the aforementioned attacks on S. Korea or Japan as an attempt to rally the nationalist fervor of a drifting populace.

    Today DPRK is literally a dark hole on a night view of the globe from space. We may all want to consider that in the near term at least, keeping the lights off is a good thing for the stability of NEA.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  6. #306
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    We may all want to consider that in the near term at least, keeping the lights off is a good thing for the stability of NEA.
    Hardly our choice to make.

    North Korea is to me another case where our best move is to maintain the status quo until the regime implodes. We have no idea when or how that will happen, of course. It might turn into a consummate bloodbath, it might not: depends largely on what position the bulk of the military decides to take. They may decide to support the regime, they may decide that the regime is no longer viable and that their interests are best served by creating a new one, or by becoming a new one. If I had to place a bet I'd put it on internal coup rather than popular uprising, though an internal could could be brought about by a popular uprising. I wouldn't put much money on it, but that's where the bet would go.

    We'll find out, eventually.
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

    H.L. Mencken

  7. #307
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Jmm99, my sources on this were in German, so I can't tell which anglophone source would suit well. The North Koreans were skilled in infiltration attack (even non-infantry troops and even in numerical inferiority) and amazingly brazen at times. The vehicle-centric opposition opposed them effectively only with its teeth, while their large tail failed in face of such an opposition.


    Bill, I've cast the news from North Korea which many people consider highly erratic and irrational into a rational strategy, including explanations for its apparent shift. That was my intent and what the text is about.

    I don't care much about the "U.S. military" regarding Korea; it has less than a divisional slice there and most reinforcements that could be sent would be much less optimised for the terrain and opponent than the already in itself large South Korean army.

  8. #308
    Council Member max161's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    142

    Default north Korean rebellion?

    Here is a link to an article I wrote on why the north Korean people do not rebel. Some day they might and I hope they do (but be careful what we ask for because when they do it will have catastrophic regional effects with global impact) but right now the conditions seem to prevent it.

    http://www.fpri.org/enotes/2012/2012...ll.nkorea.html
    David S. Maxwell
    "Irregular warfare is far more intellectual than a bayonet charge." T.E. Lawrence

  9. #309
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    Hardly our choice to make.

    North Korea is to me another case where our best move is to maintain the status quo until the regime implodes. We have no idea when or how that will happen, of course. It might turn into a consummate bloodbath, it might not: depends largely on what position the bulk of the military decides to take. They may decide to support the regime, they may decide that the regime is no longer viable and that their interests are best served by creating a new one, or by becoming a new one. If I had to place a bet I'd put it on internal coup rather than popular uprising, though an internal could could be brought about by a popular uprising. I wouldn't put much money on it, but that's where the bet would go.

    We'll find out, eventually.
    So we agree.

    As to the information part, my point is that some might think it a good idea to force open the door to greater information availability in some way - with the idea that it will promote liberty, democracy, etc, etc. My advice is to let this happen in due time as it inevitably will, but to not think it a good idea to artifically accelerate that process.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  10. #310
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by max161 View Post
    Here is a link to an article I wrote on why the north Korean people do not rebel. Some day they might and I hope they do (but be careful what we ask for because when they do it will have catastrophic regional effects with global impact) but right now the conditions seem to prevent it.

    http://www.fpri.org/enotes/2012/2012...ll.nkorea.html
    Dave,

    This is timely, always appreciate your insights on this topic. Could you elaborate on your four key points at the start of your "Is North Korea Rational" section? Particularly point two, on "Strategic Aim."

    I completely agree that they are rational and with your assessment of vital naitonal interest. What I struggle with is how a true strategic aim of reunification squares with a rational assessment of a vital nationl interest of preserving the Kim Family Regime? It seems like actions to unifiy the penninsula under their rule, or efforts to sustain that rule over a defeated Southern populace would both be far too dangerous to that vital interest to risk. Why risk losing all for this aim?

    It seem's like Fuch's deterrence theory is more reasonable. Use the military and nuclear weapons to force others to leave them alone and keep the status quo of the Kim Regime intact. If they open the box it seems it would be an impossible task to reestablish the control they have now in the North over this expanded, merged, and much more informed, populace.

    Do you think point two is more propaganda than fact (if it comes from DPRK sources), or perhaps overly biased (if coming from South Korean sources)? Just doesn't seem rational to me, and out of place with the broader strategic position and actions they take.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  11. #311
    Council Member max161's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    142

    Default

    Bob,

    A few quick thoughts. Of course reunification by the regime does not seem rational to us. But based on many defector interviews including high ranking people such as Hwang Jong Yop (father of Juche ideology), studying north Korean propaganda and assessing the actions of the north the consensus among many Korea hands is that reunification remains a long term aim. This has nothing to do with South Korean bias.

    Of course the north has developed nuclear weapons in particular for deterrence. Survival is paramount but the aim of reunification does not have to be at odds with that necessarily. The real irony is that the Regime as well as the ROK, US, Japan, Russia and China all really want the same thing: maintain the status quo (except that the US remains fixated on the nuclear program to the exclusion of most everything else but that truly works to the regime's advantage).

    However, attempts at reunification will occur in two scenarios. One is if they assess that the conditions are right and they have the superior capability to reunify (one significant condition is US forces off the Korean Peninsula) and second is if regime survival is threatened and they have no alternative other than to attempt to reunify. Of course that seems irrational to us as the chances of being successful are slim to none. But having it as an aim helps to keep all of us in check as well because no one wants war and we are all too willing to do what it takes to prevent war (again this is kind of a double standard - the north fears that we will attack and thus developed its nuclear program for deterrence and respect as well as the premier tool of blackmail diplomacy that also supports regime survival - yet at the same time it knows we do not want war and that we can be manipulated by our fear of war - I know that sounds irrational but they have been pretty consistent for the last 60 years operating in that manner)

    But you are also right in that it is important from a propaganda perspective as well as one of the foundational tenets of the regime. Kim Il-sung was the great liberator (a myth but that is their story and they are sticking to it) and there remains an emotional feeling on both side of the divide to achieve unification. To give up on the quest for unification would undermine the regime so it must remain a key part of their calculus.

    But they maintain the balance between deterrence to maintain survival of the regime and the quest for reunification, but reunification only on their terms when they believe conditions are right.

    Of course we do not know the inner workings of the regime and the thought process of Kim jong-un and Jong Song-taek and others in the inner circle. I am worried though since they are made up of so many sycophants who make sure they always tell the emperor he is wearing clothes (for their own survival), I fear that advisors may mislead him with reports of military prowess and readiness and when faced with a crisis (regime threatened) he may think that he has the capability to execute a successful attack (again irrational to us but perhaps very "rational" within a system such as theirs). We know our deterrence has worked as they fear our nuclear threat (according to Hwang Jong Yop) but when faced with a crisis and based on misleading information it could lead to very dangerous consequences for the region.

    In the end when we talk about rationality we can judge it based on our standards and what makes sense to us. We have to try to understand it from their point of view. And of course we will never know for sure until after reunification occurs when we can hopefully look at the archives and interview survivors of the regime!! :-)
    David S. Maxwell
    "Irregular warfare is far more intellectual than a bayonet charge." T.E. Lawrence

  12. #312
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Fuchs:

    During the "South to the Naktong" phase of the Korean War (summer 1950), the North Korean positives and US negatives were pointed out by most knowledgeable US writers - at the time, and by those who wrote afterwards. The simple fact is that, during that phase, the North Korean Army was qualitatively superior to the US Occupation Forces (Japan).

    A qualitative equilibrium began to develop in Aug 1950 - coinciding with the arrival of the 5th Regimental Combat Team and the Marine Expeditionary Brigade.

    All this is ancient history. I still have in mind the photos of exhumed US soldiers, hands bound with comm wire and shot in back of their heads. So, from 1950, I've been of the belief that one does not negotiate with the North Koreans.

    Regards

    Mike

  13. #313
    Council Member ganulv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berkshire County, Mass.
    Posts
    896

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post

    All this is ancient history. I still have in mind the photos of exhumed US soldiers, hands bound with comm wire and shot in back of their heads. So, from 1950, I've been of the belief that one does not negotiate with the North Koreans.
    There was a lot of that sort of thing going around in those days.
    If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)

  14. #314
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default

    Posted by max161

    Of course the north has developed nuclear weapons in particular for deterrence. Survival is paramount but the aim of reunification does not have to be at odds with that necessarily. The real irony is that the Regime as well as the ROK, US, Japan, Russia and China all really want the same thing: maintain the status quo (except that the US remains fixated on the nuclear program to the exclusion of most everything else but that truly works to the regime's advantage).
    This observation applies to more than DPRK. Our focus on WMD at the exclusion of everything else limits our options for addressing the WMD concerns. We empower that choice instead of creating an environment where maintaining a nuclear weapons program is undesirable.

  15. #315
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    Posted by max161



    This observation applies to more than DPRK. Our focus on WMD at the exclusion of everything else limits our options for addressing the WMD concerns. We empower that choice instead of creating an environment where maintaining a nuclear weapons program is undesirable.
    Exactly.

    How did the saying go? "God created man, but Sam Colt made them equal"?

    Same could be said of nuclear weapons and states.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  16. #316
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    Posted by max161
    This observation applies to more than DPRK. Our focus on WMD at the exclusion of everything else limits our options for addressing the WMD concerns. We empower that choice instead of creating an environment where maintaining a nuclear weapons program is undesirable.
    I agree the US is overly-focused on WMD, but I think a lot of that is because North Korea is an active proliferator. I'm not so sure about the rest. How could the US create such an environment? What would that environment look like? It's hard to imagine a scenario where North Korea comes to the conclusion that nuclear weapons are undesirable. Maybe someone can expand my view on this.

    We shouldn't forget the South Koreans either. I think it's important to note that US "skin in the game" serves to suppress South Korea's own nuclear ambitions and Japan's as well. North Korea says it wants the US off the peninsula. Well, it better be careful what it asks for because the result could well be a nuclear-armed South Korea and Japan.
    Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.

  17. #317
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default

    Posted by Entrophy

    I agree the US is overly-focused on WMD, but I think a lot of that is because North Korea is an active proliferator. I'm not so sure about the rest. How could the US create such an environment? What would that environment look like? It's hard to imagine a scenario where North Korea comes to the conclusion that nuclear weapons are undesirable. Maybe someone can expand my view on this.
    Frankly I don't know, but I do know that our current approach is rewarding their behavior in ways that may not readily apparent. They're defying the world's sole superpower which gives them more legitimacy with their own people. The sanctions we impose hurt the Korean people more than the Korean government, which in turn also gives the Regime more power. The fact that we focus on their WMD to such an extent makes it a lever for them to influence us more than we influence them.

    Potential alternatives, and I want to emphasize the word potential, include encouraging investing in DPRK which in turn will result in more information reaching the populace over time. Lessen the threat rhetoric so DPRK feels their status as a state is secure (obviously the Rep of Korea would have to support). Supposing we could do both of these, the threat to the regime over time would come from their people, and the way the only way the regime would survive is to reform, which most likely over the decades would lead to reunification. I simplified the explaination for purposes of brevity, obviously it would be more complex than this, but we don't enable the North Koreans to change their belligerent narrative, then we'll continue to stay in a state of perpetuate hostility until someone gets out of bed on the wrong side one morning and creates a strategic misstep.

  18. #318
    Council Member max161's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    142

    Default

    Bill,

    Over the years we have done many of the things to try to reassure the north. Just look at the agreements made and broken. The 1992 Agreement on Reconciliation and Denuclearization with the ROK - the north never lived up to it. The 1994 Agreed Framework- the north went right on developing an HEU nuclear program. We have removed the north from the US terrorism list. But the north continues to develop nuclear and missile technology and proliferate it. Remember that Iranian and Pakistan missiles are from north Korean technology. Look at the ROK's Sunshine Policy from 1997-2007 which saved the regime from collapse as the ROK provided more aid to the north than China while at the same time the regime conducted nuclear and missile tests as well as naval confrontations.

    We have given the north many chances to change their "belligerent narrative" but what I think we have to understand that that narrative is an integral part of the regime, its strategy, and its survival mechanism. To change would undercut regime legitimacy - and when I talk about legitimacy in the north it is legitimacy in the eyes of the elite that supports the regime and manages the political and security apparatus that allows for the continued enslavement of the population and prevents any internal security challenge from arising. Ironically the alliance military forces do two things: on the one hand they do deter attack from the north and at the same time they provide the justification for the regime's key internal political orientation which is the military first policy which is the basic justification for why the people must sacrifice and suffer to protect their nation from aggression. Sure it would be a nice thought to remove US forces or reduce the threat but the irony would be that it would lead to internal regime friction as the justification for the military first policy would be removed. The elite would then likely be challenged and it could end up back to the only option the regime has left when faced with internal threats and that would be to execute its campaign plan to reunify the peninsula. And of course it would be more enticing if the ROK-US alliance was weak and there were no US forces on the peninsula.

    I understand all the foreign policy theories of negotiations and how we think we should deal with the north from certain theoretical schools of thought but the most important thing is to understand the real nature of the regime and deal with it as it really is and not as we would wish it to be. We have tried many negotiating tactics from 4 party to 6 party talks - direct ROK - north Korea (which have happened in public and private over decades) and the north reverts to its same pattern of action as it has for 60 years. We have had many diplomats who have thought they could negotiate agreements with the north in good faith but the north continues to break them because it suits them to do so (and we end up giving them concessions again and again over the years).
    David S. Maxwell
    "Irregular warfare is far more intellectual than a bayonet charge." T.E. Lawrence

  19. #319
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    There's little the U.S. can do about North Korea exporting arms and stuff. A few deliveries might be ruined, but not most or even all.

    There's no good reason to be much-concerned about North Korea as an offensive threat. The South Koreans know how to handle them and even with the quite defensible terrain of Korea there's not going to be a successful defence of South Korea if the PRC joins North Korea in an attack.
    North Korea is not seriously aggressive anyway. It's having sabre rattling and needle attacks, and the South Koreans can bear that

    The reunification rhetoric is not a threat in itself. West Germany even claimed the territory of East Germany and denied the latter's sovereignty during the whole Cold War without being the tiniest bit aggressive because of it. If anything, the reunification rhetoric defuses the artillery in range of Seoul in regard to no-war border skirmishes (there could be artillery duels as experienced between Israel and Egypt prior to '67, but what sense would a bombardment of Seoul do if the North claims Seoul to be of the same nation?)


    I am kinda annoyed by how the stupid and largely non-performing regime in North Korea which allocates so many of the countries' resources poorly is being talked up as a threat and as a relevant power. They're dysfunctional and the South Koreans can handle them on their own.
    The North Korean regime actually wants to get the U.S. involved because that yields bigger blackmail prizes. The "West" should simply stop paying attention. The South Koreans and Japanese can start reconciliation and tone down their nationalism in order to stand more united against threats in their region. The involvement of the U.S. only delays this useful process.

  20. #320
    Council Member ganulv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berkshire County, Mass.
    Posts
    896

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by max161 View Post
    We have given the north many chances to change their "belligerent narrative" but what I think we have to understand that that narrative is an integral part of the regime, its strategy, and its survival mechanism.
    I don’t think it’s stereotyping to say that Koreans can be a bit belligerent in general. It’s a reasonable survival strategy when your little country finds China on one side and Japan on the other.
    If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)

Similar Threads

  1. North Korea 2017 onwards
    By AdamG in forum Asia-Pacific
    Replies: 158
    Last Post: 07-08-2019, 01:56 PM
  2. Replies: 24
    Last Post: 02-11-2018, 07:25 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •