North Korea: 2012-2016

[Dayuhan]

This just showed up in my inbox, from Stratfor...

North Korea and South Korea have reportedly traded artillery fire Nov. 23 across the disputed Northern Limit Line (NLL) in the Yellow Sea to the west of the peninsula. Though details are still sketchy and unconfirmed, South Korean news reports indicate that around 2:30 p.m. local time, North Korean artillery shells began landing in the waters around Yongpyeongdo, one of the South Korean-controlled islands just south of the NLL. North Korea has reportedly fired as many as 200 rounds, some of which struck the island, injuring at least 10 South Korean soldiers, damaging buildings, and setting fire to a mountainside. South Korea responded by firing some 80 shells of its own toward North Korea, dispatching F-16 fighter jets to the area, and raising the military alert to its highest level.

Too early to say much. We'll see...

[JMA]

Take it easy guys... I remember words like deterent, containment and the like... nothing to worry about... and remember a short time ago a ship got sunk taking 46 lives with it... did nothing to deter them then... now? Its all a bit of a boring joke. Must be a slow news day. I believe things will be more lively when Iran has some nukes. Can't wait.

[Dayuhan]

Obviously if deterrence and containment are in the picture, there's something to worry about. You deter and contain that which you are worried about, what would be the point otherwise?

North Korea exists... we all wish it didn't, but it does. So does Iran. The extent to which the US - or anyone else - can tell them what they may or may not do inside their borders is very limited: the US is not in a position to tell them what they are or are not allowed to do. Action outside their borders can be contained and deterred. It's liable to be messy around the edges at times, as these things generally are.

What's the alternative to deterrence and containment? Do we want to "do regime change" in North Korea, or Iran?

[Bob's World]

Obviously if deterrence and containment are in the picture, there's something to worry about. You deter and contain that which you are worried about, what would be the point otherwise?

North Korea exists... we all wish it didn't, but it does. So does Iran. The extent to which the US - or anyone else - can tell them what they may or may not do inside their borders is very limited: the US is not in a position to tell them what they are or are not allowed to do. Action outside their borders can be contained and deterred. It's liable to be messy around the edges at times, as these things generally are.

What's the alternative to deterrence and containment? Do we want to "do regime change" in North Korea, or Iran?

Concur.

While I believe that containment needs to be retired as the centerpiece to US foreign policy, it certainly has a place for specific situations that are real, containable and tied to US national interests. North Korea is a containable problem.

As to deterrence, that needs to focus on the few big things we absolutely will not stand for (major missile attacks on Japan, Invasion of South Korea, etc) and can actually do something about. Small things can and will happen and are not a failure of deterrence. Internal actions will occur that we do not like but that are outside of any duty or right of ours to influence. Overreacting in response to the small things within the larger red lines is not particularly productive; nor is the implementation of measures that punish the populace while giving the government a great IO opportunity to shift blame for all their failures onto implementer of those measures.

There may be opportunities from such incidents. There is no reason why China, Russia, the US, Japan and South Korea cannot come up with clear red lines that all can agree upon in regards to North Korean deterrence, and perhaps this gets people to sit down and sort it out.

[Ron Humphrey]

Concur.

There may be opportunities from such incidents. There is no reason why China, Russia, the US, Japan and South Korea cannot come up with clear red lines that all can agree upon in regards to North Korean deterrence, and perhaps this gets people to sit down and sort it out.

Would require that particular meeting also laying exact what if's as to response to anything outside those "red lines"

Who and how?

And in the end will it still leave incidents such as this outside of the "defined" parameters?

[Tukhachevskii]

This just showed up in my inbox, from Stratfor...



Too early to say much. We'll see...

Wasn't there an incident back in february(?) where the KPA carried out an artillery live firing exercise with the target zones located out to sea and said it was an exercise? IIRC the ROK responded with artillrey fire of their own. Could this be the same thing gone awry?

[KenWats]

I'm no expert, but 2 fatalities seems awfully light casualties for an artillery duel lasting an hour and 200 rounds (according to Stratfor anyway). It seems to me that either there wasn't much where they were shooting at or they didn't hit what they were aiming for.

[Ron Humphrey]

I'm no expert, but 2 fatalities seems awfully light casualties for an artillery duel lasting an hour and 200 rounds (according to Stratfor anyway). It seems to me that either there wasn't much where they were shooting at or they didn't hit what they were aiming for.

Guess if theres any comfort in this whole deal it knowing that somewhere in NK some arty bubbas having to face the music about suckage, considering that whichever they were aiming at (water or land) quite a few didn't hit what they were aiming for.

[JMA]

Guess if theres any comfort in this whole deal it knowing that somewhere in NK some arty bubbas having to face the music about suckage, considering that whichever they were aiming at (water or land) quite a few didn't hit what they were aiming for.

NK told SK to stop the live firing exercise in the disputed border area. SK ignored them. NK fired 200 rounds to make a point. SK fired off 60 in some direction? and then ran to grab hold of Uncle Sam's skirts. This round to NK.

As to red lines. If torpedoing a naval vessel killing the crew of 46 is not crossing a red line then what is?

This is the kind of problem the world faces when these rogue regimes obtain/develop nukes.

[Dayuhan]

This is the kind of problem the world faces when these rogue regimes obtain/develop nukes.

This problem existed long before the North Koreans got nukes. It's been going on for decades.

"This round" doesn't really go to the north, or the south, or to anyone. What has changed? The south is still rich and the north is still poor. The north is still nasty and the south is still nice. Everybody still wishes the regime in the north will collapse but nobody's willing to start a war to make it happen. When the winter comes the north will try to bargain off part of the nuclear program for food and fuel. They may or may not get it. The Chinese will continue to give the north just enough aid to keep them existing and useful but not enough to let them be really viable.

I don't see it changing until the regime in the north falls from the inside, which could take a while.

[Firn]

This problem existed long before the North Koreans got nukes. It's been going on for decades.

"This round" doesn't really go to the north, or the south, or to anyone. What has changed? The south is still rich and the north is still poor. The north is still nasty and the south is still nice. Everybody still wishes the regime in the north will collapse but nobody's willing to start a war to make it happen. When the winter comes the north will try to bargain off part of the nuclear program for food and fuel. They may or may not get it. The Chinese will continue to give the north just enough aid to keep them existing and useful but not enough to let them be really viable.

I don't see it changing until the regime in the north falls from the inside, which could take a while.

Indeed. The weaker North does play his games of aggression thinking and hoping that he can rely on the understandable unwillingness of the stronger South to go to war.

Over the last thirty years the power disadvantages of the North have only grown, possibly with one exception, nuclear power. Their desperate attempts to get functional nuclear missiles shows just how weak they are in pretty much all the other areas.

[JMA]

This problem existed long before the North Koreans got nukes. It's been going on for decades.

Only that the stakes are now higher.