Possible upcoming skirmish (or worse) in or around Korean Peninsula?

[sienar]

Another mid-range missile test just now

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39990836

 

[NeilChapman]

https://timesofsandiego.com/military/2017/05/28/navy-orders-3rd-carrier-to-join-uss-carl-vinson-off-korea/

Three carriers...

 

[sferrin]

https://timesofsandiego.com/military/2017/05/28/navy-orders-3rd-carrier-to-join-uss-carl-vinson-off-korea/

Three carriers...

They had six against Iraq during Desert Storm.

 

[_Del_]

Iraq is greater than twice the area of the whole Peninsula.

 

[NeilChapman]

https://timesofsandiego.com/military/2017/05/28/navy-orders-3rd-carrier-to-join-uss-carl-vinson-off-korea/

Three carriers...

They had six against Iraq during Desert Storm.

Well...Japan is a great big, relatively close, "carrier". Although the CVN's carry ~50 F-18's each. DS also had over 2200 aircraft.

It's way too soon for anything to happen. They would need to evacuate the US military families first. School's out June 16. New moon is June 24. Looking for a lot more equipment to move to Japan and Korea prior to anything happening - ANG TSP's etc.

 

[GTX]

http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/north-korea-why-donald-trump-is-just-plain-wrong/news-story/e715396dc87edf838e425e741fcf80ec

 

[Rickshaw]

http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/north-korea-why-donald-trump-is-just-plain-wrong/news-story/e715396dc87edf838e425e741fcf80ec

I can hear the cries of "Fake News!" Already...

 

[marauder2048]

Negotiations can work.

For example: Pakistan's Clinton-era HEU-for-missile-tech negotiations with
North Korea were quite successful and were concluded both very quickly
and in a manner that did not disturb the parallel negotiations between the US
and North Korea.

 

[NeilChapman]

Negotiations can work.

For example: Pakistan's Clinton-era HEU-for-missile-tech negotiations with
North Korea were quite successful and were concluded both very quickly
and in a manner that did not disturb the parallel negotiations between the US
and North Korea.

Negotiations better work.

I'd like to see some congressional discussions about moving US dependents off the peninsula. At the very least it may make the DPRK recognize that this is all very real.

 

[sferrin]

Negotiations can work.

For example: Pakistan's Clinton-era HEU-for-missile-tech negotiations with
North Korea were quite successful and were concluded both very quickly
and in a manner that did not disturb the parallel negotiations between the US
and North Korea.

Negotiations better work.

I'd like to see some congressional discussions about moving US dependents off the peninsula. At the very least it may make the DPRK recognize that this is all very real.

This. It would be absolutely insane to allow a North Korea with nuclear-armed ICBMs. Any "war" to take out that capability would be peanuts by comparison in the long run. I say "war" because 'lil' Kim isn't going to go full retard just because we break a few of his toys. Hit the nuke sites and ICBM production and tell him if he retaliates he'll go the way of Khadafy.

 

[Rickshaw]

Negotiations can work.

Of course they can work - as long as you have a Congress that backs those negotiations. The problem was the US Congress did not back Clinton's negotiations with the DPRK and as a consequence reneged on what had been agreed, and Kim il Sung restarted the whole nuclear thing, to drive the US back to the negotiating table. What a shame the US has had foolish Presidents and a foolish Congress that believes it can dictate to the rest of the world how it should act. It likes to use the stick but doesn't accept that a carrot can work as well, if not better.

 

[bobbymike]

Behold 'The Carrot"

 

[sferrin]

Negotiations can work.

Of course they can work - as long as you have a Congress that backs those negotiations. The problem was the US Congress did not back Clinton's negotiations with the DPRK and as a consequence reneged on what had been agreed, and Kim il Sung restarted the whole nuclear thing, to drive the US back to the negotiating table. What a shame the US has had foolish Presidents and a foolish Congress that believes it can dictate to the rest of the world how it should act. It likes to use the stick but doesn't accept that a carrot can work as well, if not better.

Your "carrot" allows NK to blackmail everybody else. No reason at all we should PAY him for his bad behavior. If your neighbor said he'd stop parking on your lawn and playing loud music until three in the morning if you paid him would you think that was a great deal?

 

[DWG]

People like to dismiss Chamberlain's ' piece of paper', but it was the difference between war with an incomplete air defence system, and war with an operational one. That makes it one of the most successful negotiating ploys in history.

 

[sferrin]

People like to dismiss Chamberlain's ' piece of paper', but it was the difference between war with an incomplete air defence system, and war with an operational one. That makes it one of the most successful negotiating ploys in history.

First time I've ever heard of WWII being used as an example of a "success" story.

 

[NeilChapman]

People like to dismiss Chamberlain's ' piece of paper', but it was the difference between war with an incomplete air defence system, and war with an operational one. That makes it one of the most successful negotiating ploys in history.

First time I've ever heard of WWII being used as an example of a "success" story.

Careful gents, hindsight is always 20/20.

I agree that it was a train wreck and the world should learn from past mistakes. The issue is you have to get consensus to make things happen. At the moment, POTUS seems to be generating that consensus w/regards to NK. If the DPRK doesn't change their, many people will die.

If that's not devastating, or inconvenient, enough, the economic repercussions will be far-reaching. For instance, SK only has a 1.5T economy. Think about what it cost Germany when they incorporated East Germany into their economy. And that's the best case scenario. If N. Korea attacks Seoul the casualties will be extensive and the effects to the SK economy will be horrendous. Seoul is the hub of the SK economy. Just the disruption...

PRC receives ~25%, the US another ~12% and Japan, HK and Singapore make up the rest of the first 50% of SK exports. If the PRC decides to stop importing, the US has to make arrangement to ensure that SK can export goods and generate revenue. And that doesn't include post-war HA/DR mission in NK. As Gen Mattis said, "The tragedy of war is well-enough known it doesn't need another characterization beyond the fact that it would be catastrophic."

I'd like to see the US preparing for the HA/DR mission in Korea. And be open and honest about it. Literally, to state, we're holding planning meetings and exercises with ASEAN militaries to prepare for the looming disintegration of the DPRK and the humanitarian support for the people of Korea. It's a way to show the region that the US is thinking ahead to the aftermath of what's coming.

If nothing else, it may make the rest of the leadership in DPRK determine that there is a way to rid themselves of their "Supreme Leader".

 

[kaiserd]

People like to dismiss Chamberlain's ' piece of paper', but it was the difference between war with an incomplete air defence system, and war with an operational one. That makes it one of the most successful negotiating ploys in history.

First time I've ever heard of WWII being used as an example of a "success" story.

Careful gents, hindsight is always 20/20.

I agree that it was a train wreck and the world should learn from past mistakes. The issue is you have to get consensus to make things happen. At the moment, POTUS seems to be generating that consensus w/regards to NK. If the DPRK doesn't change their, many people will die.

If that's not devastating, or inconvenient, enough, the economic repercussions will be far-reaching. For instance, SK only has a 1.5T economy. Think about what it cost Germany when they incorporated East Germany into their economy. And that's the best case scenario. If N. Korea attacks Seoul the casualties will be extensive and the effects to the SK economy will be horrendous. Seoul is the hub of the SK economy. Just the disruption...

PRC receives ~25%, the US another ~12% and Japan, HK and Singapore make up the rest of the first 50% of SK exports. If the PRC decides to stop importing, the US has to make arrangement to ensure that SK can export goods and generate revenue. And that doesn't include post-war HA/DR mission in NK. As Gen Mattis said, "The tragedy of war is well-enough known it doesn't need another characterization beyond the fact that it would be catastrophic."

I'd like to see the US preparing for the HA/DR mission in Korea. And be open and honest about it. Literally, to state, we're holding planning meetings and exercises with ASEAN militaries to prepare for the looming disintegration of the DPRK and the humanitarian support for the people of Korea. It's a way to show the region that the US is thinking ahead to the aftermath of what's coming.

If nothing else, it may make the rest of the leadership in DPRK determine that there is a way to rid themselves of their "Supreme Leader".

My following words are meant in a spirit of friendly discussion and exchange of ideas and views.

You mention the Pontus having generated a consensus - what consensus?
I'm not sure from what perspective your speaking but from outside a certain subsection of US opinion there appears to be no such consensus apart from fear and apprehension of both North Korea and the tone and content of the Pontus comments and contributions on this subject.
(I am not seeking or instigating any wider political discussions on the current Pontus.)

In respect of potential for building a local consensus your comments/ suggestions may have some validity if North Korea looked like it was going to collapse in on itself with out external military intervention.
That is completely different to any prospects of any consensus on seeking to instigate this collapse via a preemptive military attack with all the associated risks.

 

[GTX]

My following words are meant in a spirit of friendly discussion and exchange of ideas and views.

You mention the Pontus having generated a consensus - what consensus?
I'm not sure from what perspective your speaking but from outside a certain subsection of US opinion there appears to be no such consensus apart from fear and apprehension of both North Korea and the tone and content of the Pontus comments and contributions on this subject.
(I am not seeking or instigating any wider political discussions on the current Pontus.)

In respect of potential for building a local consensus your comments/ suggestions may have some validity if North Korea looked like it was going to collapse in on itself with out external military intervention.
That is completely different to any prospects of any consensus on seeking to instigate this collapse via a preemptive military attack with all the associated risks.

Well put.

 

[GTX]

Behold 'The Carrot"

I wondered how long before someone pulled that one. :

People like to dismiss Chamberlain's ' piece of paper', but it was the difference between war with an incomplete air defence system, and war with an operational one.

Agreed. People seem to forget that rearmament was also started under Chamberlain and continued after the 30 Sep 1938 statement.

People should also consider that the efforts to avoid war in Europe were done by those for whom the terrible outcomes of WW1 was relatively recent history.

 

[sferrin]

People should also consider that the efforts to avoid war in Europe were done by those for whom the terrible outcomes of WW1 was relatively recent history.

At best, that might give them an excuse. Wouldn't give us one for making the same stupid mistake.

 

[bobbymike]

Behold 'The Carrot"

I wondered how long before someone pulled that one. :

People like to dismiss Chamberlain's ' piece of paper', but it was the difference between war with an incomplete air defence system, and war with an operational one.

Agreed. People seem to forget that rearmament was also started under Chamberlain and continued after the 30 Sep 1938 statement.

People should also consider that the efforts to avoid war in Europe were done by those for whom the terrible outcomes of WW1 was relatively recent history.

Didn't want you 'wondering' to long must have been nerve wracking.

 

[Rickshaw]

Behold 'The Carrot"

A carrot which was backed by the most massive rearmament policy the UK has ever seen. It increased the size of all it's services, it initiated the manufacture of the Hurricane and the Spitfire, the Wellington and the Manchester in numbers unknown before hand. It created the fleet Carriers (Illustrious class). The Army got the Valentine and later Matilda tanks. Hitler himself remarked that the "carrot" as you've called it is what caused his downfall... :

 

[Rickshaw]

Negotiations can work.

Of course they can work - as long as you have a Congress that backs those negotiations. The problem was the US Congress did not back Clinton's negotiations with the DPRK and as a consequence reneged on what had been agreed, and Kim il Sung restarted the whole nuclear thing, to drive the US back to the negotiating table. What a shame the US has had foolish Presidents and a foolish Congress that believes it can dictate to the rest of the world how it should act. It likes to use the stick but doesn't accept that a carrot can work as well, if not better.

Your "carrot" allows NK to blackmail everybody else. No reason at all we should PAY him for his bad behavior. If your neighbor said he'd stop parking on your lawn and playing loud music until three in the morning if you paid him would you think that was a great deal?

No, my carrot allows the US to always, if the DPRK reneges on the deal to do something about it. What it does is it binds the DPRK and the US together in an agreement which BOTH sides must fulfill. The US chose not to, in this case, it reneged because Congress wanted to cripple the Clinton administration. Now it is paying the price but doesn't appear to have learnt anything from the experience. :

 

[Rickshaw]

People should also consider that the efforts to avoid war in Europe were done by those for whom the terrible outcomes of WW1 was relatively recent history.

At best, that might give them an excuse. Wouldn't give us one for making the same stupid mistake.

So, the DPRK is as bad as Nazi Germany was? Really? I'm sorry but I just cannot see it. The DPRK would be destroyed if a war broke tomorrow or next week or next year. What you appear to forget is that the DPRK's regime's ultimate responsibility is to itself, to make sure it continues to the succeeding generations. Destroying it doesn't fulfil that, now does it? The DPRK Is trying to create a position where it cannot be replaced as (relatively) easily as the regimes in Iraq and Libya. It is attempting to ensure that there is a terrible cost to it being attacked - exactly as every other nation does, including the US. No one wants war and this continual effort to paint Kim Jung Un as the blackest dictator possible is fruitless and stupid IMO. He is ruthless, without a doubt but he does things for well thought out reasons which to him, are as valid as el Presidente Trump tweeting inanities at 0400 hrs in the morning (if he does at all).

 

[NeilChapman]

People like to dismiss Chamberlain's ' piece of paper', but it was the difference between war with an incomplete air defence system, and war with an operational one. That makes it one of the most successful negotiating ploys in history.

First time I've ever heard of WWII being used as an example of a "success" story.

Careful gents, hindsight is always 20/20.

I agree that it was a train wreck and the world should learn from past mistakes. The issue is you have to get consensus to make things happen. At the moment, POTUS seems to be generating that consensus w/regards to NK. If the DPRK doesn't change their, many people will die.

If that's not devastating, or inconvenient, enough, the economic repercussions will be far-reaching. For instance, SK only has a 1.5T economy. Think about what it cost Germany when they incorporated East Germany into their economy. And that's the best case scenario. If N. Korea attacks Seoul the casualties will be extensive and the effects to the SK economy will be horrendous. Seoul is the hub of the SK economy. Just the disruption...

PRC receives ~25%, the US another ~12% and Japan, HK and Singapore make up the rest of the first 50% of SK exports. If the PRC decides to stop importing, the US has to make arrangement to ensure that SK can export goods and generate revenue. And that doesn't include post-war HA/DR mission in NK. As Gen Mattis said, "The tragedy of war is well-enough known it doesn't need another characterization beyond the fact that it would be catastrophic."

I'd like to see the US preparing for the HA/DR mission in Korea. And be open and honest about it. Literally, to state, we're holding planning meetings and exercises with ASEAN militaries to prepare for the looming disintegration of the DPRK and the humanitarian support for the people of Korea. It's a way to show the region that the US is thinking ahead to the aftermath of what's coming.

If nothing else, it may make the rest of the leadership in DPRK determine that there is a way to rid themselves of their "Supreme Leader".

My following words are meant in a spirit of friendly discussion and exchange of ideas and views.

You mention the Pontus having generated a consensus - what consensus?

I'm not sure from what perspective your speaking but from outside a certain subsection of US opinion there appears to be no such consensus apart from fear and apprehension of both North Korea and the tone and content of the Pontus comments and contributions on this subject.
(I am not seeking or instigating any wider political discussions on the current Pontus.)

Have you not read these?

http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_res_2356.pdf

--
http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_res_2371.pdf

https://usun.state.gov/remarks/7924
--

http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_res_2375.pdf

https://usun.state.gov/remarks/7969


When the UN Security Council votes unanimously we call that a consensus.

In respect of potential for building a local consensus your comments/ suggestions may have some validity if North Korea looked like it was going to collapse in on itself with out external military intervention.
That is completely different to any prospects of any consensus on seeking to instigate this collapse via a preemptive military attack with all the associated risks.

When you put a child in a boat you place a life preserver on them. You teach your children how to drive and help them secure a license before they are allowed to drive on their own. We work up battle groups as teams before we send them out on patrol.

Adults plan and prepare for possible outcomes because we understand the risks of what will happen if we don't.

 

[kaiserd]

People like to dismiss Chamberlain's ' piece of paper', but it was the difference between war with an incomplete air defence system, and war with an operational one. That makes it one of the most successful negotiating ploys in history.

First time I've ever heard of WWII being used as an example of a "success" story.

Careful gents, hindsight is always 20/20.

I agree that it was a train wreck and the world should learn from past mistakes. The issue is you have to get consensus to make things happen. At the moment, POTUS seems to be generating that consensus w/regards to NK. If the DPRK doesn't change their, many people will die.

If that's not devastating, or inconvenient, enough, the economic repercussions will be far-reaching. For instance, SK only has a 1.5T economy. Think about what it cost Germany when they incorporated East Germany into their economy. And that's the best case scenario. If N. Korea attacks Seoul the casualties will be extensive and the effects to the SK economy will be horrendous. Seoul is the hub of the SK economy. Just the disruption...

PRC receives ~25%, the US another ~12% and Japan, HK and Singapore make up the rest of the first 50% of SK exports. If the PRC decides to stop importing, the US has to make arrangement to ensure that SK can export goods and generate revenue. And that doesn't include post-war HA/DR mission in NK. As Gen Mattis said, "The tragedy of war is well-enough known it doesn't need another characterization beyond the fact that it would be catastrophic."

I'd like to see the US preparing for the HA/DR mission in Korea. And be open and honest about it. Literally, to state, we're holding planning meetings and exercises with ASEAN militaries to prepare for the looming disintegration of the DPRK and the humanitarian support for the people of Korea. It's a way to show the region that the US is thinking ahead to the aftermath of what's coming.

If nothing else, it may make the rest of the leadership in DPRK determine that there is a way to rid themselves of their "Supreme Leader".

My following words are meant in a spirit of friendly discussion and exchange of ideas and views.

You mention the Pontus having generated a consensus - what consensus?

I'm not sure from what perspective your speaking but from outside a certain subsection of US opinion there appears to be no such consensus apart from fear and apprehension of both North Korea and the tone and content of the Pontus comments and contributions on this subject.
(I am not seeking or instigating any wider political discussions on the current Pontus.)

Have you not read these?

http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_res_2356.pdf

--
http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_res_2371.pdf

https://usun.state.gov/remarks/7924
--

http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_res_2375.pdf

https://usun.state.gov/remarks/7969


When the UN Security Council votes unanimously we call that a consensus.

In respect of potential for building a local consensus your comments/ suggestions may have some validity if North Korea looked like it was going to collapse in on itself with out external military intervention.
That is completely different to any prospects of any consensus on seeking to instigate this collapse via a preemptive military attack with all the associated risks.

When you put a child in a boat you place a life preserver on them. You teach your children how to drive and help them secure a license before they are allowed to drive on their own. We work up battle groups as teams before we send them out on patrol.

Adults plan and prepare for possible outcomes because we understand the risks of what will happen if we don't.

Re: Point 1 above;
The consensus as you are referring it (harder sanctions on North Korea if it continued and developed its various programmes) long predates the current Pontus.
He certainly didn't generate it and actively appears to be pandering to (and potentially pivotting to) a different policy (military action now) that no one but a sub-set of ultra right wing US opinion backs.
For those that see this approach as a ploy of to play tough to win concessions from North Korea (or to force China to a tougher position) are wilfully ignoring how transparent this bluff is to the various players.

Best not to misrepresent consensus for tougher sanctions and diplomacy as any prospect of a consensus on premptive military action.


Re: point 2 above;
Of course there is a need for contingency plans and planning for the future.
Apart from that very obvious point I literally have no idea what your talking about.
You have to plan for likely future events and have contingent resources to deal with unlikely future events.
Best not to fixate on planning for a potentially deluded version of the future involving a imagined "consensus" that is never likely to exist.

 

[DWG]

People like to dismiss Chamberlain's ' piece of paper', but it was the difference between war with an incomplete air defence system, and war with an operational one. That makes it one of the most successful negotiating ploys in history.

First time I've ever heard of WWII being used as an example of a "success" story.

Compared to the Thousand Year Reich it is.

 

[sferrin]

No, my carrot allows the US to always, if the DPRK reneges on the deal to do something about it. What it does is it binds the DPRK and the US together in an agreement which BOTH sides must fulfill. The US chose not to, in this case, it reneged because Congress wanted to cripple the Clinton administration. Now it is paying the price but doesn't appear to have learnt anything from the experience. :

You still haven't told me why the US should reward NK for it's bad behavior. : : :

 

[sferrin]

So, the DPRK is as bad as Nazi Germany was? Really?

Do they need to be? Really? THAT'S your criteria for doing something? Waiting until the other guy is well into a genocide? So maybe we should wait until NK has killed a few million in Seattle before we do anything eh? Friggin' BRILLIANT. :

 

[sferrin]

Compared to the Thousand Year Reich it is.

Except that's not what we're comparing it to. The Allies ALLOWED Germany to get as big and powerful as it did because we were stupid.

 

[kaiserd]

Compared to the Thousand Year Reich it is.

Except that's not what we're comparing it to. The Allies ALLOWED Germany to get as big and powerful as it did because we were stupid.

"Lessons learned" from the rise of Nazi Germany and the lead up to WW2 have often been viewed somewhat simplistically and depends very much on the eye of the beholder.
There is some indication that factions within the German Army may have acted if not for the Munich agreement (they may not have). The "delay" after that agreement did give the UK & France critical time to rearm but Germany equally benefited (their military prowess before and at the time of Munich having been exaggerated by propaganda). However public opinion at the time in U.K. and France was firmly against war and the influence of WW1 experienced on leaders and the "establishment" should not be underestimated.
Hence this an interesting historic "what if" for discussion but anyone saying there is some definitive obvious alternative decision that was really available at the time is displaying an ignorance of the real facts on the ground at the time.

A pity that the same simplistic lack of understanding that reality is messy and more complicated is on show by some contributors here re: the current Nirth Korean situation.

 

[DWG]

Compared to the Thousand Year Reich it is.

Except that's not what we're comparing it to. The Allies ALLOWED Germany to get as big and powerful as it did because we were stupid.

When should we have taken action? Remilitarization of the Rhineland? Anglo-German Naval Treaty?Anschluss of Austria? Sudetenland Crisis? Or the invasion of Poland? The very first one of those where we were ready for war, we took action. Everything else we bought time for rearmament. Remember, we still had military policy governed by Churchill's 10 Year Rule - 'no great war within 10 years' - as late as 1932 (Ramsay McDonald wanted it dropped in 1931, but couldn't get it through Cabinet) yet we were ready to fight within 7 years. France's situation was even more complex, and the U.S. was back to doing it's isolationist tortoise impression.

Not to forget this little thing called the Great Depression that seriously complicated The finances of being ready for war.

 

[NeilChapman]

Have you not read these?

http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_res_2356.pdf

--
http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_res_2371.pdf

https://usun.state.gov/remarks/7924
--

http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_res_2375.pdf

https://usun.state.gov/remarks/7969


When the UN Security Council votes unanimously we call that a consensus.

In respect of potential for building a local consensus your comments/ suggestions may have some validity if North Korea looked like it was going to collapse in on itself with out external military intervention.
That is completely different to any prospects of any consensus on seeking to instigate this collapse via a preemptive military attack with all the associated risks.

When you put a child in a boat you place a life preserver on them. You teach your children how to drive and help them secure a license before they are allowed to drive on their own. We work up battle groups as teams before we send them out on patrol.

Adults plan and prepare for possible outcomes because we understand the risks of what will happen if we don't.

Re: Point 1 above;
(1) The consensus as you are referring it (harder sanctions on North Korea if it continued and developed its various programmes) long predates the current Pontus.
He certainly didn't generate it and actively appears to be pandering to (and potentially pivotting to) a different policy (military action now) that no one but a sub-set of ultra right wing US opinion backs.
(2) For those that see this approach as a ploy of to play tough to win concessions from North Korea (or to force China to a tougher position) are wilfully ignoring how transparent this bluff is to the various players.

(3) Best not to misrepresent consensus for tougher sanctions and diplomacy as any prospect of a consensus on premptive military action.


Re: point 2 above;
Of course there is a need for contingency plans and planning for the future.
(4) Apart from that very obvious point I literally have no idea what your talking about.
You have to plan for likely future events and have contingent resources to deal with unlikely future events.
Best not to fixate on planning for a potentially deluded version of the future involving a imagined "consensus" that is never likely to exist.

The US uses POTUS to refer to the President of the United States. I expect this is a typo on your part.

1. Foreign policy has its primary executor the Executive branch in the United States - at this point headed by President Trump. The direction is from his decision. If you're going to attribute the rhetoric of kinetic action of the Defense Department to him you must attribute the action of the State Department to him also.

2. It's supposed to be transparent. When one corrects a child and, perhaps, puts them in timeout, the action is transparent. Learning is to occur. That's the point of the correction.

When your child wrecks your car, risking their life and others, you don't give them the keys to the car again until they have proven that they have understood their actions and proven they are trustworthy.

The actions of the DPRK risks the lives of everyone. You want the message to be very clear. The subtle nudging has occurred over the last 40 years.

3. I didn't suggest the consensus was for military action. You made a conclusion on your own interpretation. Not based on my writing.

4. Deluded version of the future? The DPRK has the opportunity to change direction and modify their behavior. The expectation is that they won't because current DPRK leadership believes that these actions will keep them in power. They have witnessed what happened to Gadaffi and the Ukraine.

As I stated, these messages from POTUS are very clear. Hence my suggestion that open planning for the potential HA/DR mission occur. I'm not suggesting that future events may change this calculus. I'm hopeful that they do. The government of the United States is putting forth these resolutions in expectation that something will work.

There are never easy solutions. But, reading the resolutions, the status quo will not continue.

--

This can turn into a hot war quickly; a missile shot that go's awry and lands on Japan, a shot close to Guam, something none of us can think of, it doesn't take much.

It could also change into a massive HA/DR mission quickly. The government of the DPRK could collapse or a nuclear mishap could occur. Who knows?

Hence the HA/DR mission planning - or post DPRK mission planning. I'd rather the US, PRC, Russia and rest of ASEAN countries discussed this prior to any event.

I'd also like it very clear what will happen should other countries take advantage of this situation to increase tensions in other parts of the world. Perhaps NATO could make it clear how they are preparing for "any eventualities" in Korea.

 

[Orionblamblam]

When should we have taken action? ... Or the invasion of Poland?

Something I've always wondered about. The story is that Britain and France went to war against Germany because they had a defensive treaty with Poland. And yet... Britain and France *didn't* declare war on the USSR, even though it *also* invaded Poland, about two weeks after their ideological cousins the Nazis did.

 

[Grey Havoc]

When should we have taken action? ... Or the invasion of Poland?

Something I've always wondered about. The story is that Britain and France went to war against Germany because they had a defensive treaty with Poland. And yet... Britain and France *didn't* declare war on the USSR, even though it *also* invaded Poland, about two weeks after their ideological cousins the Nazis did.

If I'm not mistaken, they used a legal loophole that they had inserted in the agreement which stated that the term 'European power' specifically referred to Germany and only Germany. Playing Devil's Advocate for a moment, Britain and France (or at least their civilian leaders) did think that they would have Germany defeated or at least checkmated (the conflict was supposed to change to WWI redux when it would eventually reach French soil remember) in short order, leaving the way open for them to negotiate with the Soviet Union at leisure for it's withdrawal from Polish territory. Matters didn't work out that way of course...

 

[GTX]

The actions of the DPRK risks the lives of everyone.

As does arguably that of El Presidente Trump. : There was no major world call out for action on NK until he started 'stirring the pot'. Yes, they had missile tests and bellicose threats/rants - but these have gone on for years and are often reactionary to annual US-SK military exercises. I don't seem to recall those such as SK or Japan or others calling upon the US to escalate things. As has been pointed out by others, one can realistically interpret the actions of the other chubby spoilt narcissist with a bad haircut (i.e. Kim Jong Un) as a combination of taking lessons from other regime changes over that last 20yrs (i.e get yourself weapons that force people to think twice about toppling you, especially if said weapons can be used s bargaining chips) and also a great deal of "look at me, look at me". Despite the rhetoric of NK being a threat to SK (through invasion) and others (Japan maybe, but USA etc really? ), it would be well known in Pyongyang that any direct military action would quickly mean their end. Similarly, one should consider that any military action against NK will simply play into their rhetoric.

3. I didn't suggest the consensus was for military action. You made a conclusion on your own interpretation. Not based on my writing.

Fair enough, though I think there are some here who do take this view. Sadly, I think they and others (and often the media) want to see a war. If for nothing else than the 'entertainment value'. I put this deep psychological desire as similar to those who would have watched gladiatorial matches and bayed for blood as well as well as a fair amount of financial incentive (the ratings would be great!). Maybe I am just being too cynical here though...

The DPRK has the opportunity to change direction and modify their behavior.

As does El Presidente Trump, though unfortunately we are also witnessing two narcissists neither of whom are willing to back down.

As I stated, these messages from POTUS are very clear ... The government of the United States is putting forth these resolutions in expectation that something will work.

The messages from El Presidente Trump might be but I doubt that they are really helping the United States. For instance, his publicly undermining his own Secretary of State certainly don't help get a peaceful resolution...assuming that is the real goal.

This can turn into a hot war quickly; a missile shot that go's awry and lands on Japan, a shot close to Guam, something none of us can think of, it doesn't take much.

Agreed. All the more reason to ratchet the rhetoric and tension down a few steps. That will make everyone much calmer and allow a solution to be achieved without the risk of inadvertent war.

I'd also like it very clear what will happen should other countries take advantage of this situation to increase tensions in other parts of the world.

Interesting point. And if the situation turns into a full on war, do you really think other parties will not take advantage of it? Maybe the US will get their chance to finally test their ability to fight two major wars at once... :

 

[GTX]

"Lessons learned" from the rise of Nazi Germany and the lead up to WW2 have often been viewed somewhat simplistically and depends very much on the eye of the beholder.
There is some indication that factions within the German Army may have acted if not for the Munich agreement (they may not have). The "delay" after that agreement did give the UK & France critical time to rearm but Germany equally benefited (their military prowess before and at the time of Munich having been exaggerated by propaganda). However public opinion at the time in U.K. and France was firmly against war and the influence of WW1 experienced on leaders and the "establishment" should not be underestimated.
Hence this an interesting historic "what if" for discussion but anyone saying there is some definitive obvious alternative decision that was really available at the time is displaying an ignorance of the real facts on the ground at the time.

A pity that the same simplistic lack of understanding that reality is messy and more complicated is on show by some contributors here re: the current Nirth Korean situation.

When should we have taken action? Remilitarization of the Rhineland? Anglo-German Naval Treaty?Anschluss of Austria? Sudetenland Crisis? Or the invasion of Poland? The very first one of those where we were ready for war, we took action. Everything else we bought time for rearmament. Remember, we still had military policy governed by Churchill's 10 Year Rule - 'no great war within 10 years' - as late as 1932 (Ramsay McDonald wanted it dropped in 1931, but couldn't get it through Cabinet) yet we were ready to fight within 7 years. France's situation was even more complex, and the U.S. was back to doing it's isolationist tortoise impression.

Not to forget this little thing called the Great Depression that seriously complicated The finances of being ready for war.

Good points both.

 

[GTX]

No, my carrot allows the US to always, if the DPRK reneges on the deal to do something about it. What it does is it binds the DPRK and the US together in an agreement which BOTH sides must fulfill. The US chose not to, in this case, it reneged because Congress wanted to cripple the Clinton administration. Now it is paying the price but doesn't appear to have learnt anything from the experience. :

You still haven't told me why the US should reward NK for it's bad behavior. : : :

It isn't a case of rewarding bad behaviour. It is a case of having realistic, mature negotiations which often require give and take on both sides so as to get to an acceptable final position. Anyone who takes pure 'back-white' absolute positions on things during such negotiations is simply wanting them to fail or is delusional.

 

[sferrin]

It isn't a case of rewarding bad behaviour.

Of course it is. North Korea is behaving badly. Some are proposing buying them off in some way and calling it "compromise". You can use all the fig leafs of "mature", "nuanced" or whatever else it takes to make it easier for you to swallow, but in the end you ARE giving them what they want in response to their bad behavior. To think otherwise is nothing more than delusion.

 

[sferrin]

The actions of the DPRK risks the lives of everyone.

As does arguably that of El Presidente Trump. :

Really? Who has he been threatening to nuke the last decade or so? Who has been setting off nuclear weapons? Who's talking about doing an atmospheric nuclear test? It really is sad how Trump derangement syndrome has otherwise rational people siding with people as low as Little Kim. They're going to lose their minds when he wins in 2020.